Separation of Church and State

[Sonart]

.

So you people say that science only teaches facts? That sure is what you're putting across. You see, evolution is just a theory. Get it? Theory. Intelligent design is a theory.

'Fraid not, Ninja. 'Theory' as used in evolution refers to this...

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Gravity is just a theory too. We don't know exactly how it works or what causes it, but we know it's real and is varifiable every time we test it. Evolution is testable and is constantly being varified.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is only a 'Hypothesis'...

"A conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: "This idea is only a hypothesis".

There's not a shred of evidence for ID, it cannot be tested and cannot be used to make predictions. It's simply something one either believes or doesn't.

Get it?

.

[Lullaby Chainer]

I believe that we are simply by the majority of our poulation is.

How shallow.

I believe it was founded on Judea/Christian beliefs and laws, but the founders believed and created a system that allowed for each generation to control it's own destiny and government.

Is the Constitution based on Christian doctrine? Does this mean that the United States is a Christian nation? According to the popular argument, if the document, which founded the United States, is Christian in nature, the government itself must also be Christian in nature. Therefore, Christians have the right to inject their doctrine in the United States government. This argument seems reasonable, logical, and sound, but it is highly doubtful that the Constitution embodies Christian doctrine for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is no statement in the Constitution that singles out Christianity over any other religion. The laws described in the Constitution fit the description of many religious doctrines. There is no reason to assume Christian doctrine is more suitable to match the descriptions of the Constitution than other religions. If one were to examine Christian doctrine from the present to as far back as the Old Testament, one may conclude that Christianity is actually an inferior candidate in matching the description of the Constitution in comparison to other belief systems such as Buddhism. The Ten Commandments is also not embodied in the Constitution in any meaningful way. In fact, the first two commandments are in contradiction to the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom. At the time the document was written, many writers criticized the Constitution for showing a disregard and indifference towards religion. It may seem odd that the Constitution is so secular, given the time it was written, unless you uncover the facts about the founding fathers that wrote the document. Many may have you to believe that the founding fathers of the United States were Christians and therefor the United States is a Christian nation. This is deeply flawed, perhaps even a lie depending on the will of those who spread this pseudo-historical nonsense. Most of the United States’ founding fathers were deists or Unitarians, meaning, they believed in some form of impersonal god but rejected Christianity’s personal god and the divinity of Jesus Christ. To state that the founding fathers of the United States were Christians is both untrue and pointless. The religious or non-religious background of the United States’ founding fathers should not effect what they intended the United States to be; a religiously blind nation. James Madison, in his 1785 document “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, spoke these words:

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.

John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, states: “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” In 1813, Thomas Jefferson states: “History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.” These quotations of a few important founding fathers of the United States show their evident intentions. This clearly contradicts the misconception that the United States was intended to be a Christian nation. Perhaps a leading contributor to this misconception is the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. In the original pledge, God was never mentioned:

Pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

An openly Christian group called the Knights of Columbus later added the phrase “under God” to the pledge. Due to the nature and time of this addition, it has no place in an argument claiming the United States is a Christian nation.

It should be what the majority of it's living adult population wants it to be

That would go against everything this nation was meant to protect. That would go against the intentions of our founding fathers. That would go against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

But, hell, what ever floats your boat. I believe the rights of non-theists and theists should remain intact in the eyes of the Constitution instead of in the eyes of a dominant and overbearing religious group.

The GOD in the pledge is whatever GOD you wish it to be "Allah" and "Jehovah" translated into english is GOD

It isn’t GOD, it’s God. Capital ‘G’, lower case ‘o’ and ‘d’. Muslims don’t often use that particular grammar. Also, by stating this nation is under God, you are singling out a particular god and not a number of optional gods to choice from. The statement is clear, “one nation under God.” Not “one nation under your god.” Notice, this also ignores the 10 percent of Americans who don’t have a god that are automatically cast aside by their own government which is completely unconstitutional.

No is is going way overboard

In what way? To say the Constitution is being violated, and it is, is going overboard?

