So outraged I had to say something... (Page 4)

As I've said multiple times, belief in a Creator is not mutually exclusive with a fundamental understanding and belief in an evolutionary development of life.      

Dude, I am totally cool with folks believing in a creator, multiple creators, heck, insert whatever religious belief you hold (I have my own wacky spiritual beliefs too)...but when you are in a federally funded establishment, one faith does not have the right to masquerade its beliefs as science...especially in front of impressionable children.  I don't think it's right for churches to do it either, but I have no legal say.

The big bang happened.  The evidence is overwhelming.  Can I prove a God or several Gods made it happen?  Nope.  Do I care if he, she, or they did?  Nope.  

Evolution is real.  The evidence is overwhelming and grows stronger every week.  Can I prove a God or several Gods didn't set it into motion?  Nope.  Do I care if he, she, or they did?  Nope.

Thanks.  When confronted with something that's unjust, I'll remember next time I have the option to leave.  Ya know, the presenter told me the same thing.  

Did you watch the 2 minute trailer for the dvd that was played?  Based on your statement, I'd guess you'd have no problem with the dvd choice.  Is that correct?

I believe strongly that children deserve the best education possible.  Nothing riles me up more than seeing children misled.  It sounds corny, but children are the future (Whitney Houston was right)...those kids present at this presentation deserved better.

yes, yes, yes.  

The statment that no credible scientist can believe in creationism is patently false.  Richard Smalley is a Nobel prize winner in Chemistry, discoverer of "Bucky balls", he was both an eminent chemist and physicist and a believer in creationism. 

He once said ""Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ. Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose."

So, I've demonstrated that there is at least one "credible Scientist" ( a nobel leuarete in chemistry) who believes in creationism, and consequently the assertion in a Court ruling is wrong, at least as it applies to the point that no credible scientist can believe in creationism.

And this is the problem with this type of assertion and what I was attempting to demonstrate.  It gets argued that "no credible scientist that can possibly believe in creationism" and it is demonstrated over and over again that there are in fact numerous scientists that are more than credible that believe in creationism.  Smalley is not the only one.

Again I point this out only to demonstrate that the notion that "no credible scientist" can believe in creationism is simply not true.  Any scientist that believes in creationism is dismissed with a wave of the hand as not being credible.  granted the number of scientists that believe in creation probably reprsents the minority view, but to dismiss them out of hand is not accurate.

Additionally, citing the decision of a Court as the authority on scientific matters is like citing an iron worker on the same matter.  They both carry the same weight. 

Also I think Crick's Directed panspermia theory is foolish.  However, I brought it up to point out that "scientists" can be "credible" by advancing a "scientific theory" involving aliens planting DNA on the Earth,  and Crick isn't considered a "non-credible scientist" but to believe in creationism somehow defies credibility.  I'm just saying, I think Crick's Directed panspermia theory demonstrates that some scientists are willing to advance any theory outside of a God, and as long as the theory doesn't involve God, it's OK. 

It's not "seperation of church and state", It's the "establishment clause".  The seperation of church and state is neither the current, nor the accepted legal test for a constitutional challenge based upon the establishment clause, nor does the term appear in the constitution.

'The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”'  U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist

^perhaps Khyron was dismissing the belief in the "poof, humans magically appear at the same time as other living things" opinion?  

The term "Creationism" has a lot of different beliefs under its tent.  I think Khyron was referring to the biblical literalist fringe...because, honestly, I don't think anyone's purporting that the possibility of a "Creator" or "Creators" is not possible.  Some believe it's much less likely than others, but there is always the chance, right?

I apologize for speaking for you Khyron...my bad.  Now, I'm going to write a letter of complaint to myself.  

So, are you saying we need to open the door to allowing religion into scientific instruction at publicly funded institutions?  Would that not open the door to the hundreds if not thousands of different faiths/sects/etc. that would surely want their views stamped all over science?

Can we just keep science to science and not religion/faith/etc.?

I'm just gonna quote myself. If your creationist beliefs fly in the face of scientific evidence (No dinosaurs, Earth is 6000 years old, all living things just appeared at once) that's bad creationism to me. People who target and attack scientific findings because they conflict with scripture are bad creationists. Believing in Omega/Big Bang creator is not - that's faith and it's no better or worse than any other guess I've heard.

So I guess I'm talking about Creation Science as opposed to Creationism in general (which I think is the OP as well)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.^[7][8] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.

So my original statement stands - I don't think you'll find any legitimate Creation Science scientists.

God's Debris is an interesting theory.

I struggle.  I keep looking, but admittedly, faith is hard for me.  

