Originally Posted by daewoo

I dont know that there is an official position on this from the catholic church as a whole. I know that the local diocese put out a letter during the whole creationism flap in my state (kansas) basically stating that their position was that the curriculum was just fine without the modifications that the IDers wanted to make. Their position basically boiled down to "Public schools should teach all about evolution and not try to teach about god...and our priests will teach about god and not try to teach evolution..."

Well there is an official position, but not a specific position.

They are going to stick with the neither confirm nor deny because they know that in so far as evolution is an atheist sword it will never cut them; it only cuts people like easyrider who don't realize what faith is, or how incredibly unassailable a dogma is once you free yourself from literal interpretations of every translation.

The official abstract position is most certainly ID, ID is not unscientific; it's problem isn't contradicting evidence it's no evidence and the church figured this one out in the early renaissance when Aquinas declared that only a finite number of truths can be reached by reason, the rest must be held by faith.

If they are refusing to help creationist it's because they see no need to pick a fight, not because they don't believe in fundamentally the same thing.

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Seems our use of the word mainly pertains to the belief in something lacking proof. So what do you call the total lack of regard or plain dismissal of evidence that is in contradiction of your faith? I don't mind faith in that which is unproven, but faith in that which has been proven false and then trying to inject it into schools is where I draw the line.

As far as the discussion on the catholic church, it seems they like to skirt the boundary of fuzzy areas of science and they are allowed to change their stance as science progresses. It's all ok because they have defined their religion in a way as to allow amendments to their official stance. So truth to them is not absolute, it's just whatever the church officials claim at any given time. I think recently the Church announced that belief in extra terrestrials is ok-just in case someone needed to calm their nerves. Or, maybe they fear SETI will have a bit of success.

Originally Posted by Databed

As far as the discussion on the catholic church, it seems they like to skirt the boundary of fuzzy areas of science and they are allowed to change their stance as science progresses. It's all ok because they have defined their religion in a way as to allow amendments to their official stance. So truth to them is not absolute, it's just whatever the church officials claim at any given time. I think recently the Church announced that belief in extra terrestrials is ok-just in case someone needed to calm their nerves. Or, maybe they fear SETI will have a bit of success.

Just as curiosity why would ET damage any religion?

Originally Posted by MrWriteLA

Rick Santorum Urges Teaching Of Creationism In Public Schools (VIDEO)

Bold text in the following is mine.Of course, reality has a well-known liberal bias...

What a maroon!

If public schools are required to teach any religion, then they will be required to teach all of them. Of course this idea of Rick Sanitarium's is just boot licking right-wing rhetoric, the stupidity of which is exactly why the Republicans don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning in 2012 and everybody sees that.

Originally Posted by jet57

If public schools are required to teach any religion, then they will be required to teach all of them. Of course this idea of Rick Sanitarium's is just boot licking right-wing rhetoric, the stupidity of which is exactly why the Republicans don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning in 2012 and everybody sees that.

Creationism is not limited to one religion, it is not religion. To them teaching something without evidence is what evolution is. Do not try to paint it as an attempt to make religion a taught subject.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Creationism is not limited to one religion, it is not religion. To them teaching something without evidence is what evolution is. Do not try to paint it as an attempt to make religion a taught subject.

Did you go to school? Are you still in school? No story of creationism can be taught without attending ideas, theories, or other ascending sets of circumstances behind it. Creationsim is "thought process" that science has yet to find in the zillions of hypothesies advanced since Darwin's writings. Creationism is only expressed through dogmatic orthadox religions and alleged Holy Writings which offer nothing scientifically that can advance such an argument. Creationism perse has nothing of its own upon which any teaching can be advanced. So, Sanitarium's argument that creationism should be taught in public shools is exactly what I and everybody else knows it to be. And; if we're going to do that, then every religion, from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, through Atheism, and Satanism must be included.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Originally Posted by jet57

Did you go to school? Are you still in school? No story of creationism can be taught without attending ideas, theories, or other ascending sets of circumstances behind it. Creationsim is "thought process" that science has yet to find in the zillions of hypothesies advanced since Darwin's writings. Creationism is only expressed through dogmatic orthadox religions and alleged Holy Writings which offer nothing scientifically that can advance such an argument. Creationism perse has nothing of its own upon which any teaching can be advanced. So, Sanitarium's argument that creationism should be taught in public shools is exactly what I and everybody else knows it to be. And; if we're going to do that, then every religion, from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, through Atheism, and Satanism must be included.

