Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[Hollie]

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.

"Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label. The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

 

[ReinyDays]

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.

Forget the trivial horseshit ... skip straight to explaining the virgin birth, on the cellular level ... something I can test in a lab ...

The RCC can teach creation science anywhere they want to ... except USA public schools ... they can publish books, fund research, teach it at church AND speak it on the streets ...

 

[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?

It was enforcement of the Establishment Clause.

That is not the question I asked you. Let me ask you again:

On what precedent did the Court decide the Everson case?

You're wanting to argue law. I'm willing to argue law with you. It's a simple enough question. By the math provided by you, the law was passed in 1790, but it 157 years later before the United States Supreme Court does some mythical "enforcement" of the Establishment Clause. Let us contrast that with the rest of the Constitution.

In the Constitution, the federal government had ONE area over immigrants - to pass an uniform Rule of Immigration. They did that in six months. On gun control, the courts began ruling on that issue in 1822, saying that the Right was absolute. So, the Bill of Rights became law in 1791. That means that it took 31 years between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the precedent interpreting the Second Amendment. But, it took 157 years to address an issue that affects society's most treasured asset,... its children?

The fact of the matter is, the terminology separation of church and state does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution of the United States. So, I'm asking you on what precedent did the high Court rely on in arriving at its decision? I'm sure you are aware of the fact that our system is based on the Anglo system of jurisprudence. As such, you also know that the English common law is used to interpret our laws. All of that relies on stare decisis (a big fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.) When interpreting the law, the courts look to the customs of the people to establish a precedent. You might want to brush up on the history of education in America:

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As you can see, the courts had ample opportunity and reason to bring up this "Establishment Clause," so on what precedent did the court rely on in making their decision?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

"Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label. The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

And yet real scientists disagree with you:

 

[ReinyDays]

"In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...

How do we test this in a lab? ...

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...

How do we test this in a lab? ...

This is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. Nonbelievers are still stuck with coming up with an ultimate origination point for the elements they say evolved into what we have today. You simply cannot get something from nothing.

 

[ReinyDays]

This is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. Nonbelievers are still stuck with coming up with an ultimate origination point for the elements they say evolved into what we have today. You simply cannot get something from nothing.

That's why scientific theories, including evolution, are written in pencil ... as we learn new things, we can change the theory ... this is acceptable scientific method ...

I believe in Creation ... but I don't treat as science ... there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that requires me to treat Creation as science ... the main failure is that science requires that what we study be observable, be measurable and be able to repeat ... who was available to observe the Creation? ... the beast of the fields and Man was created days later ... how are we measuring Creation? ... what objective scale do we use for miracles? ...

Finally, the Creation was a unique event ... the Bible doesn't say God created a heaven and an earth and found it to be bad, destroyed it all and created a new heaven and earth and just kept trying until He found a Heaven and Earth that was good ... there's no reason to believe Creation can be repeated ...

Again I ask ... what experiment can we conduct to demonstrate the virgin birth? ...

 

[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.

That is not the question I asked you. Let me ask you again:

On what precedent did the Court decide the Everson case?

You're wanting to argue law. I'm willing to argue law with you. It's a simple enough question. By the math provided by you, the law was passed in 1790, but it 157 years later before the United States Supreme Court does some mythical "enforcement" of the Establishment Clause. Let us contrast that with the rest of the Constitution.

In the Constitution, the federal government had ONE area over immigrants - to pass an uniform Rule of Immigration. They did that in six months. On gun control, the courts began ruling on that issue in 1822, saying that the Right was absolute. So, the Bill of Rights became law in 1791. That means that it took 31 years between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the precedent interpreting the Second Amendment. But, it took 157 years to address an issue that affects society's most treasured asset,... its children?

The fact of the matter is, the terminology separation of church and state does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution of the United States. So, I'm asking you on what precedent did the high Court rely on in arriving at its decision? I'm sure you are aware of the fact that our system is based on the Anglo system of jurisprudence. As such, you also know that the English common law is used to interpret our laws. All of that relies on stare decisis (a big fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.) When interpreting the law, the courts look to the customs of the people to establish a precedent. You might want to brush up on the history of education in America:

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As you can see, the courts had ample opportunity and reason to bring up this "Establishment Clause," so on what precedent did the court rely on in making their decision?

I think you will find the Establishment Clause was a part of Article One of the Constitution so your claim it not being a part of the Constitution is, odd.

 

[Hollie]

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.

"Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label. The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

And yet real scientists disagree with you:

Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.

Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

This is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. Nonbelievers are still stuck with coming up with an ultimate origination point for the elements they say evolved into what we have today. You simply cannot get something from nothing.

That's why scientific theories, including evolution, are written in pencil ... as we learn new things, we can change the theory ... this is acceptable scientific method ...

