Separation of Church and State...education

I say let the money follow the kids wherever they want to take it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...hurch-and-state/ar-AARwguk?ocid=msedgntp

Would that include home schooling?

people against parents being allowed to choose which school their kids tax funding goes, dont want to see public schools improve. keep kids dumb. easier to control them when they become adults. no more shop classes, no more home ec, no more civics. no history. no more teaching of american exceptionalism or patriotism. instead teach them america was created by evil men who should be scorned today along with their ideas of individual liberty and responsibility for ones own welfare.

Good question.

In this state it's the teachers union that controls the money.

Tax dollars that I pay should not pay for religious education. If that is what you wish you pay for it. Separation of church and state. My dollars should not be given to a religion I do not support or agree with.

The founding document reads separation of the state from the church but as are so many other things in the "Law," when you get human thirst for power and greed coming from the state, it goes sideways or backwards.

Our Founding Fathers fled the corrupt British state-church union and some of my ancestors were on those early ships landing in MA. The Puritans sought to return to the faith's orthodoxy by forging a new nation and what a vision they had! We are here because of them. And the Anabaptists were the most vocal, battling the Anglican endorsed Kings (and Queens) of England and vice versa, but they too would flee the corruption in England and come to the new America.

I suspect that given today's politic environment in WDC, set apart from religious sponsorship as it is in the 21st century America, many on this forum woulda already got in their canoes and paddled for another vacant land if there was one available.
There isn't.

So now we all get to choose the alter upon which we kneel first and foremost.
Loyalty is the theme of epic movies many of us enjoy!
A recent survey said that Apple has the highest brand loyalty of any company in history at 92%.
None other like it.
There is more loyalty to an iPhone than there is to a nation, or the God who is sovereign over all things.
That's interesting.

I hope those kind of people don't sit on the nation's high bench.

They don't teach history in school much anymore so those of us who enjoy history realize we are doomed to repeat it.

Blessings,
Mark

Ok, so the first thing flowing from the pens of our Founding Fathers, was NOT separation of church and state. That is a liberal, progressive cattle call picked up from 1879 SCOTUS language of "separation of church and state," in a ruling that same year on the 1st Amendment.

Here's the passage which is meant to KEEP the government restricted (OFF THE BACK AND NECK) from church affairs;

1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

See how it's wordsmithed by our Founders to KEEP government at bay?
They had seen the power grab of the Imperials in England as the greatest nation on earth at that time and the Founders didn't want to relive that nightmare.
So here we are today, clamoring as a people for "rights!" and "Freedoms!" from the government.
It won't end well.
Because power always takes power from others.

They want to teach critical race theory, the ramping up of state power, in schools now
The state often bypasses the 1st amendment.
May God help our nation.

Blessings,
Mark

I don't want my tax dollars given to an ideology or religion (secular humanism) I do not support or agree with either.
You fail to realize that is happening now.

Seems to me some definition of terms is needed.

Exactly what do you (plural) oppose ?

Do you oppose public monies going to religious schools simply because they are religious schools or do you oppose the use of public monies for religious purposes ?

Funny i dont support the religion of climant change, science that claim there are more than two genders, or leftist teachers pushing all their views onto my kids. Are you ok with that?

There is nothing stoping gays to start a school or any other group and they would get the same benifits. The diffrence is now the left control the syatem and want to keep controll of the indoctrination and distruction of America. This will help keep Amarica alive.

I think our Wisconsin Parents association would say they would rather it did not.

when you invite the devil's money you invite the devil.

they fought long and hard to make sure we only need to fill out very specific lines on the WPI Wisconsin department of Instruction's form

https://www.homeschooling-wpa.org/faqs/when-and-how-to-file-the-pi-1206/

Your dollars? What about the dollars of the individuals sending their kids to private school?

You are absolutely right, the tax dollars should go to the parents and they should be allowed to educate their children where they want, public, private or home schooling.

Thats fine and dandy as long as atheism is considered a religion .

Bear Tracker;
Have you had a chance to reconsider or clarify your statement?
Maybe we should give BT a chance to reply before piling on anymore.

Teacher Union should be removed. I get so sick of hearing teachers need more money. They knew what it paid when they went to school for it. Now want to (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) when you need a 2ed job.

We need to lower taxes and only pay tax on necessary items. Leave more money in the hands of the people. End of story.

Taxes to support schools are theoretically levied so we will have an educated society. Here it's property taxes. The percentage of my property taxes earmarked for schools wouldn't come close to covering tuition at a private school. Sorry kids--public school for you. Fortunately, ours is pretty good.

The solution is to improve public schools. They need improving.

This case is nonetheless interesting. I wonder how folks would feel if the Plaintiff was a Muslim wanting money for tuition at the madrasa.

Blaine; James.

From the article.

“Religious schools can and do advance their own religion to the exclusion of all others, discriminate in both the teachers they employ and the students they admit, and teach religious views inimical to what is taught in public schools."

My question. If in fact some 'religious' schools teach views that are "inimical" to what is taught is public school...............How is that illegal or how does it harm a pubic school ?

Couldn't the religious schools turn that same argument around ? Public schools teach views that are inimical to those taught in sectarian schools.


What if certain religious teachings overlap with secular goals ?

X2

Yes, there is overlap and yes there is conflict.

What examples are you thinking of in your questions?

I was thinking about something like Catholic or Lutheran social services. Both receive state and federal funding to promote social welfare (adoption, immigration) goals while those same "virtues" are promoted by their religious convictions. I have no doubt that similar things can be found in a school setting.

Make no mistake. The power of the purse has been the biggest hammer by which our American government has implemented initiatives.
How the government does what it does, can't be argued. That's perfectly clear.
They dangle $$$$ and the other party dances to the tune.
The question for our society is....
what tune are they playing?

