Can someone explain Mike Hackabee to me? (Page 6)

Contrary to what many people think, Jefferson is not the ONLY founding father, neither is he the end-all-be-all of constitutional and civic interpretation.

Of course the issue isn't whether a candidate needs to asert a certain styance on religion to be elected, the issue is that the electorate have the right to vote for a candidate based upon any issue or perception they feel is important to them.  To many, religion is important.  Why is this any different than voting for a candidate based upon any other percieved stance they may have on an issue.  Or say voting for JFK because he was "cute"?

And I think your quotes are taken out of context, or more appropriately not in the right context.  No one is arguing that the Establishment Clause exists.  However, contrary to the inplication of your assertion, the Establishment Clause does not require all religion to be removed from public debate.  Nor does it preclude the people from exercising their right to vote based upon religious ideology.

Evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity of species. What other scientific theory should we teach - one that doesn't exist? It is the foundation of all of biology. There are gaps in our knowledge - that simply means we haven't found all the answers. Saying we haven't found all the answers in no way discredits or contradicts everything evolution has taught us.  However, it continues to provide so many answers in so many different fields that it is considered de facto scientific truth. This link will lead you to a NOVA program that gives an easy to digest summary of what Darwin's theory has done for us and it says it soooo much better than I ever could. An excerpt:

Ahead of his time is putting it moderately for Charles Darwin. The father of evolution had conjectures that were only proved, or greatly substantiated, decades after his death in 1882, in some cases not until recently. Today, evidence that unequivocally supports his theory of evolution by natural selection, as well as other surmises he had, comes from an array of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, and, most recently, evolutionary developmental biology, or "evo devo." 

Creationism, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory, has no scientific basis, has no peer reviewed scientific text or journal to support it. It is not science. It is religion.

If you want a very thorough explanation of why creationism has no place in the science curriculum of public schools, read the 139 page ruling handed down in the Dover School Board case, where creationism was, yet again, tossed out of the science curriculum.

A very interesting excerpt:

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of intelligent design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

Again Renee,  I think you are missing the point some of us are making.  Some of us are suggesting that both ideas should be put out there for review, and all the variables in between the two poles of evolution and creation.  It doesn't have to be presented in a "science" setting or be labelled as such.  I think it's reasonable that both sides can be approached for discussion based on theory.

Actually, the debate we were having boils down to whether creationism is science. It is not science; that's a settled matter of law and science and religion. Creationism is a matter of religion. Blithely dismissing the big bang theory, or any other scientific theory, will never make creationism a matter of science.

But to your dualistic construct about understanding and explaining the mysteries of the universe: Your two views are not the only views possible. That's a false construct, as the scientists who make explaining the cosmos their life's work while still maintaining a belief in a god will attest. Seeking answers - chasing down the many alleys that a big bang theory, for example, presents - is not mutually exclusive to accepting Judaism, Christianism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Sikhism, Paganism or any other religious creation myths.

To say that one must take the big bang theory on faith is to totally ignore the vast body of scientific work (astronomy, mathematics, physics) on the topic. That would be like me characterizing Genesis without actually having read Genesis (though it would be an infinitely shorter read than reading all the material which supports various hypothesis and theories about the cosmos). Scientific hypotheses and theories do not invoke faith or the supernatural for validation; that would be the antithesis of science.

Creationism says it has the answers and one must take it on faith. Science says it has questions and perpetually seeks answers and perpetually tests those answers, discarding any answers (theories) which do not withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny.

Put both ideas out where for review? Schools? 

If you are saying put the ideas in public school, I refer you back to the 139 page ruling for why creationism has no place in the science curriculum of a public school. It answers your question very, very fully. The ruling cites many cases where creationism was removed from public schools. It is very informative, very easy to read, very clear. Basically, what you propose violates the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, according to many court rulings.

If you want to get your religious views heard in public schools, you're going to have to find a way to do it that does not violate the Establishment Clause. While you may be devout in your beliefs, this does not justify violating the Establishment Clause.

I think I made myself clear that both could be presented fairly outside of a "science" class.  It's not a matter of converting children nor should it be a matter of censoring either theory.  As I said before, we do not live in a religious vacuum, so why shouldn't children be educated about all views, religious or not.

Actually, no you have not made it at all clear how you would teach creationism, whether within or without a science class. You made a very vague, general statement that it should be taught. Please, enlighten me as to how you propose to teach creationism (which is not, by the way, a 'theory').

Second, how will you get around the Establishment Clause?

Third, why would you teach evolution outside a science class?

To answer your last question, read the 139 page ruling which thoroughly answers your question.

Putting all ideas and perspectives into an educational setting is in no way promoting religion or non-religious views.  It's narrow minded to pigeon hole everything and to ignore other perspectives in general.  In essence, it's creating an artifical environment that doesn't exist in this world.  It's also censorship.  Government may not allow teaching creation in schools, but it is a perspective, it is a belief, and to ignore it doesn't accomplish anything.  Society is permeated by religion, so it is almost impossible to weed it out of our institutions. 

I don't have time to fully get into this, but the facts are:

Copernicus, a Catholic priest, worked out the heliocentric system some two hundred years before Galileo.