The only thing that keeps me holding on to some idea of a Creator/God is my/our conscience.....I can't explain it to myself.  Why would we have it without Something to hold us to it, even if we can't see It.  

I have, in my work, seen an absolute lack of conscience in a few people....and had no doubt I was looking at evil in it's purest form.

I'm still searching.

I still recall many of the arguments I learned in my philosophy classes at the college I attended (run by the Christian Brothers) about the "prime mover" argument that something had to set everything into motion. I think it is one of the reasons that the Catholic church does not have a problem reconciling itself with science anymore, and can accept evolution, the Big Bang and billions of years of the universe, a cosmology that is not geocentric, etc.

Like I said earlier - the issue is not of "church and state" - it is church and science. And there is no need for the two to work in opposition to one another. Like my religion professor used to tell us about the role of religion in humanity, the purpose of religion is not to answer questions like "how did that happen", but "why did it happen". His example, that I remember 30 years later, was of the primitive tribesman whose hut falls on his leg and breaks it. He understands WHY his leg hurts - the hut fell down. He wants to know WHY it fell down on him - not in the engineering sense about construction methods, but in the "why did this happen to ME?!?" sense.

Nope, didn't say that at all.  I think you're misunderstanding my point.

My point is that I believe when you control language you can control thought.  Most people in this country have heard of "seperation of church and state" and I bet that many believe that is in the Constitution.  While I also believe that most people have never heard of the phrase "the establishment clause"  which of course is the actualy constitutional term.

"seperation of church and state" is a far mor encompassing phrase (at least as used today, there is an argument that the way it is used today in modern lexicon isn't even the way Jefferson understood it to mean, but that's a debate for a different day) than "violation of the establishment clause."

The "seperation" phrase implies that any public "display" or "assertion" of religion on behalf of the government is not permitted.  This is not, nor has ever been the meaning of the Establishment Clause.  There are those that would like it to mean that, but it simply doesn't.  If the Constitution said, or meant that there must be a "seperation of church and state" (as that phrase is used today) then the jurisprudence on this matter would be easy.  It would mean that any time there was any type of religious articulation in a public forum by a governmental entity then that would violate the constitution.  We know of course that was not, has not been, and continues to not be the interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

It is a pet peave of mine when people talk about this Constitutional Issue and assert that the Constitution requires a "seperation of church and state"  As Rehnquist said that phrase adds nothing to the debate, it adds nothing to the critical analysis of Establishment Clause cases and as it is used today is probably an historically inaccurate interpretation of that term in the first place.

Why people simply don't use the actual term: "violation of the establishment clause" is beyond me.  What is gained by NOT using the actual constitutional language?  Wouldn't our language be more precise and meaningful if we used the actual constitutional language?  Again what is saved, or gained in using "seperation of church and state" as oppossed to "a violation of the establishment clause"?  Serioulsy, they both take about the same amount of time to say and type, so why use the first over the second?

I believe there are those that want to change peoples understanding of the contsitutional requirements from an Establishment Clause issue to a "seperation of church and state" issue.  I believe that some believe by changing the language that is used we change the debate.  I believe there are those that believe that there should be a strict total bright line "seperation of church and state" and thus if they can change the debate, through the use of language, by redefining the understanding of the issue by the use of language, they have progressed a great way towards their goals.  Then there are those that use that language out of ignorance or a mistaken belief that that language is actually the constitutional requirment.

All I was poointing out is that "speration of church and state" is not the Constitutional requirment, that the proper term and the constitutional language is a violation of the 'establishment clause."  My statement was not meant to express an opinion as you set out.

I would not agree with that opinion on several levels.  My statement was purely a comment on the limited idea of the use of the term "seperation of church and state."

Well, most of the founders were products of the Enlightenment, and the spirit of inquiry into the world around them - the natural world, the political world, etc. They did not, for the most part, have some sort of blind allegience to magical thinking, or accepting the word of authority (or they would not have rebelled against their king, and they would not have established a system that explicitly rejects monarchs and religious tests for leadership.

Today, most people who object to the idea of separation of church and state (and it's spelled SEPARATION - there is A RAT in separate - a pet peeve of mine to see it misspelled) use the term to call for more explicit christian and often fundamental ideas. The idea of Christmas as a public celebration is a fairly recent one. The phrase in the pledge of allegience "and under God" was added in the 1950's to the existing and perfectly serviceable pledge. And the idea that the basic building blocks in science (at least in biology, archaeology, and physics) are controversial and should be taught alongside biblical ideas is even more recent.

If I go to the museum of creationism, I do not expect to get science. But if I go to a public museum or other institution known for science studies and the promotion of science, I expect to get science. Not ID or young earth. 