The tentacles of the state run deeper than we could imagine because the money amount is off the charts high.

There is no separation of church and state. Only a Constitutional amendment that says the government can't choose one religion as the "official" one and can't prevent you from practicing the one you want to practice.

I think public dollars allocated for education should be portable and parents should be able to choose the school of their choice including religious and private schools. The government needs some competition. The private sector always does a better job at a lower cost than government does.

That money shouldn't go for the operation of churches so it gets to be a little fuzzy with religious schools. Maybe, some accounting demarcation needs to be in place to prevent school money from going into the operational expenses of churches, only to the operational expenses of the private schools - even if they are religious schools.

Some religious schools teach Creationism as science. That should be unacceptable for education programs deserving of public funding.

Jim

If they win it would include that group as well would it not?

We homeschool and i don't want their money or the strings that would come with it.

Why? Because YOU don't believe it?

If we don't like what our public schools are teaching, show up to school board meetings and elections. If you really have a problem with something, run for the school board and debate your points in public.


I would prefer if there is no religion in school other than some type of religious studies type class in HS that would cover many different religions in an objective manner. Leave teaching of faith to the kids' families.

Some public schools teach men can have babies as science. That should be unacceptable for education programs deserving of public funding.

Public funding for public schools is more vote. If you have an issue with your local public school you can change it. You can run for school board, volunteer, or pull your kids and send them somewhere else on your dime. I think getting involved is more important than pulling them out.

I don’t want tax money going with kids to schools that have no curriculum oversight. Creationism isn’t taught in public school science classes because it has no scientific evidence. It’s a purely religious belief. Just like men having babies isn’t taught either as it’s silly. You can always find a jerk in every bunch. Teachers are no different for sure but most I know are pretty stand up folks. Don’t let a few ruin it for the bunch. Education starts with parents. Your kids won’t fall for craziness if you raise them right. Focusing on your local school is important for the whole community. Get involved.

Happy winter all!

Hypothetical situation. We all live in the same town and we all pay taxes. I'd we are all paying taxes, why should some qualify for the money and some don't just based on where we send our kids to school?

No, but because there's a big, envious, competitive world out there. We have to educate our young people in science, not pseudo-science or religion, in order for our graduates to compete.

Creationism belongs in religious instruction, not science class.

Jim

James, private schools do teach science too.

My daughter went to a religious Christian school. I know what they teach.

They told her--in biology class, no less--that evolution was false.

If they're teaching creationism, what about the Japanese Shinto belief that a god and goddess created the earth?

Jim

I went to a private school. A catholic one and I'm not even catholic. My biology and advanced biology teacher was a nun. We were taught about evolution in that class. I guess all religious schools are not the same.

If you don't think kids in some public school systems are being taught that "men" can have babies, you are sadly sheltered.

Why don't you enlighten us with proof?

Jim

First of all, various philosophers like Oppenheimer and Whitehead have written authoritatively on the subject that Judea-Christianity provided the worldview that gave birth to modern science. Ancient cultures of Egypt, Greek, Chinese, Persia and others had advanced cultures but their polytheism and lack of interest in science was never sustained over centuries as it has been for thousands of years with Christianity >>>> and thus knowledge of a Creator spawned the framework for modern science.

Creationism, the belief in Creation by an Intelligent Being has been embraced by religious AND non-religious people alike, as researchers learn more. The vastness of 15 B lightyears at one end down to the now discovered "quark," has led respected secular researchers to submit this 7 point "Problems with Theories of Natural Selection," at recent science gatherings.
1. An infinite statistical probability that it occurred.
2. Intellegibility of the Universe: the universe seems designed for comprehension
3. 2d Law of Thermodynamics: In a closed system, everything returns to the minimal level of complexity and activity.
4. Complete lack of Transitional Evidence - specie to specie
5. Irreducible Biological Complexities: there appear to be thousands of complex biological systems now discovered, that could not have evolved due to necessity for mutually interlocking system reliance. One can't evolve without the other
6. DNA Information Coding: Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell" has assessed the impossibility of DNA coding mutation evolving to current levels now discovered.
7. Human Uniqueness: reason and thought are exclusive to one species only, including capacities for love, music and other activities not of an evolutionary basis

Darwinism has lost its shine and Darwin's "Black Box" has been announced but not answered by the major evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, etc..... "What do we do when the empirical evidence AND materialistic philosophy are going in different directions?" This is a question to Dawkins at a national science symposia (most all secularist) and he did not comment.

Darwinism, like the ever growing environmental "science" is more thesis and philosophy than anything.
As a scientist myself, I abhor what science has become..... shut up and sit down meetings.

Blessings,
Mark

Mark, are you in favor of teaching creationism in schools?

If so, which creation myth should be taught? The Shinto one?

Your argument against evolution--which I don't accept, btw--does not lead to the conclusion that the Christian creation story is the true one. If evolution is a completely inaccurate theory--which it's not--the Christian belief is no more or less true because of it.

Jim

James,
I would suppose we could give various views, especially since there are about 4 or 5 views on this topic.
Come to think about it.... why do they teach where humans come from in school?
I'd say toss the subject all together.
It wasn't a subject in school until 70 years after Darwin and the rise of the progressive secularists.... who by the way are STILL plopping crap in front of young brains.

Ditch the whole subject?
My 2 cents.

Blessings,
Mark

I am not rethinking my statement though not as well explained as what I posted should have been. The education system in general needs revamping. Funding schools through property taxes as in WI is an antiquated method. One issue I read people saying with schools is they do not teach what they believe. What is believed is not what I feel should be taught in public schools. Students should be taught to inquire and look for truth, think (which scares many), and problem solve. No I do not believe in many of the current items being taught in schools and do not feel my tax dollars should go to fund education in religious beliefs I do not share.
If you are unhappy with anything going on in schools you can take action, run for office, etc. Unfortunate more do not.

