Separation of Church and State gets confusing in France
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When did the state become responsible for promoting a single set of philosophical principles?
First of all, when it comes to science, the state is not promoting anything. It's teaching scientific fact. There's no philosophy behind it. There's no agenda behind it. I'll grant you, literature and history are a different story, but science is pretty cut and dry. Secondly, I believe that the state, when it's under the direction of elected officials, is in the best position to enact policy that accounts for and benefits the majority of its constituents. At least, that's how it should be. Furthermore, the state does not prevent someone with economic means the right to bypass the state's educational system in favor of alternate sources (eg, private schooling, parochial schooling, home schooling, etc.). So in essense, the state is just a choice.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Al Beback wrote:
First of all, when it comes to science, the state is not promoting anything. It's teaching scientific fact. There's no philosophy behind it. There's no agenda behind it. I'll grant you, literature and history are a different story, but science is pretty cut and dry.
As the intelligent design debate demonstrated, there is a clear agenda, and that is to promote atheism.
Al Beback wrote:
Secondly, I believe that the state, when it's under the direction of elected officials, is in the best position to enact policy that accounts for and benefits the majority of its constituents. At least, that's how it should be.
States have, time and time again, passed laws to allow for public-school paraochial education and vouchers to give students the means to achieve that. Time and time against, atheists have undemocratically blocked those laws through the judiciary by invoking "separation of church and state".
Al Beback wrote:
Furthermore, the state does not prevent someone with economic means the right to bypass the state's educational system in favor of alternate sources (eg, private schooling, parochial schooling, home schooling, etc.). So in essense, the state is just a choice.
With an emphasis on economic means. Many can't afford private schools, and the voucher program would enable them to. Leftists, however, blocked and and all voucher programs through lawsuits.
-
"There is a growing distrust of science in public opinion, especially among the
young, and that worries us," said Philippe Deterre, a research biologist and Catholic
priest who organized a colloquium on creationism for scientists at the weekend."There are many issues that go beyond strictly scientific or strictly theological
explanations," he said at the colloquium in this university town southwest of Paris.
Deterre's Blaise Pascal Network promotes understanding between science and
religion.OK, so now what do we do with this? The Catholic Church in France is attacking Christian and Muslim fundamentalist teachings of a literal interpretation of biblical creationism and is saying that evolution needs to be taught instead. So...By the principles of a separation of church and state, I think that means that evolution can't be taught in public schools because its church doctrine. Is that right? Or is it really just that anything can be taught as long as it doesn't contradict with atheistic desires. I'm so confused!
You got it all wrong (what's new..). The separation of State and Church is that the State ignores church doctrine and base its decisions on common sense. :rolleyes: If it happens that there is intersection between the two, it is just a coincidence, and there is no reason to dismiss something just because the church recommends it, especially if it is already in place.
----- Formerly MP(2)
-
jimwawar wrote:
You have said that atheism is a religion. You clearer don't understand what atheism means. It means one is not a theist, one is atheist. Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism.
You're defining agnosticism. Atheism overtly has a belief system. It is not the lack of belief in a God, but rather the active belief that there is no God. Theology is the study of God and God's nature. Atheism, which states that there is no God, falls under theology in that it asserts a position on the nature of God. In addition to its belief structure, the dogmatic behavior of atheists tends to rival that of more extremist religions like Islam in that it specifically believes that its theology is special and that competing theologies should be destroyed.
I would call an atheists those who do not believe God does exist. Not one who believes God does not exist. An agnostic is not the absence (or lack) of theism, it is the belief God (the ultimate nature) is unknowable.
-
Yes, but that doesn't fit his argument - so he redefined the word.
Dan Bennett wrote:
Yes, but that doesn't fit his argument - so he redefined the word.
What argument?
-
I would call an atheists those who do not believe God does exist. Not one who believes God does not exist. An agnostic is not the absence (or lack) of theism, it is the belief God (the ultimate nature) is unknowable.
jimwawar wrote:
I would call an atheists those who do not believe God does exist. Not one who believes God does not exist.
