Judge outlaws prison group's Bible program

That's an unfair generalization. My parents gave me "the talks" before the school even tried to force me through it.

Yes.

Please don't confuse me with Kevn.

Actually, not really... what I said was:



From my personal experience with this topic... my statement is accurate. That's why I said "It seems to me". I didn't make the statement as fact, and I certainly left my statement open for exceptions.

Not only did she confuse the people, but also the opinion stated was in error. I have not said I am against gay marriage. It's sad people read what they think the poster is saying instead of what was really said.

And I agree, I don't want to be confused with you. No offence, it's just that your opinions hardly ever agree with mine. That's not to say your opinions are not worthy, of course, I wouldn't be so rude as to assume my opinions are better that the opinion of any other poster.

That's why I called it a generalization not an accusation.

The word "unfair" was what I was replying to more than the generalization thingy. Ah well, there are worse things in the world to worry about than that I suppose. lol

Nothing in your post spoke to my point except this, and it ignored the main point.

At this very moment, children are being taught in public (forced) school that life had no creator, that abiogenesis is how life started, then evolution took over to create all these life forms from a single life form. This is a statement of faith on the part of the school. There is no proof life started with or without a creator.

If we are to remove all faiths from schools, Atheism should not be left as the only choice.

There are 2 competing ideals, one says a Creator made life, another says it was abiogenesis.

I don't care if you believe in evolution, abiogenesis or the tooth fairy, but it shouldn't be taught as fact to children too young to question it.

This is, in fact, false.

Children are *NOT* taught that there is no creator. They are taught evolution. If you choose to believe that creation started it, and it evolved from there, that's between you and your kids.

I attended public school where evolution was, and still is, taught... and at no time, did religion in any manner, enter the discussions and lectures.

Correct. There IS no proof of life starting with or without a creator. There's no proof that the universe was created by a unicorn, or was sneezed out of some diety's nose. As such, schools don't teach it. There's also no %100 established proof that what is taught in schools in regards to origin of our species and the universe is true, however, based on the current scientific data, tests, and facts, what is taught is the very best we could, at this time, come up with. That's, after all, what science it: just a bunch of theories and educated guesses based on the data we have right now. That's NOT what faith is though.



Removing faith from school means only that schools will not recognize any faith. Schools don't go around saying "There is no god," they're just saying "no comment." Kids are still free to believe in Jesus, Budha, Chthulu, or no one.



Erm, no. The 2 competing ideas are whether we should teach what we believe to be past history based on educated guessed taken from a vast amount of actual testable evidence, or whether we should teach history based on people's personal unsubstantiated beliefs. Evolution versus Creationism is simply a part of that debate.

Oh for GODS sake, Kevn! So many holes, where do I start?

1. Teaching evolution in school does NOT mean they're also teaching abiogenesis - neither does it ever imply that a creating deity could not have used the very same mechanisms we think were involved with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is NOT evolution, nor is it atheistic. It's a scientific alternative to blind faith.
2. It is not a "statement of faith". That's hollow polemics. It's science - evolution is so extremely well-supported by research and evidence that it's no longer prudent for intelligent educated people to withhold support. We don't know as much about abiogenesis just yet, however I will make you a promise -- when the day comes that we have established a replicable, testable model for how abiogenesis works, it will be through science and not through invisible friends in the sky.
3. In fact, there IS proof already that life can start spontaneously. We've found that silicate crystals can evolve in response to their environment. We've discovered that methane ice (like that found on comets) exposed to UV radiation actually forms cell-like structures. We're discovering a lot of amazing things that show promise, and nobody had to look up one thing in Genesis to figure it out.


Hogwash. Remove faith from the schools, leave it in the hands of individuals where it belongs, and science is free to discover the truth. It has nothing to do with your constant, annoying bogeyman drum-beat of "atheism". NOTHING.


No wonder you have problems with this whole concept, you're seeing it as a binary problem. There is another option, as well, where a Creator would have established the physical laws and conditions that allowed for abiogenesis to occur "hands free". That'd be pretty brilliant, if you ask me, except I don't personally feel the need to add a magical superbeing at the front end to kick things off. Your mileage may vary.


I believe children should be taught facts (such as the FACT of Evolution), but I also believe they should be taught how to think critically. It's how we got to the moon, it's how we'll explore the galaxy, and it's how we'll eventually figure out how life began to happen 5 billion years ago on Earth. Teaching our children magical thinking is not the answer.

This statement, in and of itself, is why religion should never be taught in schools. But the idea that you would apply the same logic to accepted science is both frightening, and offensive.

What "vast amount of actual testable evidence" are you talking about? There is no evidence for abiogenesis, yet it's taught as fact.