....cause I was thinking, I have an undergrad and graduate level degree in Biology and I can't think of a benefit to me of the unchallenged darwinism that was taught to me during the 70's and 80's.
None.
Except, believe what we teach and don't talk back.

I fudged a thesis project at the insistence of my grad university department to graduate that was involved for three years with transmutability of invertebrates so don't get me started on the purity of all science.

It's bogus.

1. Says who? Have you never heard of lies, dam lies, and statistics? Statistics are easily manipulated to support foregone conclusions.

2. The universe seems "designed" for comprehension? What other kind of universe could we exist in?

3. More detail and relevance is required for a response.

4. There's plenty of "transitional" evidence--plenty of fossil evidence and now DNA evidence of the heritage of modern species ("specie" is not singular of "species"; "specie" refers to precious metals) in ancient animals. Morphological evidence, like vestigial four limbs on whales. And so on. Including early humans.

5. Don't know what evidence you're relying on for your "appears to be" argument.

6. Haven't read that book.

7. Human uniqueness does not prove the existence of a creator. Only that we are the first known species to evolve advanced intelligence and self-awareness.

These and more arguments against evolution and natural selection are refuted by various SCIENCE-based websites.

Jim

I went to public school and both the big bang and creationism were covered in Biology... I believe it was 9th grade.

James, why would a Christian school teach Shintoism? I wouldn't expect a Shinto school to teach Christianity. You're just being silly. I would have no problem with a person of the Shinto faith using their tax allotment to send their kids to a Shinto based school if that's what they believe in.

Thanks BT, I agree entirely.
Teach kids how to think, not what to think.
The problem is that once someone gets into a position of power/authority (Dog catcher, Mayor, Teacher) they want to tell people what to do.
We need to remain vigilante regardless of our beliefs.

"I can't think of a benefit to me of the unchallenged darwinism that was taught to me during the 70's and 80's."

Could be that's because you don't work at developing vaccines or in other fields of biology, unless I miss my guess.

Jim

I don't want my tax dollars going to support the teaching of Christianity, Shintoism, or any other religion.

Religious instruction belongs in the home by believing parents. Or if you want to send your kids to a special, private school, you can pay the expenses yourself.

Jim

James, you are not current on this topic sir. I listed the topics submitted by Hugh Ross, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Richards, John Lennox, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Douglas Axe, Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Peter Ward, Donald Brown-Lee, Sir John Eccles (Noble Prize), Daniel Robinson and a BOAT LOAD MORE folks! I'm up on this topic and these physicists, philosophers, (scientists all) are not dumb people. They are 21st century scientists questioning Darwin's 1850's thesis.

You don't think science has "evolved" in 170 years!!???

As an athiest or agnostic or whatever you choose to call yourself that doesn't surprise me. But I don't think that's what the SCOTUS is going to say in this case.

I think I'll say, as you and many others say on this site when questioned for your proof, do your own research.

There is more science being done now-a-days to prove the pre-approved philosophical conclusion....
rather then a quest for new knowledge.
You want that promotion?
You want to stay employed?
You want those grant dollars?
All right then....
here's what you'll prove.

Kinda like the jab mandates.
You want that promotion?
You want to stay employed?
You want that paycheck?
All right then....
Do as we say.

Same diff.

The whole of the scientific community has changed in my 60 years.

The dollars are too big and the status is too appealing, so the big guys tell the little guys what to seek, what to find, and why they will reach that conclusion.

Your scientists are a minority of actual scientists who accept evolution theory as mostly, if incompletely, accurate.

It's true I haven't read your evolution-denial books and papers. I doubt you have read many recent (subsequent to discovery of DNA proof) pro-evolution books. If you want to try one, there is Richard Dawkins's The Ancestor's Tale. Yes, I know Dawkins is a well-known atheist, but he only touches on his theistic beliefs on two pages of the book, which you can easily skip if you like. The rest is strict science. And he refutes your seven points, though not necessarily in the same order.

Jim

BandB, you are the one who made the dubious claim that some public schools teach that men can have babies. You have the burden of coming forth with at least something to support that claim.

Jim

Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky and Stephen Hawking's are on my read list James. You don't know me and this subject.
I've studied it for 50 years.

I'm telling you, Richard Dawkins is the equivalent in my mind to a $$$$$$ hound.
No more. Darwin rehashed for the cash.
I won't follow his atheist faith.

I don't hold that the diversity of creation was a happenstance and I am not descended from a monkey.

If there is a creator, who created him?

Serious question.

Tax money should only support religious schools of the tax payer wants. I see no issue with that, otherwise they shouldn’t.

No matter whether you like it or not, your ancestry includes monkey-like species from about thirty million years ago and chimpanzee-like animals from eight million years ago. Chimps and humans have nearly identical DNA, btw.

When your Creator was busy creating the myriad of species (99 percent of which are now extinct), did he run out of ideas for the DNA to include?

Never mind the monkeys; the recent DNA evidence shows that our ancestors included sponges.

Jim

James is right, we share way more DNA with a chimp than a lion shares with your house cat.

I'm not arguing against the existence of a Creator. But if there is a Creator, the evidence shows that He used evolution as the method for creating the myriad of species that have existed on earth.

I don't understand why some Christians work so hard at denying evolution.

Jim

I don't hold to that faith.
But I do embrace the freedom for all to place faith where they want to.

Again I ask, why teach where humans come from in school?

Because evolution is part of science, and as you should know, an essential underpinning for modern biology.