The first part is half right. Atheists will word it such that their beliefs are simply a lack of belief. But by believing in a lack of belief, you do indeed have a belief. That belief is that God does not exist. Though it can be worded conversly, the fact that atheists have a belief in the nature of God (that he has no nature) forces atheism into a theological category and belief system. The further fact that they have developed remarkably consistent dogma is evidence that their theological beliefs have been implemented...i.e. it's a religion. Agnostics don't necessarily believe in God. They simply can't decide whether or not any theological position (including atheism) is the right one. They don't inherently believe that God exists.
-
You got it all wrong (what's new..). The separation of State and Church is that the State ignores church doctrine and base its decisions on common sense. :rolleyes: If it happens that there is intersection between the two, it is just a coincidence, and there is no reason to dismiss something just because the church recommends it, especially if it is already in place.
----- Formerly MP(2)
Le Centriste wrote:
common sense
There's no such thing.
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
No, it doesn't. They go as far as "Oooh, we can't explain this! It must be designed that way by some higher power!". Not very scientific.
My understanding is that ID attempts to discredit evolution through independent randomness, thereby introducing the possibility of external (but undefined) influence. Most theories are challenged in this way and they consistently used the scientific method. Therefore, by the arguments listed here it should be appropriate for science class. Naturally, no atheist agrees because that contradicts their dogma.
Red Stateler wrote:
g
ID is based on the premise that complexity implies intentional design rather than random occurrence. The problem is that no such causal link can be demonstrated (the likelihood of complexity as the result of random occurrences is the same as the likelihood of simplicity as the result). Complexity as the result of random mutation will persist as long as it is not sufficiently detrimental to survival. If it is advantageous to survival, it will likely flourish. ID is discredited because its proponents cannot demonstrate any clear requirement for or evidence of non-random external influence. Evolution accepts random external influence as one possible driver of mutation, but the primary force is held to be simply erroneous copying of DNA during replication.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Intelligent design an an explanation for our instantiation is like saying that what we accept is caused by gravity is actually caused by intelligent falling.
In relation to gravity, intelligent design is akin to saying that a curvature of space is an inadaquate explanation for gravity for reason X. The message atheists sent to students around the world was that you can't question existing science.
The message ID tries to send to students around the world is to absolutely reject any naturalism: Intelligent Design entails that naturalism in all forms be rejected. Metaphysical naturalism, the view that undirected natural causes wholly govern the world, is to be rejected because it is false. Methodological naturalism, the view that for the sake of science, scientific explanation ought never exceed undirected natural causes, is to be rejected because it stifles inquiry. Nothing is gained by pretending science can get along without intelligent causes. Rather, because intelligent causes are empirically detectable, science must ever remain open to evidence of their activity. William Dembski Reprinted from Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998 This from the author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1998), and a fellow of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations.
-
David Kentley wrote:
No, evolution is consistent with science. It has nothing to do with personal belief systems. This is in fact supported by the story you linked: most religious people actually do recognize evolution as scientifically valid. They also recognize chemistry and physics as being valid. The fact that it should be taught in science classrooms has to do with one thing and one thing only: it is science.
I generally accept evolution (but experience has given me a bias against the biological sciences, so I consider it "light" science). However, given that Intelligent design followed the scientific method, your argument states that intelligent design should therefore be taught in science class.
Red Stateler wrote:
I generally accept evolution (but experience has given me a bias against the biological sciences, so I consider it "light" science). However, given that Intelligent design followed the scientific method, your argument states that intelligent design should therefore be taught in science class.
Intelligent design most definitely does not follow the scientific method. In fact just the opposite. The ID folks started with a conclusion, then acknowledge only the data that supports it, changing the subject and saying "Well what about THIS" whenever a hole is poked in their so called research. That is why it cannot be taught as science. Because it isn't. It says absolutely nothing from a scientific standpoint, and yes I have looked into it quite heavily. I don't understand why God Fearing Folk don't just acknowledge that instead of turning the Bible into a freaking biology textbook, that maybe the point of the teachings of Christ actually have no goddamn thing to do with how we evolved on the planet. It apparently wasn't important enough to God to get into in the Bible... you think He left us nothing to discover on our own? Why not a quick little note that says, "Oh by the way, the earth goes around the sun?" If you believe in God, why not accept that evolution is how He wanted things to work (it's actually quite cool, DNA and mutations and such), because that is actually the only conclusion our amazing powers of reason and intellect can come to, and you are denying God's very reality of creation if you don't see that or at least investigate it honestly. (Note: I don't believe in God, so I don't actually think your eternal soul is at stake here, I'm just saying...)