Forget about evolutionism/creationism for a minute. I'm talking about origins, not evolutionism. That has to do with how life began as opposed to how life became so diverse.

Who's to say your god didn't set up abiogenesis?

If your faith doesn't match up with scientific discovery, that does not... should not... and will not, prevent science from being taught in school.

As someone above this post mentioned, there have been many tests that show that blasting various chemicals and crystals with UV rays can force them to form bio-materials (stuff you find in cells and basic organisms). There hasn't been any actual experiments that have created a living organism, such as a virus (nothing that was actually done on purpose and observed, anyway), but the large amount of chemical tests and knowledge, as well as tests of effects on materials in early-earth environments (hot, lots of UV rays, lots of CO2) have shown that basic structures needed to create life can and do form. Only step left now is to figure out how they can combine to create a replicating virus organism (the most basic of living forms). And even if that happened by chance, if the chance of life forming was 1 in 6,000,000,000,000, our planet, and our universe, had no doubt 6,000,000,000,000 chances to try. Divide that out and it comes out to 1 in 1.
What evidence can the other side provide to support their teaching of creationism?

The bible... uhm... er... uh... did I say the bible? Oh wait!! I know!! Was it the bible?

There is no evidence for abiogenesis, it's sad you must believe it for faith reasons.

"Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions. … The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life. (Yockey, 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. 336, Cambridge University Press, UK, ISBN 0-521-80293-."

I am not arguing for creationism. I am pointing out there is a faith based orgins teaching being pushed on children.

No, it is not taught as a fact, Kevn. What we CAN surmise with a reasonable expectation of accuracy is that the first self-replicating molecules still had to obey the same physical laws as the progenotes and microbes did millions of years later, and multi-cell animals, trilobytes and mammals did billions of years after that. No magic was required, any more than it's required today.


So why muddle the issue by claiming that the teaching of Evolution in schools means faith is banned and we want all our kids to be atheists?

I'm afraid you're still going to lose this one, too -- the discovery of the actual mechanisms for abiogenesis is ongoing, it's making progress, and the scoreboard to date looks like Science: 10, Religion: 0 simply because science can explain the physical world around us so much better than old superstitions.

Do you even read my posts? I am not talking about evolution. Please try to stay on topic.

That is, in fact, what the entirety of science is. Our belief, or faith if you will, in how things work based on the information we have available to us right now. If something new comes along, science theories change to reflect that fact. science changes constantly to incorporate new ideas, and everything we know right now is just our best educated guesses based only on what is observable to us right at this minute. Heck, even gravity is just a theory. There are definitely enough tests to show that gravity is a constant existing force in our lives, but what causes it, and even whether it is constant, is still just a guess based on our tests. For all we know gravity can be completely different somewhere else (like another universe with it's own set of physics laws). Faith, however, does not change. Faith is, by definition, an infallible belief that something is so. It can't be changed by any new discoveries, otherwise it woulldn't be faith, it'd be either science, or if based on bible related evidence, historical research. Faith requires no prior proof, and resists change. That is what makes faith so dangerous. People burned at the stake because some other people did not like their faith based ideas of the way things are being chalenged. No group of scientists has ever burned anyone else for finding a provable test that put scientific theories in question.

Apparently I read your posts better than you do - or at least take you on your word. You said:


If you were not attempting to lump the teaching of Evolution in with "statement of faith", you should be clearer -- yet even then, it's very difficult to discuss Biology without also exploring current scientific research into the first Evolutionary steps (abiogenesis), and using Evolutionary Theory to explain those steps. You cannot completely divorce the two topics when you're discussing the origins of Life simply because those first cells had to obey the same laws of biology as modern organisms.

Actually, faith is... Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. .. Or.... A set of principles or beliefs.

If you believe in abiogenesis without any logical proof or material evidence, you accept it by faith. Since there is no material evidence for abiogenesis, it's a faith to those who champion it.

Lump Big Bang with Evolution (two different concepts), yet oppose lumping evolution with biogenesis (two very related concepts). Creationists are a difficult bunch.

Try to stay with the context. The point about evolution had nothing at all to do with the statement of faith. I said "that abiogenesis is how life started, then evolution took over to create all these life forms from a single life form." Then again I point out I'm only talking about origins. here... "There is no proof life started with or without a creator." The statement of faith was the first part, and THEN Evolution took over. See the context. Evolution in that sentence has only to do with what happened after the faithful event of abiogenesis.

I've said over and over evolution isn't the point of argument, but you keep avoiding the actual point to try to derail the actual point.

If I had a cake and gave it to someone and said this is chicken, cow and wheat, they wouldn't see it.

Let there be light and the Big Bang sounds very similar.

Just a couple of thoughts. I would flesh them out but I'm at work.