Look at it this way - some people think that paintings of Elvis and poker playing dogs on black velvet is art. But I do not expect to run into them at the National Gallery of Art. And I would be pretty concerned if they had a program about art, and presented them as examples of fine art. Kitschy, or ironic? Maybe. But the pinnacle of artistic expression? No. 

Look up Francis Collins for an interesting perspective of a scientist that is also an Evangelical Christian.  Collins lead the Human Genome Project - I guess you could say the very root of creation/evolution.  He converted to Christianity later in life, but rejects Young Earth creationism and ID. 

For those of us of the Jewish faith, we just celebrated the New Year. The year is 5773 and according to some ultra-orthodox, marks the beginning of creation. Sitting in synagogue on Monday, I was thinking about this and it struck me that not one person there would actually believe the earth was 5773 years old. However, if I have this conversation with some of my Hasidic friends, they would unquestionably say that they believe that this marks the beginning of creation.

I've had this discussion with a Hasidic Rabbi who is a good friend (and biking buddy). Inevitably the conversation turns to Genesis, the six days of creation, and the apparent age of the universe. The real question is "what is a day to G-d?" There was a fascinating article where physics and the bible attempt to reconcile the age of the universe with the Torah (Old Testament). It's from  Jewish religious perspective, so keep that in mind if you choose to read it.

As a scientist I find religion answers the why, not the how. The laws of physics guide the 'how' from the subatomic to cosmological space. All of chemistry, and, consequently, biology, is directed as a consequence of physics. Why these laws came into existence and the superb balance in which they operate to create the universe(s) and life itself is a different question, and, for me, one of faith.

1.  Making a balnket assertion that the founding fathers "were X"  is incorrect and inaccurate.  The religious beliefs of the founding fathers was not cohesive belief system.  They were not all athiests, they were not all diests, they were not all christians.  To assert so is inaccuarte and ignores history.  The religious beliefs of the founding fathers represented the wide views of religious belief of the populace at large.  There were founding fathers that were probably athiets, there were founding fathers that were diests, there were founding fathers that would be catagorized as non-practicing christians and there were founding fathers that were deeply religious. Additionally, their personal religious beliefs are of no concern because what ever they were, and what ever they personally believed they wrote down what the thought should be the founding principle on the issue and it's contained in the establishment clause.  (as a side note the first signator of the Bill of Rights was a legislature who was a minister)

2.  Sorry about the mis-spelling. 

3.  To support my point about the constitution is simple.  The Constitution does not contain the phrase "separation of church and state"

4. The consitution DOES contain the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

5.  You are mischaracterizing my position.  It had nothing to do with arguing that religion should be taught along side science, or that religion should be taught as science.  I never said that.  Never even hinted at that.  To assert that my argument was that is to twist my argument so you can make a point.

6.  My argument, as clearly stated, was limited to the use of the term "separation of church and state" rather than the use of the actual constitutional language  violation of the establishment clause.

7. I do not object to the use of the term separation of church and state based upon some christian need for "more explicit christian and often fundamental ideas".  (I never said that, never even hinted at that)  My objection is that it is not accurate.  It is not accurate as a representation of the language of the Constitution, it is not accurate as a representation of the applicable test, and it is probably not even accurate historically as it pertains to Jeffersons original meaning in the letter which spawned the phrase.

8.  I still ask, and you still haven't addressed why someone would use that phrase over the actual constitutional language?

9.  Again, you've created a straw man regarding my argument and then did an adequate job of destroying that straw man.  The problem is that I can object to the use of inaccurate constitutional language, and object to the notion of separation of church and state based on non-religious issues, such as agreeing with Rehnquist that the term adds nothing to the constitutional debate.  My objection is based upon the fact that I believe the term leads to faulty legal reasoning, and thus dimishes the actual meaning of the Constitution.

10.  If we want the Constitution to explicitly mean "speration of church and state" there's a way to do it....Amend the constitution, and explicitly state that.  If that's done then my argument is moot.

Wow...someone needs to realize that life is too short, and take a deep breath.

I can't believe this is a serious post when there are so many other things to worry about in life.

And I thought I worried about little things....

Wow...someone needs to realize that life is too short, and take a deep breath.

I can't believe this is a serious post when there are so many other things to worry about in life.

And I thought I worried about little things....

What's up with the blue?  And the weird font?

That worries me.

I like the font...and the different colors...that's how I roll!

Ahh... it's just Amy.  She's always like that.

Hiya kiddo!!!

Even more cause for concern.

Cause for concern...what, for being original...ya, ok...good one! Hey Crowny...long time no see! Hope you and the Mrs. are well!!!