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
Red Stateler wrote:
g
ID is based on the premise that complexity implies intentional design rather than random occurrence. The problem is that no such causal link can be demonstrated (the likelihood of complexity as the result of random occurrences is the same as the likelihood of simplicity as the result). Complexity as the result of random mutation will persist as long as it is not sufficiently detrimental to survival. If it is advantageous to survival, it will likely flourish. ID is discredited because its proponents cannot demonstrate any clear requirement for or evidence of non-random external influence. Evolution accepts random external influence as one possible driver of mutation, but the primary force is held to be simply erroneous copying of DNA during replication.
Rob Graham wrote:
Complexity as the result of random mutation will persist as long as it is not sufficiently detrimental to survival.
An important note: mutation is random, but evolution (or more specifically, natural selection) is not.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
Red Stateler wrote:
g
ID is based on the premise that complexity implies intentional design rather than random occurrence. The problem is that no such causal link can be demonstrated (the likelihood of complexity as the result of random occurrences is the same as the likelihood of simplicity as the result). Complexity as the result of random mutation will persist as long as it is not sufficiently detrimental to survival. If it is advantageous to survival, it will likely flourish. ID is discredited because its proponents cannot demonstrate any clear requirement for or evidence of non-random external influence. Evolution accepts random external influence as one possible driver of mutation, but the primary force is held to be simply erroneous copying of DNA during replication.
Rob Graham wrote:
ID is based on the premise that complexity implies intentional design rather than random occurrence. The problem is that no such causal link can be demonstrated (the likelihood of complexity as the result of random occurrences is the same as the likelihood of simplicity as the result). Complexity as the result of random mutation will persist as long as it is not sufficiently detrimental to survival. If it is advantageous to survival, it will likely flourish.
Like I said, I'm not defending ID. But the biological sciences are not based on true causality, but rather the statistical probability of it. What I find so interesting about ID was that it sought to discredit current evolutionary theory and was confronted dogmatically, rather than scientifically. Leftists/atheists invoked separation of church and state in order to ensure that it was never taught (despite it not being derived from any church or biblical teachings). It was viewed as an insidious attempt to undermine atheism by introducing the possibilty of a theistic entity in a classroom where any such discussion is strictly prohibited. The point of this thread is to see how the various atheists act when presented with the following points: 1. Any form of parochial education in public schools is prohibited via the concept of "separation of church and state". What happens when a church actively endorses a position? Does that create a conflict with that concept? 2. If there is not a conflict (as I predicted all atheists would claim), why is there no conflict? Is it because atheists have made this determination? Are atheists therefore the judges of what constitutes an appropriate education? Do they, despite being a minority, determine the curriculum for the majority? Do they believe they hold a special philosophical place in society? 3. Also as predicted, why does separation of church and state suddenly have no bearing when a church endorses a position that is consistent with atheist dogma? Isn't that evidentiary of the selectivity of that concept by atheists, whereby it's invoked only to ensure their own dogma is propagated?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
g
ID is based on the premise that complexity implies intentional design rather than random occurrence. The problem is that no such causal link can be demonstrated (the likelihood of complexity as the result of random occurrences is the same as the likelihood of simplicity as the result). Complexity as the result of random mutation will persist as long as it is not sufficiently detrimental to survival. If it is advantageous to survival, it will likely flourish. ID is discredited because its proponents cannot demonstrate any clear requirement for or evidence of non-random external influence. Evolution accepts random external influence as one possible driver of mutation, but the primary force is held to be simply erroneous copying of DNA during replication.
Rob Graham wrote:
Complexity as the result of random mutation will persist as long as it is not sufficiently detrimental to survival. If it is advantageous to survival, it will likely flourish.