Nice try, but no cigar.

The unsupported is not the religious as global warming and evolution prove.

So let's say I'm the teacher, I write "the origins of life" on the board; below it I write "evolution" and "creation". I say either one, or some mix of these two comprise the entire body of hypothesis for the origins of life.

I have mentioned no religions, and no matter which of these you would rather go into, you're running of speculation from there on out.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The unsupported is not the religious as global warming and evolution prove.

So let's say I'm the teacher, I write "the origins of life" on the board; below it I write "evolution" and "creation". I say either one, or some mix of these two comprise the entire body of hypothesis for the origins of life.

I have mentioned no religions, and no matter which of these you would rather go into, you're running of speculation from there on out.

Which do you find more likely, god created humans or aliens from another world created humans?

Originally Posted by Ripskar

6 Bills currently being pushed in the US.
NCSE News / Anti-Evolution Actions Alert | NCSE
The Indiana one seems to be the one that's getting attention at the moment.

Thanks, Ripskar. Outstanding link.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The unsupported is not the religious as global warming and evolution prove.

So let's say I'm the teacher, I write "the origins of life" on the board; below it I write "evolution" and "creation". I say either one, or some mix of these two comprise the entire body of hypothesis for the origins of life.

I have mentioned no religions, and no matter which of these you would rather go into, you're running of speculation from there on out.

But you can't get into creationism without explaining religion: creationism was / is created by religion. So you paint yourself into a corner no matter what you do with it: that's why it's out of schools.

Originally Posted by jet57

But you can't get into creationism without explaining religion: creationism was / is created by religion. So you paint yourself into a corner no matter what you do with it: that's why it's out of schools.

The separation of church and state is a perversion of what the founding fathers practiced. They had the Bible in schools, and they attended church services in the Capitol building up to and even after the civil war. Even Jefferson attended church services in government buildings after he wrote the Danbury letter about the wall of separation.

So it's a perversion of American history to say people can't bring up creationism in school.

Please reword the thread as follows:

Santorum Wants To Control Your Life at the Federal Level

I wouldn't worry too much about teaching creationism in school if Santorum is president...I'd worry about why he wants to bankrupt the country so we can kill all the Muslims in Iran.

Originally Posted by Accipiter

Which do you find more likely, god created humans or aliens from another world created humans?

I don't subscribe to ID except in the most abstract sense (i.e. that intelligence is intrinsic to the universe and probably affected it before us)

Originally Posted by jet57

But you can't get into creationism without explaining religion: creationism was / is created by religion. So you paint yourself into a corner no matter what you do with it: that's why it's out of schools.

Religion is a fact, a hard fact that students will run into in their lives in any given corner of the globe. I think spending class time going over religious doctrine would be more useful then baseless speculation and abstract nature worship which comprises the content of most chapters on evolution.

I think schools should not be public except by finite public mandate, and then follow the guidelines of such charter to the letter. If you're population is 99% Hindu don't claim you have a right to a public school free of Hinduism.

If I were running a school I would cut this uselessness. Students should be there to learn things that are too hard to learn quickly by work experience or hobby. Math, science, writing & communication. The only field which could possibly even relate to 'evolution' would be population dynamics, and you don't need all the mysticism (of course) you just need the mechanism and descent with biased modification could be explained in an hour tops, it was something like two paragraphs in OOS if I remember, a long built up to and a long considered-after two paragraphs but hardly complicated or worthy of serious class time in anything but specialist courses.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Please reword the thread as follows:

Santorum Wants To Control Your Life at the Federal Level

I wouldn't worry too much about teaching creationism in school if Santorum is president...I'd worry about why he wants to bankrupt the country so we can kill all the Muslims in Iran.

Religious war is the new race card it seems.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't subscribe to ID except in the most abstract sense (i.e. that intelligence is intrinsic to the universe and probably affected it before us)

If you are not an IDer and not a creationist then what are you?