I believe in Creation ... but I don't treat as science ... there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that requires me to treat Creation as science ... the main failure is that science requires that what we study be observable, be measurable and be able to repeat ... who was available to observe the Creation? ... the beast of the fields and Man was created days later ... how are we measuring Creation? ... what objective scale do we use for miracles? ...

Finally, the Creation was a unique event ... the Bible doesn't say God created a heaven and an earth and found it to be bad, destroyed it all and created a new heaven and earth and just kept trying until He found a Heaven and Earth that was good ... there's no reason to believe Creation can be repeated ...

Again I ask ... what experiment can we conduct to demonstrate the virgin birth? ...

The answer is, you use the same experiment that proves you can get something from nothing.

 

[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?

It was enforcement of the Establishment Clause.

That is not the question I asked you. Let me ask you again:

On what precedent did the Court decide the Everson case?

You're wanting to argue law. I'm willing to argue law with you. It's a simple enough question. By the math provided by you, the law was passed in 1790, but it 157 years later before the United States Supreme Court does some mythical "enforcement" of the Establishment Clause. Let us contrast that with the rest of the Constitution.

In the Constitution, the federal government had ONE area over immigrants - to pass an uniform Rule of Immigration. They did that in six months. On gun control, the courts began ruling on that issue in 1822, saying that the Right was absolute. So, the Bill of Rights became law in 1791. That means that it took 31 years between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the precedent interpreting the Second Amendment. But, it took 157 years to address an issue that affects society's most treasured asset,... its children?

The fact of the matter is, the terminology separation of church and state does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution of the United States. So, I'm asking you on what precedent did the high Court rely on in arriving at its decision? I'm sure you are aware of the fact that our system is based on the Anglo system of jurisprudence. As such, you also know that the English common law is used to interpret our laws. All of that relies on stare decisis (a big fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.) When interpreting the law, the courts look to the customs of the people to establish a precedent. You might want to brush up on the history of education in America:

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As you can see, the courts had ample opportunity and reason to bring up this "Establishment Clause," so on what precedent did the court rely on in making their decision?

I think you will find the Establishment Clause was a part of Article One of the Constitution so your claim it not being a part of the Constitution is, odd.

Where have I claimed anything of the sort? I'm asking you to tell me on what precedent the court came to the conclusion that we could not teach creation in a public school, especially considering that Thomas Jefferson was promising the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would never interfere in with the education of children. I'm still looking for that part of the Constitution giving the federal government any jurisdiction in education. I'll settle for that. If you really don't know what precedent was used in the Everson case, a simple I don't know will suffice. If you don't know how we arrived at that point, you don't know.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

"Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label. The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

And yet real scientists disagree with you:

Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.

Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?

Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation. Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist. As for any "cult," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S. so I don't know. I didn't join anything to learn the material. Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?

 

[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.

That is not the question I asked you. Let me ask you again:

On what precedent did the Court decide the Everson case?

You're wanting to argue law. I'm willing to argue law with you. It's a simple enough question. By the math provided by you, the law was passed in 1790, but it 157 years later before the United States Supreme Court does some mythical "enforcement" of the Establishment Clause. Let us contrast that with the rest of the Constitution.

In the Constitution, the federal government had ONE area over immigrants - to pass an uniform Rule of Immigration. They did that in six months. On gun control, the courts began ruling on that issue in 1822, saying that the Right was absolute. So, the Bill of Rights became law in 1791. That means that it took 31 years between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the precedent interpreting the Second Amendment. But, it took 157 years to address an issue that affects society's most treasured asset,... its children?

The fact of the matter is, the terminology separation of church and state does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution of the United States. So, I'm asking you on what precedent did the high Court rely on in arriving at its decision? I'm sure you are aware of the fact that our system is based on the Anglo system of jurisprudence. As such, you also know that the English common law is used to interpret our laws. All of that relies on stare decisis (a big fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.) When interpreting the law, the courts look to the customs of the people to establish a precedent. You might want to brush up on the history of education in America:

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As you can see, the courts had ample opportunity and reason to bring up this "Establishment Clause," so on what precedent did the court rely on in making their decision?

I think you will find the Establishment Clause was a part of Article One of the Constitution so your claim it not being a part of the Constitution is, odd.

Where have I claimed anything of the sort? I'm asking you to tell me on what precedent the court came to the conclusion that we could not teach creation in a public school, especially considering that Thomas Jefferson was promising the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would never interfere in with the education of children. I'm still looking for that part of the Constitution giving the federal government any jurisdiction in education. I'll settle for that. If you really don't know what precedent was used in the Everson case, a simple I don't know will suffice. If you don't know how we arrived at that point, you don't know.

Why do you think Constitutional law needs a precedent?

 

[Hollie]

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.

"Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label. The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

And yet real scientists disagree with you:

Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.

Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?

Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation. Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist. As for any "cult," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S. so I don't know. I didn't join anything to learn the material. Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?

If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.

What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?

 

[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?

It was enforcement of the Establishment Clause.

That is not the question I asked you. Let me ask you again:

On what precedent did the Court decide the Everson case?

You're wanting to argue law. I'm willing to argue law with you. It's a simple enough question. By the math provided by you, the law was passed in 1790, but it 157 years later before the United States Supreme Court does some mythical "enforcement" of the Establishment Clause. Let us contrast that with the rest of the Constitution.

In the Constitution, the federal government had ONE area over immigrants - to pass an uniform Rule of Immigration. They did that in six months. On gun control, the courts began ruling on that issue in 1822, saying that the Right was absolute. So, the Bill of Rights became law in 1791. That means that it took 31 years between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the precedent interpreting the Second Amendment. But, it took 157 years to address an issue that affects society's most treasured asset,... its children?

The fact of the matter is, the terminology separation of church and state does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution of the United States. So, I'm asking you on what precedent did the high Court rely on in arriving at its decision? I'm sure you are aware of the fact that our system is based on the Anglo system of jurisprudence. As such, you also know that the English common law is used to interpret our laws. All of that relies on stare decisis (a big fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.) When interpreting the law, the courts look to the customs of the people to establish a precedent. You might want to brush up on the history of education in America:

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As you can see, the courts had ample opportunity and reason to bring up this "Establishment Clause," so on what precedent did the court rely on in making their decision?

I think you will find the Establishment Clause was a part of Article One of the Constitution so your claim it not being a part of the Constitution is, odd.

Where have I claimed anything of the sort? I'm asking you to tell me on what precedent the court came to the conclusion that we could not teach creation in a public school, especially considering that Thomas Jefferson was promising the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would never interfere in with the education of children. I'm still looking for that part of the Constitution giving the federal government any jurisdiction in education. I'll settle for that. If you really don't know what precedent was used in the Everson case, a simple I don't know will suffice. If you don't know how we arrived at that point, you don't know.

Why do you think Constitutional law needs a precedent?

It is the way our system was set up. The courts are empowered to interpret the Constitution consistent with the way the founders / framers intended; then consistent with our customs so that each person is treated the same (if they fine you $50 for spitting on the sidewalk and charge me $10 for the same offense) it wouldn't be fair or equitable - nor just, and it was intended to force the courts to treat all cases with the same outcome. Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

In the instant case, I know the answer. The answer is, there was NO precedent. Instead, the Justices relied on the words of Thomas Jefferson in a private letter. In law, a private letter has no standing authority. It is wholly irrelevant to the law. Secondary to that, Jefferson's letter meant exactly 180 degrees opposite of what Jefferson stated in that letter. That court ruling was controversial and divisive when it was written and it remains so today. Not all laws are constitutional nor right. Many people here would raise holy Hell if we reminded them that the laws in the United States upheld racial segregation. It's true albeit unpopular. The point there is that even the courts fail to follow the law in every instance. And that is relevant for another reason.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

"Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label. The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

And yet real scientists disagree with you:

Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.

Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?

Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation. Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist. As for any "cult," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S. so I don't know. I didn't join anything to learn the material. Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?

If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.

What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?

That is very dishonest. I don't know what "peer reviewed journals" Lisle has submitted to. The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist? That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views.

Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields. His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies. And so he went out on his own. Soon, the Rockefellers were back in. Bourlag made significant progress despite having been negatively reviewed by his peers. That is my answer to the value of your question.

 

[Hollie]

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.

"Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label. The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

And yet real scientists disagree with you:

Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.

Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?

Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation. Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist. As for any "cult," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S. so I don't know. I didn't join anything to learn the material. Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?

If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.

What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?

That is very dishonest. I don't know what "peer reviewed journals" Lisle has submitted to. The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist? That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views.

Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields. His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies. And so he went out on his own. Soon, the Rockefellers were back in. Bourlag made significant progress despite having been negatively reviewed by his peers. That is my answer to the value of your question.

There’s nothing dishonest about asking if Jason Lisle has submitted any work for peer review. It’s a completely fair question given his association with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith”. Such a condition presumes one is not going to be honest in any objective evaluation of the data and has a predefined conclusion. Such an objective is purely theological, not scientific.

Religious dogma does not gain currency in any scientific field merely because a creation ministry finds a “scientist” to promote the dogma. We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse. My preference for objectivity and ethics is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits a priori religious commitment.

A ”clique group” is hardly the correct label for the National Academy of Science, for example. Secondly, what is or is not science has nothing to do with personal biases and religious belief. For an idea to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication, and peer review.