I would think that some ID arguments will use what I will call coincidental complexity[1], i.e. more than one complex system cooperating in a mutually beneficial way. This argument can easily sway some laymen, but it's easy to ignore than the this coincidental complexity is but a higher power of the same simple complexity still likely to flourish where advantageous to survival. [] There may be a proper term for this, but I'm just a layman.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
common sense
There's no such thing.
that was the reason of the :rolleyes: icon just beside those words. ;P
----- Formerly MP(2)
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I generally accept evolution (but experience has given me a bias against the biological sciences, so I consider it "light" science). However, given that Intelligent design followed the scientific method, your argument states that intelligent design should therefore be taught in science class.
Intelligent design most definitely does not follow the scientific method. In fact just the opposite. The ID folks started with a conclusion, then acknowledge only the data that supports it, changing the subject and saying "Well what about THIS" whenever a hole is poked in their so called research. That is why it cannot be taught as science. Because it isn't. It says absolutely nothing from a scientific standpoint, and yes I have looked into it quite heavily. I don't understand why God Fearing Folk don't just acknowledge that instead of turning the Bible into a freaking biology textbook, that maybe the point of the teachings of Christ actually have no goddamn thing to do with how we evolved on the planet. It apparently wasn't important enough to God to get into in the Bible... you think He left us nothing to discover on our own? Why not a quick little note that says, "Oh by the way, the earth goes around the sun?" If you believe in God, why not accept that evolution is how He wanted things to work (it's actually quite cool, DNA and mutations and such), because that is actually the only conclusion our amazing powers of reason and intellect can come to, and you are denying God's very reality of creation if you don't see that or at least investigate it honestly. (Note: I don't believe in God, so I don't actually think your eternal soul is at stake here, I'm just saying...)
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
David Kentley wrote:
Intelligent design most definitely does not follow the scientific method. In fact just the opposite. The ID folks started with a conclusion, then acknowledge only the data that supports it, changing the subject and saying "Well what about THIS" whenever a hole is poked in their so called research.
You mean they developed a "hypothesis"? Surely a "hypothesis" has no place in the scientific method! :rolleyes:
David Kentley wrote:
That is why it cannot be taught as science. Because it isn't. It says absolutely nothing from a scientific standpoint, and yes I have looked into it quite heavily. I don't understand why God Fearing Folk don't just acknowledge that instead of turning the Bible into a freaking biology textbook, that maybe the point of the teachings of Christ actually have no goddamn thing to do with how we evolved on the planet. It apparently wasn't important enough to God to get into in the Bible... you think He left us nothing to discover on our own? Why not a quick little note that says, "Oh by the way, the earth goes around the sun?" If you believe in God, why not accept that evolution is how He wanted things to work (it's actually quite cool, DNA and mutations and such), because that is actually the only conclusion our amazing powers of reason and intellect can come to, and you are denying God's very reality of creation if you don't see that or at least investigate it honestly.
Another dogmatic reaction...
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Complexity as the result of random mutation will persist as long as it is not sufficiently detrimental to survival.
An important note: mutation is random, but evolution (or more specifically, natural selection) is not.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
David Kentley wrote:
An important note: mutation is random, but evolution (or more specifically, natural selection) is not.
That is not quite true, either. Natural selection tends to be random as well, it's the long term effects of natural selection leading to increased adaptation that make it appear non-random. Even so, natural selection often leads to "dead end" situations, wherein an organism is so adapted to its niche, that it cannot survive environmental change.
-
David Kentley wrote:
Intelligent design most definitely does not follow the scientific method. In fact just the opposite. The ID folks started with a conclusion, then acknowledge only the data that supports it, changing the subject and saying "Well what about THIS" whenever a hole is poked in their so called research.
You mean they developed a "hypothesis"? Surely a "hypothesis" has no place in the scientific method! :rolleyes:
David Kentley wrote:
That is why it cannot be taught as science. Because it isn't. It says absolutely nothing from a scientific standpoint, and yes I have looked into it quite heavily. I don't understand why God Fearing Folk don't just acknowledge that instead of turning the Bible into a freaking biology textbook, that maybe the point of the teachings of Christ actually have no goddamn thing to do with how we evolved on the planet. It apparently wasn't important enough to God to get into in the Bible... you think He left us nothing to discover on our own? Why not a quick little note that says, "Oh by the way, the earth goes around the sun?" If you believe in God, why not accept that evolution is how He wanted things to work (it's actually quite cool, DNA and mutations and such), because that is actually the only conclusion our amazing powers of reason and intellect can come to, and you are denying God's very reality of creation if you don't see that or at least investigate it honestly.
