Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[Porter Rockwell]

The Christian one since science backs up the Bible. This is the science and technology section, not religion.

Your whole basis is built on sand, james.
The New Testament is the Christian one. The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible. Although I agree with Paul when he spoke about ignoring the Old Testament to his questioners. He said 'if the root dies, can the branch survive?' However, mt point is..what science tells you Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, or about Ishmael's exile? What science proves the sun stood still for Joshua? And then there's the oldest question of all...who did Cain marry out there in the land of Nod? And where's that famous Tower of Babel where in the twinkling of an eye, several languages were created that other groups could not understand?
I love these old tales, and even learned from many of them, but....science?

Saw your problem right away. The Bible does not claim to be about all the humans on the face of the earth. Cain married a pre-Adamite.

 

[Hollie]

For Newtonian and JW believers,

Hope I skimmed over your link correctly...



If not, then there's probably still stuff to discuss as I'm not familiar with all the JW science.

There's a thorough debunking of the charlatan Jonathan Wells here; Icons of Evolution FAQs

Instead of attacking the source, attack the information they provide. Even fools get things correct from time to time.

Attacking the messenger doesn't help you.

It's a little difficult to "attack" a YouTube video which is all the previous poster provided.

In the introduction to his book, Well carries on with statements such as "students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution,". If any of the creationists wish to expand on that, something beyond a YouTube video, I'll be happy to pursue it.

Easy, attack the statement. Provide the proof we do have of evolutionary theory and let them argue those facts.

Gad zukes, man. The fact of biological evolution is simply not in question among the relevant science community. I've presented the data only to be met with YouTube videos from the creationist ministries or reams of bible verses used to prove the Bibles. The creationists believe they are in the process of overthrowing modern biology, anthropology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, oceanography, physics, archaeology, cosmology and every other branch of science that conflicts with the Bible.

 

[ding]

No

 

[james bond]

There's a thorough debunking of the charlatan Jonathan Wells here; Icons of Evolution FAQs

You don't address his points in the video. Did you even watch it? It's the scientific method, so you need to present some real science instead of a biased and wrong website.

 

[westwall]

For Newtonian and JW believers,

Hope I skimmed over your link correctly...



If not, then there's probably still stuff to discuss as I'm not familiar with all the JW science.

There's a thorough debunking of the charlatan Jonathan Wells here; Icons of Evolution FAQs

Instead of attacking the source, attack the information they provide. Even fools get things correct from time to time.

Attacking the messenger doesn't help you.

It's a little difficult to "attack" a YouTube video which is all the previous poster provided.

In the introduction to his book, Well carries on with statements such as "students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution,". If any of the creationists wish to expand on that, something beyond a YouTube video, I'll be happy to pursue it.

Easy, attack the statement. Provide the proof we do have of evolutionary theory and let them argue those facts.

Gad zukes, man. The fact of biological evolution is simply not in question among the relevant science community. I've presented the data only to be met with YouTube videos from the creationist ministries or reams of bible verses used to prove the Bibles. The creationists believe they are in the process of overthrowing modern biology, anthropology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, oceanography, physics, archaeology, cosmology and every other branch of science that conflicts with the Bible.

Extremists are beyond help. Make your posts to the silent viewers. They are the ones seeking knowledge. The extremists are your sounding board.

 

[TNHarley]

Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.

Whose faith, yours, mine, Omar's, Tulsi's, Bernie's, etc.?

Your response is exactly why faith shouldnt be taught.

 

[esalla]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Quack quack

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.

Whose faith, yours, mine, Omar's, Tulsi's, Bernie's, etc.?

Your response is exactly why faith shouldnt be taught.

You couldn't answer the question, as per usual. Come on! You can admit you admit your fucking clueless. We already know that!

 

[TNHarley]

Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.

Whose faith, yours, mine, Omar's, Tulsi's, Bernie's, etc.?

Your response is exactly why faith shouldnt be taught.

You couldn't answer the question, as per usual. Come on! You can admit you admit your fucking clueless. We already know that!

But I did... Lol
No faith, Copernicus. Geezus
Your question was a good example of my opinion because ones faith shouldnt override another.
We should teach fact.
Does your old ass understand now?

 

[Hollie]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.

Whose faith, yours, mine, Omar's, Tulsi's, Bernie's, etc.?

Your response is exactly why faith shouldnt be taught.

You couldn't answer the question, as per usual. Come on! You can admit you admit your fucking clueless. We already know that!

But I did... Lol
No faith, Copernicus. Geezus
Your question was a good example of my opinion because ones faith shouldnt override another.
We should teach fact.
Does your old ass understand now?

Fact? Faith? Which are you blathering about? Make up your mind!

Are you a Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Shinto, Jehovah's Witness, Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, Wiccan, etc.?

Tell us!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "separation of church and state" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.

Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook, New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.

The New England Primer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maybe we should get the feds out of education.

 

[esalla]

Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.

Whose faith, yours, mine, Omar's, Tulsi's, Bernie's, etc.?

Your response is exactly why faith shouldnt be taught.

You couldn't answer the question, as per usual. Come on! You can admit you admit your fucking clueless. We already know that!

Now now be polite

 

[ReinyDays]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...

Let me get this straight ... you want Congress deciding how religion is taught? ...

( ... wait for it ... )

There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the experts teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...

 

[Hollie]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "separation of church and state" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.

Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook, New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.

The New England Primer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maybe we should get the feds out of education.

I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer

The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "separation of church and state" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.

Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook, New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.

The New England Primer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maybe we should get the feds out of education.

I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer

The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.

The interpretations were not made until all the founders /framers died. Fact is, the courts didn't rule that way until 1962 and 1963. And what, exactly, has the difference been?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

 

[Hollie]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "separation of church and state" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.

Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook, New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.

The New England Primer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maybe we should get the feds out of education.

I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer

The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.

The interpretations were not made until all the founders /framers died. Fact is, the courts didn't rule that way until 1962 and 1963. And what, exactly, has the difference been?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

Take a look at Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 1947.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "separation of church and state" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.

Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook, New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.

The New England Primer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maybe we should get the feds out of education.

I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer

The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.

The interpretations were not made until all the founders /framers died. Fact is, the courts didn't rule that way until 1962 and 1963. And what, exactly, has the difference been?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

Take a look at Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 1947.

On what precedents did they decide Everson?

 

[Hollie]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "separation of church and state" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.

Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook, New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.

The New England Primer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maybe we should get the feds out of education.

I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer

The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.

The interpretations were not made until all the founders /framers died. Fact is, the courts didn't rule that way until 1962 and 1963. And what, exactly, has the difference been?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

Take a look at Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 1947.

On what precedents did they decide Everson?

It was enforcement of the Establishment Clause.

 

[james bond]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...

Let me get this straight ... you want Congress deciding how religion is taught? ...

( ... wait for it ... )

There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the experts teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...

Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science. The students will be able to decide for themselves. It's creation vs. evolution. For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017. It can be proven by the scientific method. Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.

No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public. Thus, you are wrong. Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts. It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel. No afterlife.