Jim

[video:youtube]https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/l...nd-religion-as-alternative-explanations/[/video]



There has been very loud and prominent voices, some of whom are Dawkins country-mates that you might enjoy James. Lennox as a mathematician from Oxford is only one example.

James there are other scenarios that you aren't considering, and the "creation scientists" who aren't really scientists, are missing other possibilities as well.

I don't know if it is true, but I have heard that us humans also share 85% of the DNA of beef cattle. Why should it surprise anyone that all primates (including humans) share very similar DNA. However, there is a huge difference between humans and chimps. We are created in God's image. Not His physical image (we share that with chimps) but we share in His spiritual image. We are three dimensional (body, consciousness, and spirit) animals are two dimensional (body and consciousness).

This goes back to a question I asked a number of months ago in another thread. If God created man in his own image, he can’t look like the modern human since there was an evolution of the way the first humans looked like thousands of years ago and they were not pretty.

Image does not mean physical likeness.

Great debate but the whole issue being presented to the court is there is not a public school available but the state won't allow the free choice of private schools that are available.

As for the debate teach it all, in a fair open unbiased way. Was another story out today where a liberal teacher in a current affairs type of class got fired for answering questions. Now i don't agree with how he was teaching ie one sided arguments but it was an elective and every student should have been given a letter at the start of the class for parents to read and sign saying this class will cover lots of topics from both sides and just about any current issue could be covered. I would have enjoyed a class to actually learn something about different religions not what to believe but what and how they believe and came to be.

Personally i think until today's students can actually pass grade level reading, writing and arithmetic we should hold off on the rest of the subjects.

For those of you that say taxes should not go to private or religious schools, i expect full support that my taxes shouldn't be wasted on sports, music or art classes.

Totally different topic, but great point. I find it ludicrous that some schools have graduation rates of less than 50% and those that do graduate can barely spell let alone put together a cohesive sentence, and yet those same schools offer arts, music and sports classes. I don't think any student should be eligible for sports, music, or art unless they're maintaining at least a B average. Classes like that should be an earned reward, not a requirement.

Yotetrapper,
I think its all tied together as those that can't stand the thought of tax dollars being spent at a religious school and them teaching their beliefs, i can't stand the thought of my tax dollars being spent to promote values that i don't agree with or the opinions of the ultra liberal left being forced down students throats. School choice should be for everyone there fore creating competition even among public scools to get students. I have actually had school administrators tell me its about dollars and funding not about education. Its a broken system. I would have driven my kids to any school in town and i did when it became available just so they could be part of FFA. As i thought it would give them more then drama or video game production that was offered at the local school. There is only 2 schools that even offer a small engine or auto class here.
Again i appreciate your comment

The three R's are long gone and they ain't coming back.

i would like see parents choose a school and where the tax dollars go. competition is a good thing. kids will make their own choices. usually thats to follow in the faith their parents teach them.

we dont know the origin of life. people just choose a belief anyway


i worry more about the lack of history and civics, the idea being taught that the men who created this country were evil and nothing they did was good. they are being taught that the indians would have been better off left in the stone age without livestock and africans left on their continent without the wheel.

i would choose a school that taught the truth as we know it. the origin of life is a mystery and will be for awhile yet. nobody is perfect and we learn as we go. with great freedom comes great responsibility, including the responsibility to care for yourself and your family. people deserve to be equal under the law

As an aside, and to give ourselves a collective pat on the back, I'd like to say how much I enjoy civil, intelligent discussions like this one.

Jim

Come now. You'd deprive Alabama of at least half its recruits.

Jim

We share about 90% of our genetic code with with house cats, 40-60% with a banana. You and I share 99.9%. Where was the leap made?

If you sat through junior high and high school science classes in a Christian school it would be a shocking eye-opener for you. You'd be left wondering why you had never heard about all this stuff before, and why is it being hidden from the mainstream. It would undermine everything you think you know. Probably wouldn't change your mind, because that would be way toooo scary for you.

What's being taught in public schools today is not science, it is the religion of neo-Darwinism. And it has just as much or more basis in faith than what's being taught in Christian schools, it's just not faith in the same things.

Neo-Darwinism on the way, as the world is, to the religion of climate.
You see, the running away from truth to false truth, continues.
Kill unborn humans.... save unborn owls.
Peter Sanger's philosophy emanates from Darwin and so his Neo-Darwinism of "animal rights" (it's how PETA started) affects trappers,
although who would know because we're not taught any of this in school.
Do trappers realize we are vehemently opposed by Peter Sanger's philosophy built on evolutionary theory from Darwin? PETA is cloaked in this philosophy.
Or that Hitler was a devout Darwinist?
Oh the list is long of those who have used the evolutionary banner to puke their ilk and sprout their seedlings.

Danny is correct. The liberalists (philosophically) have gained control, and have had it now for a century, and are leading people towards things which are not scientific in fact, just a religion of a philosophy.
But who cares, right?
Kids are placed in 8-3 classrooms.
Mommies and daddies can live for the weekend.
And all is headed to where Carl Trueman, in his newer book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, outlines;
".... Freud sees cultures as defined by that which they forbid. specifically those sexual activities and relationships they prohibit. From this perspective, then, the triumph of the erotic, with its comprehensive rejection of traditional sexual codes, marks the death of traditional cutlure and the advent of the anticulture.... it embodies the death of the 1st and 2nd worlds, built on sacred order, and the rise of a 3rd world, built on rejection of any sacred order whatsoever. It is not a 3rd world build on the 1st or 2nd world: they repudiate them and demolish them."

Sound like what we see in our nation and around the world?
Yep.