Another dogmatic reaction...
Red Stateler wrote:
You mean they developed a "hypothesis"? Surely a "hypothesis" has no place in the scientific method!
Well, if they used the scientific method I might have called it a hypothesis, but since they then cherry pick the data to match the "hypothesis" I decided that what they really started with was the conclusion.
Red Stateler wrote:
Another dogmatic reaction...
You know Red, you strike me as reasonably intelligent. I usually understand and appreciate your humor, and I'm pretty sure I've given you more 5's than 1's. But you make absolutely no sense here. I clearly stated that I don't believe in God, yet I offered up a scenario where people who do believe in God could still accept evolution (indeed, how it is really the Godly thing to do), yet you still claim it's part of atheistic dogma? Let's be clear on what you're saying: that part of atheistic dogma is to tell people that it's ok to believe in both God and evolution. Yeesh.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When did the state become responsible for promoting a single set of philosophical principles?
First of all, when it comes to science, the state is not promoting anything. It's teaching scientific fact. There's no philosophy behind it. There's no agenda behind it. I'll grant you, literature and history are a different story, but science is pretty cut and dry. Secondly, I believe that the state, when it's under the direction of elected officials, is in the best position to enact policy that accounts for and benefits the majority of its constituents. At least, that's how it should be. Furthermore, the state does not prevent someone with economic means the right to bypass the state's educational system in favor of alternate sources (eg, private schooling, parochial schooling, home schooling, etc.). So in essense, the state is just a choice.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Al Beback wrote:
First of all, when it comes to science, the state is not promoting anything. It's teaching scientific fact. There's no philosophy behind it.
Science is nothing but philosphy. That is why it was once referred to as "The philosphy of science". It is a philosophical persepective on how to measure things and interpret those measurements. By definition, there cannot be such a thing as a "scientific fact". There is little doubt that virtually every single scientific fact will be changed at some point in the future. The theories those facts support may or may not change, may become more or less supported by interpretations of various measurements, but they will remain theories none the less, not fact.
Al Beback wrote:
Secondly, I believe that the state, when it's under the direction of elected officials, is in the best position to enact policy that accounts for and benefits the majority of its constituents. At least, that's how it should be.
Regardless of the will of the people? With no regard at all to what parents wish their children to learn or how they wish them to view and percieve the universe?
Al Beback wrote:
Furthermore, the state does not prevent someone with economic means the right to bypass the state's educational system in favor of alternate sources (eg, private schooling, parochial schooling, home schooling, etc.). So in essense, the state is just a choice.
That is as things should be. But that does little to lessen the state's use of its authority in the public school system to promote its own agenda. The mere fact taht the government is allowed to confiscate private wealth and predicate the return of that wealth to local schools on how and what those schools teach their children is a pretty serious violation of basic Jeffersonian principles.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Red Stateler wrote:
You mean they developed a "hypothesis"? Surely a "hypothesis" has no place in the scientific method!
Well, if they used the scientific method I might have called it a hypothesis, but since they then cherry pick the data to match the "hypothesis" I decided that what they really started with was the conclusion.
Red Stateler wrote:
Another dogmatic reaction...
You know Red, you strike me as reasonably intelligent. I usually understand and appreciate your humor, and I'm pretty sure I've given you more 5's than 1's. But you make absolutely no sense here. I clearly stated that I don't believe in God, yet I offered up a scenario where people who do believe in God could still accept evolution (indeed, how it is really the Godly thing to do), yet you still claim it's part of atheistic dogma? Let's be clear on what you're saying: that part of atheistic dogma is to tell people that it's ok to believe in both God and evolution. Yeesh.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
David Kentley wrote:
You know Red, you strike me as reasonably intelligent. I usually understand and appreciate your humor, and I'm pretty sure I've given you more 5's than 1's. But you make absolutely no sense here. I clearly stated that I don't believe in God, yet I offered up a scenario where people who do believe in God could still accept evolution (indeed, how it is really the Godly thing to do), yet you still claim it's part of atheistic dogma? Let's be clear on what you're saying: that part of atheistic dogma is to tell people that it's ok to believe in both God and evolution. Yeesh.
