Separation of Church and State gets confusing in France
-
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:
-
Evolution, abortion, homosexuality, race,gender,global warming pick a topic. The government uses science to promote a state sanctioned belief system on virtually every issue you could mention.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
"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:
I'm so confused!
As always. And you want to propagate your disease. But what you get most of times is to make people immune to it.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK Chesterton -
Stan Shannon wrote:
The government uses science
Yeah, maybe you should set an example for us all and stop using all science your life. :rolleyes: Bad, bad science... sit science sit... stay
led mike
Why? When did I say I disagreed with scientific conclusions? I just do not believe that science should be a tool of politics merely because it contradicts other sources of philosophical interpretations of reality.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
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
Red Stateler wrote:
As I predicted, the atheists were unanimously OK with evolution's continuing teaching, despite it being church doctrine, because it's also atheist doctrine.
This is where you derail. It's not because it's atheist doctrine, but because it is science. How many times do I have to say it? ID is not science, which is why it is not taught as science by anybody with a brain. It has nothing to do with atheists. You're setting up a strawman by claiming that somebody is being hypocritical for accepting a church's acceptance of science. Scientists don't change their mind just because someone suddenly agrees with them. That's an awfully odd expectation you have.
Red Stateler wrote:
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.
No, it doesn't. There is no scientific backing for it whatsoever. It is a desperate faction of people grasping at straws who will say anything to try and get respect. They have failed. I honestly don't care how "dogmatic" I sound to you right now, but I actually did not come to this conclusion lightly.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
Why? When did I say I disagreed with scientific conclusions? I just do not believe that science should be a tool of politics merely because it contradicts other sources of philosophical interpretations of reality.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
I just do not believe that science should be a tool of politics merely because it contradicts other sources of philosophical interpretations of reality.
Ok... I just do not believe that religion should be a tool of politics merely because it contradicts other sources of philosophical interpretations of reality. Now what?
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I just do not believe that science should be a tool of politics merely because it contradicts other sources of philosophical interpretations of reality.
Ok... I just do not believe that religion should be a tool of politics merely because it contradicts other sources of philosophical interpretations of reality. Now what?
led mike
led mike wrote:
I just do not believe that religion should be a tool of politics merely because it contradicts other sources of philosophical interpretations of reality.
Nor do I.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Red Stateler wrote:
As I predicted, the atheists were unanimously OK with evolution's continuing teaching, despite it being church doctrine, because it's also atheist doctrine.
This is where you derail. It's not because it's atheist doctrine, but because it is science. How many times do I have to say it? ID is not science, which is why it is not taught as science by anybody with a brain. It has nothing to do with atheists. You're setting up a strawman by claiming that somebody is being hypocritical for accepting a church's acceptance of science. Scientists don't change their mind just because someone suddenly agrees with them. That's an awfully odd expectation you have.
Red Stateler wrote:
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.
No, it doesn't. There is no scientific backing for it whatsoever. It is a desperate faction of people grasping at straws who will say anything to try and get respect. They have failed. I honestly don't care how "dogmatic" I sound to you right now, but I actually did not come to this conclusion lightly.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
David Kentley wrote:
This is where you derail. It's not because it's atheist doctrine, but because it is science. How many times do I have to say it? ID is not science, which is why it is not taught as science by anybody with a brain. It has nothing to do with atheists. You're setting up a strawman by claiming that somebody is being hypocritical for accepting a church's acceptance of science. Scientists don't change their mind just because someone suddenly agrees with them. That's an awfully odd expectation you have.
Your argument fails to hole up for three reasons. Firstly, ID is science, as is anything that follows the scientific method. Secondly, science is not defined as a purely physicalist philosophy, except by atheists, and there is room for theism (something Einstein would attest to). Thirdly, science isn't the only subject atheists find objectionable. If ID were the only subject matter at hand, then your argument might have some credence. In reality, all theistic subject matter is restricted based on the concept of a separation of church and state. Note also that I'm citing ID as merely an example and I specifically said that this wasn't a discussion of its particular merits as a theory (as I don't intend to defend it), but rather the role of atheism's authoritarian control over our education system (and government) and its active attempts to eliminate any thestic philosophies because they compete with atheist dogma.
David Kentley wrote:
No, it doesn't. There is no scientific backing for it whatsoever. It is a desperate faction of people grasping at straws who will say anything to try and get respect. They have failed. I honestly don't care how "dogmatic" I sound to you right now, but I actually did not come to this conclusion lightly.
The dogmatism doesn't come from a rational rejection of ID, but rather the irrational response years ago when people legitimately wanted it considered and discussed. Rather than have any meaningful discussions, atheists waged a political attack whereby the separations concept was prematurely and dogmatically applied in order to force dissenting thoughts outside of the education system. Keep in mind that some 60 years ago, theists incorrectly disallowed evolution from being taught as they exercised an intellectual monopoly. Today, atheists use the judiciary and the concept of a separation of church and state to marry their own theology to our government.
-
led mike wrote:
I just do not believe that religion should be a tool of politics merely because it contradicts other sources of philosophical interpretations of reality.
Nor do I.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
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. 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.
It is a fact that our bodies are composed of cells. It is a fact that oxygen is a gas element. It is a fact that we live on a planet that orbits a star. These are scientific facts, not theories. Their scientific nature allows them to be adjusted over time as more detailed observations are made. So for example, at one point it was a fact that our solar system had nine planets. Now that Pluto has been demoted, the facts have changed. These are the kinds of things our kids should be learning.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Regardless of the will of the people?
No. If the people don't want to use the public education system, they can seek alternatives. But ask most people what they think children should learn in school and they won't have a clear and complete answer. "The school knows that." So they put their children in government sponsored schools, which they hope will provide a well-rounded education for their tax dollars -- that's typically "the will of the people".
Stan Shannon wrote:
With no regard at all to what parents wish their children to learn or how they wish them to view and percieve the universe?
Correct. That view and perception of the universe that you're talking about is beyond the scope of the public school system, if it is based on opinion not fact.
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
So in your Jeffersonian utopia, there'd be no public education, no cheap public transportation, no police department, no fire department, no courthouses, no homeless shelters, no emergency care, no government l