• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation Science House Bill 3826

Skwim

Veteran Member
.

"Some state legislators try to push Creationism into science classrooms by using coded language. For example, they say they want schools to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of various scientific ideas. But South Carolina Republican Reps. Dwight A. Loftis and James Mikell “Mike” Burns never got that memo.

They’re the sponsors of House Bill 3826, which would inject “Creation science” into an elective comparative religions class.

In addition to the provisions of item (1), a school district may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science as part of the course content. The course would have to be “neutral, objective, and balanced”… except for the part where the Christian creation myth is forced into the curriculum. The same bill would also force schools to put “In God We Trust” signs in the building. Because, at this point, why the hell not? The National Center for Science Education notes that the Creationism clause would undoubtedly violate the law:

The teaching of creation science in the public schools was ruled to be unconstitutional — a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause — by a federal court in McLean v. Arkansas (1982) and by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)."​
source

.​
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
.

"Some state legislators try to push Creationism into science classrooms by using coded language. For example, they say they want schools to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of various scientific ideas. But South Carolina Republican Reps. Dwight A. Loftis and James Mikell “Mike” Burns never got that memo.

They’re the sponsors of House Bill 3826, which would inject “Creation science” into an elective comparative religions class.

In addition to the provisions of item (1), a school district may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science as part of the course content. The course would have to be “neutral, objective, and balanced”… except for the part where the Christian creation myth is forced into the curriculum. The same bill would also force schools to put “In God We Trust” signs in the building. Because, at this point, why the hell not? The National Center for Science Education notes that the Creationism clause would undoubtedly violate the law:

The teaching of creation science in the public schools was ruled to be unconstitutional — a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause — by a federal court in McLean v. Arkansas (1982) and by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)."​
source

.​
Please tell me it's not the Ken Ham type of creation 'science'.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
.

"Some state legislators try to push Creationism into science classrooms by using coded language. For example, they say they want schools to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of various scientific ideas. But South Carolina Republican Reps. Dwight A. Loftis and James Mikell “Mike” Burns never got that memo.

They’re the sponsors of House Bill 3826, which would inject “Creation science” into an elective comparative religions class.

In addition to the provisions of item (1), a school district may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science as part of the course content. The course would have to be “neutral, objective, and balanced”… except for the part where the Christian creation myth is forced into the curriculum. The same bill would also force schools to put “In God We Trust” signs in the building. Because, at this point, why the hell not? The National Center for Science Education notes that the Creationism clause would undoubtedly violate the law:

The teaching of creation science in the public schools was ruled to be unconstitutional — a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause — by a federal court in McLean v. Arkansas (1982) and by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)."​
source

.​

I spent over 30 years in that culture, and being out of it is like not banging my head on an anvil any more.
 
.

"Some state legislators try to push Creationism into science classrooms by using coded language. For example, they say they want schools to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of various scientific ideas. But South Carolina Republican Reps. Dwight A. Loftis and James Mikell “Mike” Burns never got that memo.

They’re the sponsors of House Bill 3826, which would inject “Creation science” into an elective comparative religions class.

In addition to the provisions of item (1), a school district may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science as part of the course content. The course would have to be “neutral, objective, and balanced”… except for the part where the Christian creation myth is forced into the curriculum. The same bill would also force schools to put “In God We Trust” signs in the building. Because, at this point, why the hell not? The National Center for Science Education notes that the Creationism clause would undoubtedly violate the law:

The teaching of creation science in the public schools was ruled to be unconstitutional — a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause — by a federal court in McLean v. Arkansas (1982) and by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)."​
source

.​

Why should evolution be taught but not intelligent design? Intelligent Design is a stronger theory then the naturalistic materialism.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
.

"Some state legislators try to push Creationism into science classrooms by using coded language. For example, they say they want schools to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of various scientific ideas. But South Carolina Republican Reps. Dwight A. Loftis and James Mikell “Mike” Burns never got that memo.

They’re the sponsors of House Bill 3826, which would inject “Creation science” into an elective comparative religions class.

In addition to the provisions of item (1), a school district may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science as part of the course content. The course would have to be “neutral, objective, and balanced”… except for the part where the Christian creation myth is forced into the curriculum. The same bill would also force schools to put “In God We Trust” signs in the building. Because, at this point, why the hell not? The National Center for Science Education notes that the Creationism clause would undoubtedly violate the law:

The teaching of creation science in the public schools was ruled to be unconstitutional — a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause — by a federal court in McLean v. Arkansas (1982) and by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)."​
source

.​

In a comparative religion class they should also refer to the religious assumptions of naturalism and Darwinism to be complete

In every other academic pursuit studying a variety of the significant views is considered good educaiton so of course one should go 'where the evidence leads' and not exclude creationary views
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
In a comparative religion class they should also refer to the religious assumptions of naturalism and Darwinism to be complete

In every other academic pursuit studying a variety of the significant views is considered good educaiton so of course one should go 'where the evidence leads' and not exclude creationary views
And what "religious assumptions" would those be?

Creationists should never use the word "assumption" since they never can support that claim.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Why should evolution be taught but not intelligent design? Intelligent Design is a stronger theory then the naturalistic materialism.


Often Christian thought, just isn't. Well thought out that is. Having spent over 30 years in the Christian "cult", I've seen them make broad harsh judgements on very little data, and to be really uncompassionate about it. It is far easier to condemn than to helpfully counsel.

As to explaining our very long history, the Bible just doesn't and to say it does is just ingenuous. It would be fun if Trex existed when the ancients did, but...No.
 
Often Christian thought, just isn't. Well thought out that is. Having spent over 30 years in the Christian "cult", I've seen them make broad harsh judgements on very little data, and to be really uncompassionate about it. It is far easier to condemn than to helpfully counsel.

As to explaining our very long history, the Bible just doesn't and to say it does is just ingenuous. It would be fun if Trex existed when the ancients did, but...No.

The data for design is overwhelming.
 
ID can not legitimately even be called theory.

Not only is it a ligitamate theory, its a better one then the alternatives. The problem is the politics in science, certain people having unrational bias who are in power making the rules.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Why should evolution be taught but not intelligent design? Intelligent Design is a stronger theory then the naturalistic materialism.
Have you not read about Kitzmiller v Dover.

You should do, as a matter of urgency, it's even on YouTube

 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Why should evolution be taught but not intelligent design?
For one thing, evolution is taught in science classes because it's grounded in science, and ID is not science by any stretch of the word (It's a religious belief that some have tried to disguise and promote as science), so it doesn't qualify for inclusion.

Intelligent Design is a stronger theory then the naturalistic materialism.
First of all, as has been pointed out, ID (creationism in disguise) is not a theory. Secondly, neither is naturalistic materialism. Naturalistic materialism is a world view. A system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws, and that the so-called supernatural does not exist, or at least, does not impinge on the workings of the natural world.


.

.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
Have you not read about Kitzmiller v Dover.

You should do, as a matter of urgency, it's even on YouTube

Thanks for posting the video. I saw it some time ago, and just watched it again. It really points up the duplicity of the creationist movement, but having seen this kind of unreasoned defense of Christian belief before, it's not surprising.

.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
The data for design is overwhelming.
No question that design appears in nature

4945854c2eedb88ffe2c1465062ef6ae--radial-balance-in-nature.jpg
images
upload_2019-2-8_12-49-14.jpeg


But it certainly doesn't suggest a need for a designer.

.
 
Last edited:
For one thing, evolution is taught in science classes because it's grounded in science,

When you say grounded in science, do you mean its grounded in reality or grounded in acceptance by the mainstream of science?

and ID is not science by any stretch of the word (It's a religious belief that some have tried to disguise and promote as science), so it doesn't qualify for inclusion.

And why do you say ID is not science but religion? But spontaneous abiogenesis is science and not religion?

First of all, as has been pointed out, ID (creationism in disguise) is not a theory.

And how did you determine that?

Secondly, neither is naturalistic materialism. Naturalistic materialism is a world view. A system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws, and that the so-called supernatural does not exist, or at least, does not impinge on the workings of the natural world.

Ok, now you just confused me. First you said evolution is grounded in science, now you say naturalistic materialism is not a theory (or science)?

What do you mean?
 
No question that design appears in nature



But it certainly don't suggest a need for a designer.

.

Heres an exerpt from this article > Treasures of snow - creation.com

"But crystals are nothing like a living cell. Formed by the withdrawal of heat from water, they are dead structures that contain no more information than is in their component parts, the water molecules. Life forms, on the other hand, came into existence, evolutionists believe, through the addition of heat energy to some postulated primordial soup. Not only are these processes very different, but life requires the emergence of new information (a code) in order to take over the functions of organization and reproduction of a cell. There is therefore no analogy between snow crystals and the far, far greater complexity of living organisms."

As far as the snail and the flower go, they have DNA, the dreaded code of information that is your BIGGEST nightmare come true, lol.
 
Top