Actually, per numerous previous statements of mine, I do accept evolutionarytheory in its current form as likely, but not absolute as that would be purely dogmatic and would perform a disservice to science as it doesn't allow for dissent (which science is based on). The compaitibility between Christianity and evolution is not a new concept. In fact, the Catholic Church abstained from any position on evolution for a century because it generally doesn't accept scientific findings into its theology unless the theory is well-established (and a decade ago officially accepted it as one possible means to creation). So I'm aware of the compatibility there. What I object to is the attempt by numerous atheists to control thought and discourage dissent and discussion against their own beliefs by invoking a separation of church and state. If you follow this thread, you'll see that I initially posed the question of what role that concept has when atheist dogma and Christian dogma agree. For argumentative consistency, atheists would require that evolution be considered for rejection from schools as many other topics (in and out of science class) have been restricted purely by the virtue of those topics being church doctrine. As I predicted, the atheists were unanimously OK with evolution's continuing teaching, despite it being church doctrine, because it's also atheist doctrine. You and others took another approach to justify that decision, by saying only science should be taught in science class (disregarding the fact that no theistic subjects are permitted regardless of the subject matter). That position is inconsistent with intelligent design which, though you fervently protest for contradicting your theological position, did indeed fall under the auspices of science. Basically, any way I look at this, this thread thoroughly demonstrates the dogmatic attitudes of atheists an
-
Al Beback wrote:
First of all, when it comes to science, the state is not promoting anything. It's teaching scientific fact. There's no philosophy behind it.
Science is nothing but philosphy. That is why it was once referred to as "The philosphy of science". It is a philosophical persepective on how to measure things and interpret those measurements. By definition, there cannot be such a thing as a "scientific fact". There is little doubt that virtually every single scientific fact will be changed at some point in the future. The theories those facts support may or may not change, may become more or less supported by interpretations of various measurements, but they will remain theories none the less, not fact.
Al Beback wrote:
Secondly, I believe that the state, when it's under the direction of elected officials, is in the best position to enact policy that accounts for and benefits the majority of its constituents. At least, that's how it should be.
Regardless of the will of the people? With no regard at all to what parents wish their children to learn or how they wish them to view and percieve the universe?
Al Beback wrote:
Furthermore, the state does not prevent someone with economic means the right to bypass the state's educational system in favor of alternate sources (eg, private schooling, parochial schooling, home schooling, etc.). So in essense, the state is just a choice.
That is as things should be. But that does little to lessen the state's use of its authority in the public school system to promote its own agenda. The mere fact taht the government is allowed to confiscate private wealth and predicate the return of that wealth to local schools on how and what those schools teach their children is a pretty serious violation of basic Jeffersonian principles.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
By definition, there cannot be such a thing as a "scientific fact". There is little doubt that virtually every single scientific fact will be changed at some point in the future.
That is a little litmus test of mine I use. If somebody ever proclaims "scientific fact", I immediately know that that person has little to no science-based education at all.
-
"There is a growing distrust of science in public opinion, especially among the
young, and that worries us," said Philippe Deterre, a research biologist and Catholic
priest who organized a colloquium on creationism for scientists at the weekend."There are many issues that go beyond strictly scientific or strictly theological
explanations," he said at the colloquium in this university town southwest of Paris.
Deterre's Blaise Pascal Network promotes understanding between science and
religion.OK, so now what do we do with this? The Catholic Church in France is attacking Christian and Muslim fundamentalist teachings of a literal interpretation of biblical creationism and is saying that evolution needs to be taught instead. So...By the principles of a separation of church and state, I think that means that evolution can't be taught in public schools because its church doctrine. Is that right? Or is it really just that anything can be taught as long as it doesn't contradict with atheistic desires. I'm so confused!
Red Stateler wrote:
OK, so now what do we do with this?
Nothing. Why would we want to do anything? Do you actually get paid to post fodder? Do you guage the quality of your posts by how much controversy they elicit? :rolleyes: