State Establishment of Religion

and then the 14th amendment incorporated the 1st to the states, precluding any state sponsored religion.

 

awesome. then submit your evidence for peer review and become the most famous scientist in the history of man kind, for disproving all of biology and the demonstrated and proven theory of evolution. what are you waiting for?

 

oh dear. in addition to creationism, you believe in batshit conspiracy theories, which are demonstrably incorrect. Lol.

 

You really want creation taught to your kid by a Scientologist teacher in biology class?
You want a Muslim teacher free reign to talk about religion in History class?
Let's give the Mormons a platform in schools to recruit for their church.

These rulings are as much protecting your kids from teachers with wack religious views as anything else.

 

Nope. We have a lot of fossils.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils

Nope, as you can see from the source below.

Nope, hominid fossils are obviously transitional.

Only about 2% of scientists are creationist, and 98% are evolutionist.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/11/darwin-day/

You can buy someone from any profession not just science. So does this discredit all science and all professions? The difference is that you won't get a 98% scientific consensus that smoking is ok.

Can't find any evidence to support this, maybe what you mean is that their data isn't perfect. Theses are written by students not actual scientists.

Wrong, what was found is that 50% of PhD students are psychologically distressed. Students aren't PhDs and being psychologically distressed happens to everyone at some point, but that doesn't make us mentally ill. PhD programs are very difficult and often require working 60+ hours per week for years for little pay.
https://www.lasencinashospital.com/blog/new-study-half-phd-students-suffer-psychological-distress

So we are talking about psychologists now instead of evolution?

Here is a whole bunch of evidence:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Scientists tend to be less religious, but a lot are religious. But most non-religious people aren't obsessed with Christianity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/us/scientists-speak-up-on-mix-of-god-and-science.html

Actually scientists tend to be more liberal, and liberals are more about welfare problems, the opposite of social darwinism.
https://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

 

Exactly, it is all unverifiable guesses. The amazing thing is despite government funded brainwashing, only 15% of Americans believe in naturalistic, no-God evolution.

Since they don't know what set off the Big Bang and how the first non-life became life, shouldn't the God hypothesis be on the table?

 

After that long rant, I did want to note: Religions by definition are indoctrination centers.

 

Google evidence for evolution. Take 30 minutes and return to this post. See all the stuff about fossils and DNA? Read it carefully. There are no excuses for you to be ingnorant about the evidence.

Here are some places to start:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
https://www.khanacademy.org/science...l-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Public schools and universities don't teach no-God atheism, they never have, and they never will. College professors aren't like Mr. Radisson from the "God's not Dead" movie. I have been in the educational system for 16 years and never once heard any teacher or textbooks preaching atheism. But I did get one professor who used his philosophy class to try to prove God exists.

Just because we don't know the answer to something doesn't mean God did it. I don't understand why Megan Markle married into the royal family, only to not want to be royal, but that doesn't mean God did it. God is on the table, but so is the transformers mothercube.

 

Sounds like its not off the table.
Anyway, god indoctrination should be done by family members, not the state.
For the state has 1000s of gods to choose from and they could not possible endorse them all and still provide an education.

 

Oh dear, you can't read and have to play " I Touched You Last!!!" relying on strawmen. I don't believe in either 'creationism' nor 'the rubbish you try and sell as 'evolution'. There is no empirical chain of evidence that is even remotely continuous, never has been, despite your mental illness being shared by many.

 

No honest scientist would ever claim evolution is a fact; it's been a political issue since Darwin, and not much else, except a lot of twisted and convoluted guesses, true.

For me it depends on how one defines 'God'. Using the word as Thomas Aquinas defined it in his Five Ways' is fine with me, those haven't' been refuted. Personal I wouldn't mind if Aquinas' works were taught as well if they're going to allow such rubbish as as what they lie to children about re 'evolution'. The only way they can sell it is by lying,a and completely staying away from the issues of mathematical analysis and probabilities, the necessary absurdly high numbers of beneficial mutations required, etc. Hayek's book The Fatal Conceit has an excellent digression on the abject failures of 'rational constructionism' compared to Judeo-Christian traditions as a foundation for society and rejects their pseudo-intellectual 'science' as easily bought, easily influenced by academics fads, easily corrupted, and other irrational behaviors common to atheist states, not even counting their massive reliance on murdering their own populations whenever their 'scientific management' fails, which it does routinely. One way to put it is that mankind is probably far from ready or even remotely capable of 'scientific government', so it's best to stay with tradition and strong moral principles over the pretentious fads of idiots educated far beyond their intellectual capabilities, i.e. halfwits with high self-esteem that rule the universities and corporate labs and think tanks.

 

I am sure many Islamic fundamentalists would agree.

 

So what religion would you mandate be taught and become the region of the land?
What do you think Darwin’s Theory is about? Can you explain it in simple terms?
As a bit of follow up on the last question, ‘do you think DNA research is bunk? If so, why?
Do you think the scientific method should be replaced by something superior? If so, what?

 

Or, just get a DNA test, share the results, and then rant on why DNA tech is bunk; that should be interesting.

 

Sometimes when watching people roam about religion you can only laugh.
[video][/video]

 

..so many questions.. the OP provided a premise, and evidence for it. You could rebut that, instead of deflecting with irrelevant deflections.. but, i will attempt to give my opinion to your more philosophical questions.
1. I prefer the American Ideal of NON ESTABLISHMENT of religious beliefs, that my country has abandoned, in favor of State Mandated religious Indoctrination.
2. Naturalistic origins.
3. Yes.
4. No.
5. No.

I defend the scientific method, critical thinking, skepticism, and Reason. These things are enemies to state sponsored Indoctrination.

It is a non sequitur to declare,

'DNA!! Therefore evolution!!'

..with no reasoning or science to correlate them. If anything, the complexities of genetics, and the observable restrictions that DNA places on an organism makes the BELIEF in common ancestry impossible.

But that is another topic..

It is tragic, imo, that so many in this age are indoctrinated into the RELIGIOUS BELIEFs, of common ancestry, abiogenesis, and atheistic origins, and 'science!' is hijacked by ideologues with an agenda.

I guess i don't see that as funny.. attacking theistic beliefs, and pretending atheistic naturalism is 'science!', is just old fashioned religious bigotry.

 

There is good evidence that evolution happens though there are serious holes in the theory. There is also good evidence for a God centric and created universe, though much of that is lack of evidence to the contrary. We can see without question evolution in bacteria and the tsetse fly for instance. But we cannot explain and do not know how life began in the first place or why there is no evidence of specie to specie transformation. Evolution cannot explain why the fine structure constant or the charge of an electron, etc are why they are what they are, yet if some of the physical constants were just a tiny bit different, science says the universe would not have become what we think it is today.

Science should appropriately teach both evolution theory and a God created universe (though the religion aspects of the latter should not be taught in schools): It might prove to be one or the other, or a combination of the two, though it is likely we will never find out.

 

Teaching a God centric and created universe does not by itself involve religion. The theory of a God created and designed universe should be taught in schools; religion should not.

 

Because...?

 

RodB said: ↑
The theory of a God created and designed universe should be taught in schools; religion should not.

1) A God (or supernatural something) designing and creating the universe(s) is a bona fide scientific theory that is appropriate for schooling. 2) Religion is a personal belief system that has no scientific basis for or against and is not appropriate for 3rd-party education. I do think religious activities and groups should be allowed to use school facilities, and essentially non-denominational (which is not the same is universal religion) prayers should be permitted though I am not strong about this.

 

“Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.” GW, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

 

My bold. That would be a short lesson: Where's the proof, teacher? There isn't any. Can we go home now? No, it's science where you can learn some things that are true.

 

you don't seem to know what a strawman is. You believe the whacky batshit crazy conspiracy theory that the 14th amendment was never ratified. that is demonstrably incorrect.

well, you've been given the mountain of evidence supporting evolution. "nuh uh" is not an argument against it. You need to provide your own peer reviewed evidence, experimentation or observations to rebut what you've been given. We both know why you can't do that.

this is demonstrably false, as you've been given said evidence in this very thread.

 

There is no proof of most things: God, evolution, serious global warming by man, some mathematics, quantum mechanics, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Science has no explanation of how the universe was created, as in what was before the big bang and, if you subscribe to the big bang hypothesis, why did it start with the big bang. Nor does science explain, beyond guess and conjecture, how and why the universe expanded, changed form (if it did), and changed its composition. Science has no explanation is to why the physical constants, such as the fine structure constant, the charge of an electron, the relative mass of an electron and a proton, the speed of light, the gravitational constant, etc,, are what they are. The scientists can not explain singularities or if there actually are such things, or what physical laws apply inside a black hole or a singularity. They cannot explain how life emerged from non-life. They have hypotheses but no explanation why the evolutionary fossil record is so spotty and disjointed, or why there is no evidence of any specie to specie evolutionary transformation. The only explanations we have for all of this and many other things is either, 1) we are not smart enough and likely never will be, or 2) God or some supernatural power/being did it. Therefore God as a supernatural creator -- and maybe or maybe not a religious leader -- is a clearly reasonable educational scientific hypothesis if not a theory

 

There is also a lack of evidence that there aren't flying unicorns flying around a hidden planet around Alpha Centauri. But that doesn't make this belief at all plausible. A lack of evidence against isn't evidence for.

The theory of evolution is that all species evolved from a common ancestor through natural selection and mutations. Evolution can't explain where that common ancestor came from, or how live began, just like the theory of gravity can't explain where matter came from.

We do have some examples of speciation. There are some difficulties in finding them. Its tricky to define a species is, requires that a species be closely observed by scientists, and it can be difficult to differentiate speciation from just finding another related species we didn't know about before.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Evolution is about biology and species not physics. We are still learning a lot about how our universe works, but not understand doesn't mean that we can fill the holes in our knowledge with mythology.

There is no scientific evidence that God created the universe, so it shouldn't be presented along-side scientific theories that actually have physical evidence. This would be better discussed in a philosophy or comparative religions course instead.

 

I actually agree that DNA by itself isn't evidence for evolution. But its the little patterns that we see. Like humans and apes being 99% similar, or like having the Vitamin C gene turned off while the chimp one is turned on, sharing retrovirus DNA with apes, or having all that non-coding DNA that doesn't seem to do a lot.