The member of a creation menistry who simply proposes ideas that are intended to conform with the Bibles, without any supporting evidence, reasoning or testing is at best a crackpot, at worst a charlatan.

So, help us understand which of these Jason Lisle claims to be.

 

[gtopa1]

Science can never explain God. That is why Faith is so important.

Greg

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

"Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label. The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

And yet real scientists disagree with you:

Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.

Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?

Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation. Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist. As for any "cult," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S. so I don't know. I didn't join anything to learn the material. Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?

If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.

What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?

That is very dishonest. I don't know what "peer reviewed journals" Lisle has submitted to. The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist? That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views.

Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields. His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies. And so he went out on his own. Soon, the Rockefellers were back in. Bourlag made significant progress despite having been negatively reviewed by his peers. That is my answer to the value of your question.

There’s nothing dishonest about asking if Jason Lisle has submitted any work for peer review. It’s a completely fair question given his association with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith”. Such a condition presumes one is not going to be honest in any objective evaluation of the data and has a predefined conclusion. Such an objective is purely theological, not scientific.

Religious dogma does not gain currency in any scientific field merely because a creation ministry finds a “scientist” to promote the dogma. We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse. My preference for objectivity and ethics is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits a priori religious commitment.

A ”clique group” is hardly the correct label for the National Academy of Science, for example. Secondly, what is or is not science has nothing to do with personal biases and religious belief. For an idea to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication, and peer review.

The member of a creation menistry who simply proposes ideas that are intended to conform with the Bibles, without any supporting evidence, reasoning or testing is at best a crackpot, at worst a charlatan.

So, help us understand which of these Jason Lisle claims to be.

Quite the joker you are. You simply do not want to recognize Lisle as being a scientist. You're scared. I get that. The National Academy of Science is just a clique group with a fancy name that has told more than one scientist that their work was "junk science" only to be proven wrong. In 1870 the National Academy of Science agreed with the proposition that there are specific races of mankind. Today, those who advocate that race is a "social construct" are not called out by those same scientists that found differences in races.

Profiling Humans from their Voice

This book is about recent research in the area of profiling humans from their voice, which seeks to deduce and describe the speaker's entire persona and their surroundings from voice alone. It covers several key aspects of this technology, describing how the human voice is unique in its ability...

books.google.com

See entry # 101

 

[Hollie]

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.

"Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label. The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

And yet real scientists disagree with you:

Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.

Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?

Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation. Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist. As for any "cult," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S. so I don't know. I didn't join anything to learn the material. Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?

If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.

What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?

That is very dishonest. I don't know what "peer reviewed journals" Lisle has submitted to. The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist? That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views.

Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields. His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies. And so he went out on his own. Soon, the Rockefellers were back in. Bourlag made significant progress despite having been negatively reviewed by his peers. That is my answer to the value of your question.

There’s nothing dishonest about asking if Jason Lisle has submitted any work for peer review. It’s a completely fair question given his association with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith”. Such a condition presumes one is not going to be honest in any objective evaluation of the data and has a predefined conclusion. Such an objective is purely theological, not scientific.

Religious dogma does not gain currency in any scientific field merely because a creation ministry finds a “scientist” to promote the dogma. We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse. My preference for objectivity and ethics is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits a priori religious commitment.

A ”clique group” is hardly the correct label for the National Academy of Science, for example. Secondly, what is or is not science has nothing to do with personal biases and religious belief. For an idea to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication, and peer review.

The member of a creation menistry who simply proposes ideas that are intended to conform with the Bibles, without any supporting evidence, reasoning or testing is at best a crackpot, at worst a charlatan.

So, help us understand which of these Jason Lisle claims to be.

Quite the joker you are. You simply do not want to recognize Lisle as being a scientist. You're scared. I get that. The National Academy of Science is just a clique group with a fancy name that has told more than one scientist that their work was "junk science" only to be proven wrong. In 1870 the National Academy of Science agreed with the proposition that there are specific races of mankind. Today, those who advocate that race is a "social construct" are not called out by those same scientists that found differences in races.

Profiling Humans from their Voice

This book is about recent research in the area of profiling humans from their voice, which seeks to deduce and describe the speaker's entire persona and their surroundings from voice alone. It covers several key aspects of this technology, describing how the human voice is unique in its ability...

books.google.com

See entry # 101

Lisle being a scientist doesn’t assume he is ethical. Being associated with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith” assures he is not ethical. I understand your revulsion for those who don’t unthinkingly accept your religious beliefs as true are categorized as “just a clique group with a fancy name…” but let’s be honest and admit that organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and similar organizations are the entities that further research. What actual research is done by the ICR?

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

The gods will punish those in the National Academy of Sciences for what happened in 1870. Hey, wasn't 1870 the time period after the civil war when those god-fearing Baptists lost their slaves?