The progressives have announced a full-scale, unapologetic attack on the moral framework that binds us as humans. We believers say that emanates not from us.... but from God.
Atheists, with no answers to the big questions of life, such as why are we here or how did we get here, deem a God obsolete and they teach our children and grandchildren the faith of today: immorality and how to rebuke any authority: God, parents, nation, police, teachers.... all of it. As Trueman well states.... they "repudiate us and aim to demolish us."

Evil has no limits, so we are told.

Oh, and James, most orthodox Christians don't discount science.
I personally am "labeled" as an "Integrationist" meaning: I integrate the authority of science and all it has marvelously discovered - with Scripture (which doesn't tell us everything ) which is the higher authority because God created science and scientists.

Blessings,
Mark

My daughter went to a religious Christian school. I know what they teach.

They told her--in biology class, no less--that evolution was false.


And just how do you know it is not false?

Not wanting to implying any disagreement yt, rather the opposite!

I went to private school, elementary and high school; taught the three R's and religion and science. In high school was taught evolution, biology, chemistry, physics and world religions in addition to history, civics, art, music and my faith. What that taught me was not be afraid to ask the why or why not questions. To be independent, to seek my own answers, to develop my own thoughts based on the available evidence and to be able to reevaluate as new information becomes available and be able to say my thinking was previously in error based on new information. And most importantly to accept that mine is not the only view in the world.

Somewhere along the line people have loss that ability. Its easier to accept what is spoon fed by education, political, government and the media systems. No opposing view points allowed! Micro views based on written words and whomever or whatever interprets them and can promote them the loudest. Society is lossing its' ability to accept the we are all different. We are becoming a society of "it's my way or the highway". Unfortunately, being unique, there are way too many of the 'my ways'.

Economic bondage drives what is now considered acceptable to the masses. So I ask, why should public schools be the only institutions financed by tax dollars? Why should state universities receive tax dollars. Both private and public education are regulated to the same curriculum standards. If private schools offer additional views how is that not beneficial to the individual. To those that offer the argument that MY tax dollars shouldn't pay for religion, read the previous two sentences over again. If you're still of your opinion, you have that right, and I have and will continue to defend that right; but I then ask you this, why should individuals that don't believe as you, support any institutional system that doesn't support their beliefs? What is good for the goose, should also be good for the gander.

Just my thoughts, maybe they may cause more questions than answers or maybe a few will
have a moment of pause. Maybe read what our US constitution says word for word?

I am Catholic--kind of lapsed, but trending towards going back. I am in the process of reading the Bible cover to cover. I studied science in college and deal with it most days.

If a child in 2021 learns creationism as written in the Bible in lieu of science, that child will be greatly under-educated. The Bible is not a science book.

I would argue that evolutionary theory is not, and never has been, an essential underpinning for modern biology because it cannot answer core questions related to life on the planet. It just picks up in midstream and says.... it/these evolved. From where? And Why? Evolutionary theory has become entrenched because the atheists who've led the charge say it is so. There's no discounting it all of course but to label Darwinism and the Neo-Darwinism (can't speak against this one!) as impeccable, undeniable truth in a universe 15 B light years across is absurd. That's propaganda, not science.
I predict the global climate "science" we see in the 21st century will be jettisoned much as Darwinism was. Not by the researchers themselves (Darwin had MANY doubts) but by those who come after them.

This climate "science" will be labeled truth 100 years from now in much the same manner..... by bullies. Not by investigative science. Bullies, with placards, and titles, and grant moneys don't like investigative science. Once their work is published, they spend a career defending it.
Welcome to the wide world of modern science James.
I've been a part at many levels, and have many pals in the biz still, and while there are MANY great researchers among us... they are hamstrung by a modern system that takes no prisoners. Literally and figuratively.

Our "modern" pandemic displays brilliantly the go along to get along... or else.... environment for our researcher scientists.

Blessings,
Mark

I don't see why, as Scott said his did, Christian and Public schools don't just teach both. After all, both are just theories, not fact, and must be taken on faith. Throw both theories out there and let people make up their own minds.

I doubt that our forefathers were just singling out "education" when they were referencing separation of church and state. We seem to always revert back to education or public education as the place where we want to land on this.

Bryce

The problem with religion in school is religion. How many different christian faiths are there? Parents need to choose what their kids are taught. IMO the best place for a kid to learn mom and dads religion is from mom and dad anyway.

I have met a lot of christians who get all twisted up over lack of prayer in public schools. When you get ten of them together I can guarantee in five minutes I can have them arguing about what to pray for and what should be taught.

Then there is abortion. Its a horrible thing and should be illegal. Until their 14 year old daughter gets knocked up at summer bible retreat. Then its all hush hush and sneak her way for her own abortion. All those tens of thousands of abortions are primarily school age girls that are being raised in christian homes. Mom and dad refusing to believe their daughter is human and WILL get itchy. So they just tell her to be a good girl and pray without giving her any real strategies to cope with her blooming sexuality.

I would not have a problem with religious doctrine being offered in public school so long as it isnt mandatory. Don't forget there are many religions. Including budhism, islam, judaism, hindu's and more. Who gets to decide which faith is going to be taught?

Are you seriously contending that evolution theory is invalid because it can't answer all the questions? Evolution theory doesn't purport to answer the from where and why questions. It partially answers the how question. That's all.

I think that's where we're stuck, you and I. You're used to the Bible containing all the answers, and see evolution as a competitor to the Bible. It's not.

Belief in evolution is consistent with belief in the existence of a God.

Jim

Well Danny you lost me here.

Personally I'm all for school vouchers.

yes i got a little irritated. i get that way when religious doctrine is presented as conclusive truth

Why get irritated if there is no God?

Interesting how the pantheists pronounce that evil is the opposite of good and absolutely necessary for the balance of all karma,
but that doesn't seem to irritate people like a good old Gospel message.

That's called the anthological apologetic argument for the existence of God.
People who literally DO NOT want to hear about it.
If it all doesn't matter and we are all just blobs on a continuum headed to nowhere anyway... you live and then you die.... then why care what someone believes or doesn't believe?
Why is it irritating?
In a survival of the fittest model, the atheist has a hard time answering these questions, such as "why be irritated?"

So who's irritated?

I can't think of a question more important than the existence of God.

Jim

Despite only accounting for 13% of the population, blacks make up 33.6% of abortions. 38.7% are white.

U.S. women who obtained abortions in 2018
(according to Centers for Disease Control)
White: 38.7%; 6.3 abortions per 1000 women; 110 abortions per live births
Black: 33.6%; 21.2 abortions per 1000 women; 335 abortions per live births
Hispanic: 20%; 10.9 abortions per 1000 women; 158 abortions per live births
Other: 7.7%; 11.9 abortions per 1000 women; 213 abortions per live births



The highest percentage of abortions are obtained by people professing no religion. But, if you group in the protestants, evangelicals and catholics together, it comes up to 54% so sadly Danny is right in that most abortions are obtained by people who at least claim to be religious. Not surprisingly, out of the Christians, R.Cs top the list.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/656640/abortion-distribution-united-states-by-religion/

James,
I'm not sure you read my posts without your prejudice being added. You're a J.D., so you know what prejudice is. I didn't type what you say I typed?

Anyway, the more I read your posts, the more I believe that the Spirit is in fact at work in you. Why? Because, you seem convicted over things that the human nature since Adam doesn't pause or blink at. Yet, you do. You seek. You are convicted.
I think God has you in spite of yourself.... but the flesh does hate the Spirit. (Gal 5:17)

Blessings,
Mark

Juvenile Delinquent ?

There was no such thing as public education as we know it today when our Constitution was drafted. The literate population were mostly taught from primers with a heavy Christian bent to them.

My how times have changed including the things people are proud of.

This is an amazingly long list of exactly what should not be taught in a science class. It took me a long time to look into some of the claims. Just because we don’t understand something completely, doesn’t mean we can make up reasons or causes, and it’s no surprise that clergymen helped develop our scientific method. They were often the most educated folks before the enlightenment.

Best Wishes

bhugo,
Good morning. How's Flint, where I was born, holding up these days?

Education began centuries ago with summas (questions seeking answers) in newly built universities with teachers and their protégées seeking to think critically (earnestly) about certain topics. Science and theology and math and philosophy and art and music and many more. This "Renaissance" beginning in around 1300 sought to answer great questions as they emerged from a millennia of great upheaval on earth and these nations now forming from the tribal/feudal systems could get on with the business of great human achievement. On into the Enlightenment that era went... on into our continuum of time called the post-modern era by historians.

Humans have created many incredible things. Humans will no doubt continue to create many things.
But the basic questions of life, humans cannot answer.
Philosophers and mathematicians and scientists as a whole agree as a majority that the questions of "Why am I here, and Where did I come from?" are the most basic in life.
Our national education leaders have decided that there is one answer (evolution) and they will not allow any other way of thinking.
There are about 4 or 5 major theories as to how the world began and what does it hurt in school, where summas (questions seeking answers) are tossed out and students wrangle around and use their noodles to figure stuff out?
Oh wait, critical thinking and questions and seeking are old school. I mean, as in, not the way we do it anymore.
So, in many subjects, teachers teach one way. Write it down. Move on.

You see, when philosophy becomes the major science behind all the other subjects, we become like the Greeks.... a people incredibly smart with all sorts of coliseums and festivals but with a moral compass that was their undoing. The Romans conquered the Greeks because the immorality rotted the Greeks from within and made them an easy target. Their immorality eclipsed even their great philosophers and their great parthenons in the end, but they were useful for a time.... until they were conquered.

We''ll see what history has in store for our Nation, but some of us argue for those things which founded our nation, as the culture more and more calls these things obsolete.....
Please allow us the freedom to be old fashioned and to be heard.
As we become a nation built more and more on mandates and the immoral.

Blessings,
Mark

And then I click on my morning news feed and as if on cue....
"NEA board member says that one group of people (not allowable to discuss here) should die or be shot."
These are the people deciding curriculums in our public schools in case people forget that.
Wow.
And my vote is she, like her pals, are not healthy people at many deep levels.

https://www.breitbart.com/education...cinated-religious-exemption-deserve-die/

Not healthy is a real understatement.

Jim

Good morning! I am quite south of Flint in reality. Flint is like many manufacturing cities…slowly shrinking with bright spots and much blight…. Sad really.

Natural Philosophers were quite prominent in the understanding of our world until they were slowly replaced with empirical reasoning. One can still ponder the basic questions of life that you mentioned. Empirical reasoning needs evidence and has never dismissed said questions by calling evolution the answer to the questions. Evolution as it has become to be understood today, is simply the best explanation of how organisms change over time based on evidence. Anyone using it in any other manner is simply wrong. It just doesn’t require a supreme being to occur.

Climate study is another arena in science. People tend to use it politically on both sides and that is wrong, but climate science is what it is. Just because we do or don’t want to accept it’s findings, doesn’t make it less accepted or valid.

Trying to inject a belief into an empirical system will never work. If that’s the goal, it belongs in a philosophy class.

Regards

I saw someone say that our tax dollars are paying for another religion that is being taught in school, secular humanism. And that person could not be any more CORRECT. Atheists like to claim that they hold the scientific standpoint and that religion and science are opposites, but that simply isn't true... Ask an atheist how something can come from nothing and the answer is always, "I don't know." Ask an atheist how evolution is possible without the discovery of ANY transitional fossils, "I don't know, but it just took a long time, too long for us to see or understand!" I'm a Christian and I fully understand there are questions that we cannot answer, but there are many questions atheists can't answer too, leading to my main point that atheism is simply another belief/worldview. Funny how our tax dollars teach kids one specific possibility for the origins of the universe rather encouraging critical thinking with multiple. Either way, we ought to home-school our kids and stop giving them up to the government to indoctrinate them.

bhugo,,
I grew up south of Flint. Fenton area. Went to Lake Fenton class of 1975. Undergrad and grad studies at U of M. Go BLUE!
Empiric evidence is worthwhile but we shouldn't make the claim that experientalism - by its own definition imperfect (even Dawkins recognizes this) - is the end all, be all.
Some of us argue that humans should humbly acknowledge all of our human knowledge ALWAYS remembering we are finite.

My view is not to try and sway others, because I believe in the sanctity of life and the diversity of God's purpose in His creation of us.
My view, like many theologians is to advocate for individual freedom.
But we now live in an ever increasing intolerant world including our dear America, where individual freedoms are pronounced by the intolerant (especially since Marx) as being grounded in theism and because of this fact.... must be abolished.
These people advocate ONLY for the collective and for "My way or the highway." Case in point >>>>> the NEA board member.

I ask, doesn't an intolerance for another's view show weakness in your own position?
Even the most noted atheist on the planet at present, Richard Dawkins, even makes room for opposing views.

Blessings,
Mark

Amen.

x2

I’m in that same area Mark. Wonderful place to live. I’m a Spartan! I did my graduate work at U of M though. I can say GO BLUE and GO SPARTY! Lol

Empirical reasoning is the basis for science, not empirical evidence. It’s quite different. Breaking away from the natural philosopher has created a process that self corrects the more we study nature. Evidence is just part of the explanation. Some things cannot be explained by science yet. That’s not a frailty but a strength to acknowledge. Science may never be able to answer many of the basic questions about life, but it shouldn’t stop scientists from trying.

Not accepting other viewpoints that are not based on empirical reasoning is not intolerance, it’s what separates science from philosophy or religious studies. It is what has driven science since the 1600 and 1700s. Just using logical reasoning was the standard up until then for the most part. It led to terribly flawed theories and was immensely hard to stop. It wasn’t until science started using empirical reasoning that we saw the problems with the old ways. Ignorance of inertia, the phlogiston theory and many of the horrible medical cures that did more harm than good are examples. People still have trouble separating the 2 ideas. It should not be offensive to anyone as long as they recognize the drawbacks of science and philosophy, but people do feel offended I guess. I’m sure that’s a matter of perspective.

Regards

Also, the nea is a union. They don’t have anything to do with curriculum. There are jerks in every group. Curriculum is determined by state board of education. They are elected or appointed depending on the state.

bhugo,
As a Sparty, you have my condolences. And I wonder how old you are? Your assessment that empirical reason is not tethered to empirical evidence being the driver of the science cart has me thinking, huh? Do you think reasoning lands on a plate and then isn't scooped up spoon by spoon as evidence? Of course it is. Reason is the evidence to many today. It's called humanism and it promotes that humanity, in and of itself, is sufficient to solve all inequities, injustices, disunity, and of course scientific questions.

Of course some things can't be explained "yet," (convenient but you can't take this answer too far), but you sound like a humanist whose "faith" is that the human reason can solve all things. I am in the camp that says NOPE to given enough time and resources, humanity will "itself" figure it out. As a scientist, I say we are fearfully and wonderfully made, but we ain't that wonderfully made. Impossible. The more science discovers about all things the longer the odds become in fact.

So the student at a school, who leaves Mr. Smith's biology class and who learns of the survival of the fittest, who then wanders down the hall to Mrs. Andrews class, to hear about all things not being equal but that they should be, is in a scientific and philosophical pickle. Who is right? Which teacher should they listen to? One? Both? You see, both these teachers cannot be correct. Survival of the fittest at its core, is unequal. Yet, this is the protocol of "truth" in our academia. Yet, it can't be true.
But try and say so, in a time of the collective mantra that somehow tells me and us that unity begins with giving (by force if necessary) those at the top of the power food-chain (the state) what I have so that they can disseminate it to others. I like the Christian tenet in that, but they kicked God to the curb, so now it's just plain Karl Marx at work thank you... no thanks.

And are you suggesting philosophy is not involved in science? What? Of course it is. At every human brain level. The same as philosophy is involved at every level of theology. Once I read the text in the Bible, my brain enters a psychological realm of philosophical context to rationalize what I am reading. Reading: Observation..... Interpretation: Philosophy.
So, yes science and theology are both intertwined with philosophy! I bring a context to my work based on my background and experience and so do you. There are no silos here at all. Unless you can figure how the cortex parses incoming stimulus differently when it can't.

And of course the NEA is a union. Do you actually think the union board members have no input into the curriculums?
I strongly disagree.
Of course they do.
It's called power and money.

I appreciate your comments.
Blessings,
Mark

empirical means to be observable. Most of evolution and science dealing with the genesis of man and creation is anything but empirical

I agree that evolution is entirely un-observable. It's literally shot in the dark by the atheists to explain away their conscious so they have no moral accountability. If you were created then you have moral accountability, if you evolved then you are matter in motion, fizzing bags of protoplasm, with no creator to be held morally accountable. Which leads back to the fact that secular/evolutionary thought is just another worldview that people need to think twice about before submitting their tax dollars for it to be taught.

Well the argument has devolved (or evolved?) into a lot of assigning thoughts and redefining words. Lol.

Philosophy and religion is part of everyone of course. But that doesn’t mean it has to be part of an explanation in science. Nor do personal beliefs have to be nullified by an explanation.

Empirical means verifiable without theory or pure logic. It could be observed, measured indirectly or noted through other senses. We don’t see atoms, but we understand they exist and can measure them indirectly.

Empirical reasoning by a scientist means that the theories are based on whatever evidence we have. It also should suggest or imply something to test to see if their theories are valid. This is what theoretical scientists do. They often have to wait for technology or the experimental scientists to catch up. There can be many competing theories until they find ways to verify any of them. Then the process of elimination starts. Once the evidence supports a theory or model, it has to be refined and tested further. It’s never perfect, just the best explanation and constantly gets better the more it is researched. This is how models/explanations are built.

Natural philosophers use logic to reason through the mysteries of the natural world. Usually without providing/suggesting a method of testing their explanations. Many of the Greek philosophers fall into that category. They could be right or they could be wrong. They might base their theories on observation or measurements, but rarely would they suggest ways to test the theories. That was the issue. Science cannot be just a thinking exercise, it has to be empirically tested at some point. It’s not common sense, nature works the way it works, not necessarily the way we think it would. Is God in charge of how nature works? Well if you believe that, then science is mapping out how God is running the show. At least what he lets us figure out anyhow.

The enlightenment was a period of time when science became a process that relied on empirical reasoning instead of logic. It was the beginning of the scientific process and modern day science, which can be defined in many ways, but will always utilize empirical reasoning. The Catholic church took great offense to this as many discoveries went against many of their current ideas and it took divine influence out of explanations. Scientists were killed or jailed when they refused to recant their findings even though they were devoted church members. Many religious folks still have a hard time with it. I guess it’s inevitable some may take offense to it in that respect.

BTW, evolution is easily observed. You can observe it with anything that has a tiny lifespan because it happens faster. Viruses are perfect. Covid is evolving in front of us. The different variants are just the mutations that are more “fit” to spread. More people infected means more possibilities for mutations. Sooner or later, sooner the more people get infected, one of the mutations is advantageous and it’s offspring have an advantage. The other mutations die out if they offer no advantage and you don’t hear about them. The new variant takes over. That is a perfect example of how evolution and survival of the fittest works and is being observed and mapped in real time.

Much has been made about survival of the fittest. If is used to show how mutations that are advantageous help something survive in its environment over the course of generations. I would be much less inclined to use it to explain social justice. That would be out of context for sure. I guess we have to use some logic to fight through seemingly conflicting ideas.

bhugo,
I appreciate your comments and you seemed to have studied this area at some depth.
There's a major science and theology conference here in Fort Worth, TX and there will be many well know names at it from both the secular and religious spheres so when some accuse Christians of being opposed to science, they are not accurate. At all.

First, the very definition of science, that which is observable, repeatable, and measurable... used by German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (1800's), Father to modern atheism and theologian to Marx himself... argued it's not possible to "prove" God, thus God can't exist. He says God is a projection of ourselves, our values and our desires. It's not by accident that Marxism is the scourge of the earth as he studied under a man (Feuerbach) who did not equate human equity at any measure. In fact, the opposite.
Well, with that same definition, and remember I'm a grad level (2 degrees) academic, "facts" such as the Big Bang theory, and evolution cannot be stated as undebatable fact. Why? Because neither fits the very definition science has set as its "truth" bar. Neither is observable, repeatable, and measurable. (philosophy isn't measurement no matter how many times someone says it).

There has certainly been progressive in species in creation but there is also many instances of spontaneous mutability without progression. Boom, it just occurs in a species (there are numerous examples), so to say survival of the fittest is how we all (creation) got here is much too simplistic. And the big stickler, is that while the graph from the soup to the ape looks good and is catchy, there has NEVER been any species discovered that connects those dots... called interspecies transmutability. Within a species, yes. Species to species, never. I studied it in college in the 1970-80's. None then. None now 50 years later. Huh? You have to have a species mutate to evolve beyond a certain point and the Covid mutations are an example as you mention.... BUT, Covid has not become another virus.... it's still Covid, and you need it to become another "thing" for the first down sticks to move. Hint: it never will because Covid is Covid and it can transmute 1000 times but it's still Covid, not Influenza as an example.

I despise science that is its own religion because it stands in the way of scientific truth. That's the scientist + theologian in me. God is moving the progress of his creation down the tracks as He wills, and I watch humanists declare themselves bigger than their theory allows, and for this humanity is poorer.

Good comments.
Blessings,
Mark

I like you Mark, you know your stuff, God bless

I'm just old, been around the mulberry bush, and enjoy catching dogs and cats.
And I know the enemy is the father of lies, a deceiver, and delights in human disposition or acts contrary to God, so I'm kinda like SunTzu.... know the enemy, know the terrain.

Blessings,
Mark

Well, I can’t argue with that. I do however respect you all and your thoughts. I also have used Mark’s lures to good effect. You are an excellent maker. I’m sure you are a quality clergyman as well.

Be well, all.

Well played hand bhugo. Hey, please represent the 'ol neighborhood well my friend!
And thanks for using our products! Tuition is steep here at DTS, one of the few remaining bastions of conservative theology left in America, where we learn all 66 Protestant books, because God's story is meant for us to know Him, because none of us can love who we do not know.

Man-o-man, I miss good old Lake Fenton. I grew up in Margaret Drive on the west side of Lake Fenton. Caught my first rats and mink as a 10 year old on that lake and caught my first red fox on Shore Acres golf course in 1969. I can still remember those muskrats from 1967, many moons ago.

Worked for a fur buyer named Bud Stewart also. He was a character. I skinned rats after high school and learned a great deal on fur prep in his shop.
My o-my the memories!

Blessings,
Mark