Copernicus taught this system in a Catholic university system.

Copernicus taught the system to several bishops and the pope, who all love it. The system helped show that God is a rational being. This was further evidence of Church teaching, in particular teaching that relied heavily on the theology of Thomas Aquinas.

Galileo learned the system from the Church run university system.

Galileo then began to teach theology. He posited that since heliocentricity was true, therefore parts of Genesis were false.

The Church had never held that scripture was totally literal. A heliocentric system was not in conflict with Church teaching.

What was in conflict was Galileo teaching theology. For two reasons. One, he was not a theologian. Two, the theology was in error.

Never the less, he was unjustly treated given his errors.

The Catholic Church has never been, and is not now, anti-science. In fact, without the Catholic Church, and it's teaching that God is a knowable rational being, it is doubtful that science as we now know it would have risen in the West.

But we aren't talking about putting all ideas into an educational setting. We're talking about putting creationism into the public schools. And the government repeatedly says that this constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause, your legal opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.

So, assuming the government does not issue a 180^o reversal of numerous rulings on this matter... how do you propose to insert creationism into the public school curriculum?

Here's the thing about ignoring your perspective - we're entitled to ignore it.  You aren't entitled to make it part of the public school curriculum just because you very badly and earnestly want it to be taught. If you want it to be taught to badly, then do so. Be a Sunday school teacher. Write books. Lecture. Become a televangelist. But don't expect the government to sanction your perspective by giving it airtime in the public schools.

And the legal system gives us the means to weed it out, or keep it out, of our public schools.

Evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity of species. What other scientific theory should we teach - one that doesn't exist? It is the foundation of all of biology. There are gaps in our knowledge - that simply means we haven't found all the answers. Saying we haven't found all the answers in no way discredits or contradicts everything evolution has taught us.  However, it continues to provide so many answers in so many different fields that it is considered de facto scientific truth. This link will lead you to a NOVA program that gives an easy to digest summary of what Darwin's theory has done for us and it says it soooo much better than I ever could. An excerpt:

Ahead of his time is putting it moderately for Charles Darwin. The father of evolution had conjectures that were only proved, or greatly substantiated, decades after his death in 1882, in some cases not until recently. Today, evidence that unequivocally supports his theory of evolution by natural selection, as well as other surmises he had, comes from an array of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, and, most recently, evolutionary developmental biology, or "evo devo." 

Creationism, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory, has no scientific basis, has no peer reviewed scientific text or journal to support it. It is not science. It is religion.

If you want a very thorough explanation of why creationism has no place in the science curriculum of public schools, read the 139 page ruling handed down in the Dover School Board case, where creationism was, yet again, tossed out of the science curriculum.

A very interesting excerpt:

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of intelligent design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

Government supported ignorance in an educational setting - sounds about right.  I sure hope this never extends to our libraries and archives.  There has to be some refuge for those who want to be educated citizens.

Actually, the debate we were having boils down to whether creationism is science. It is not science; that's a settled matter of law and science and religion. Creationism is a matter of religion. Blithely dismissing the big bang theory, or any other scientific theory, will never make creationism a matter of science.

But to your dualistic construct about understanding and explaining the mysteries of the universe: Your two views are not the only views possible. That's a false construct, as the scientists who make explaining the cosmos their life's work while still maintaining a belief in a god will attest. Seeking answers - chasing down the many alleys that a big bang theory, for example, presents - is not mutually exclusive to accepting Judaism, Christianism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Sikhism, Paganism or any other religious creation myths.

To say that one must take the big bang theory on faith is to totally ignore the vast body of scientific work (astronomy, mathematics, physics) on the topic. That would be like me characterizing Genesis without actually having read Genesis (though it would be an infinitely shorter read than reading all the material which supports various hypothesis and theories about the cosmos). Scientific hypotheses and theories do not invoke faith or the supernatural for validation; that would be the antithesis of science.

Creationism says it has the answers and one must take it on faith. Science says it has questions and perpetually seeks answers and perpetually tests those answers, discarding any answers (theories) which do not withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Yes, that's the problem. I'm ignorant.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Yes, that's the problem. I'm ignorant.

I'M AGREEING WITH RENEE......  Break out the Bibles, time to start re-reading Revelations.  The end-times must be near!

 I don't think the debate boils down to whether creationism is science - I think we all agree that it's not. You can't test it using scientific methods, therefore it would be impossible to prove. The same is true for the big bang theory. We're still talking about what our kids are being taught in school as far as how all matter got here. What happened to the matter after it "started", if you will, can be debated regarding evolution and intelligent design, but the conversation is still regarding what's being taught in school as scientific fact and what's being disallowed because it is not scientific. My comments were merely to illustrate that the big bang theory is no more scientifically provable than creationist theory, therefore you must operate on a measure of faith just as I must. Only I am willing to admit to it, as evidenced by your striking out that same comment in my earlier post. I am clear on the difference between the big bang theory [how everything got here] and evolution [what happened to everything after it got here]. We could debate this seriously until the cows come home but it's really not going to change anything and it's wasting a lot of my time that could be better spent doing other things.