Yes as it is prescribed in the constitution and only to that scope.

And that scope is not being practiced, mind you.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Yes

Where’s your argument?

I’ll go ahead and post my previous post that may relate…

Oh, how very wrong you are my good friend.

Intelligent Design is supposedly infalliable. In other words, the creationist behind it take for granted that it is true without exception and then go about trying to disprove anything that contradicts. It's not a theory, it's still just mythology. Science is not infalliable.

Science tries to explain how the world works, not why we have this world rather than some other world. It is not part of science to try to prove the world was or was not designed by God. It is not the job of science to try to explain the probability of biological developments happening by chance or not. If anyone wants to speculate about such matters, they are free to do so—as metaphysicians. ID is not scientific, but metaphysical. The fact that it has empirical content doesn't make it any more scientific than, say, Spinoza's metaphysics or so-called creation science.

ID is a pseudoscience because it claims to be scientific but is in fact metaphysical. It is based on several philosophical confusions, not the least of which is the notion that the empirical is necessarily scientific. This is false, if by 'empirical' one means originating in or based on observation or experience. Empirical explanations can be scientific or non-scientific. Freud's idea of the Oedipus complex is empirical but it is not scientific. Jung's notion of the collective unconscious is empirical but it is not scientific. Biblical creationism is empirical but it is not scientific. Poetry can be empirical but not scientific.

On the other hand, if by 'empirical' one means capable of being confirmed or disproved by observation or experiment then ID is not empirical. Neither the whole of nature nor an individual eco-system can be proved or disproved by any set of observations to be intelligently designed.

Science does have some metaphysical assumptions, not the least of which is that the universe follows laws. But science leaves open the question of whether those laws were designed. That is a metaphysical question. Believing the universe or some part of it was designed or not does not help understand how it works. If I ever answer an empirical question with the answer "because God [or superintelligent aliens, otherwise undetectable] made it that way" then I have left the realm of science and entered the realm of metaphysics. Of course scientists have metaphysical beliefs but those beliefs are irrelevant to strictly scientific explanations. Science is open to both theists and atheists alike.

If we grant that the universe is possibly or even probably the result of intelligent design, what is the next step? For example, assume a particular eco-system is the creation of an intelligent designer. Unless this intelligent designer is one of us, i.e., human, and unless we have some experience with the creations of this and similar designers, how could we proceed to study this system? If all we know is that it is the result of ID but that the designer is of a different order of being than we are, how would we proceed to study this system? It is presumptuous to assume that an intelligent designer would create an eye the way a human engineer would design a similar system with a similar function. By appealing to an "intelligent designer" to explain some complex phenomenon is to explain nothing about that phenomenon's relation to its alleged designer. The theory illuminates nothing.

The ID proponents are fighting a battle that was lost in the 17th century: the battle for understanding nature in terms of final causes and efficient causes. Prior to the 17th century, there was no essential conflict between a mechanistic view of nature and a teleological view, between a naturalistic and a supernaturalistic view of nature. Nature could be thought of as a vast purposive mechanism. With the notable exception of Leibniz and his intellectual descendents, just about everyone else gave up the idea of scientific explanations needing to include theological ones. Scientific progress became possible in part because scientists attempted to describe the workings of natural phenomena without reference to their creation, design, or ultimate purpose. God may well have created the universe and the laws of nature, but nature is still a machine, mechanically changing and comprehensible as such. God became an unnecessary hypothesis. Or, if one couldn't live without God, one could identify God with Nature, as Spinoza did, and argue that belief in final causes or purposes in nature is demeaning to God and the height of folly for man.

[The Bacon Guy]

Should “God” be mentioned in the pledge of allegiance?
Should “God” be printed on US currency?

In the interest of fairness, religion shouldn't figure into it at all. The "under God" line in the pledge does seem blatantly dismissive of atheistic beliefs and I suppose atheists such as myself do have a right to be upset about it. After all, if the pledge said "one nation not under God because God does not exist", I'm sure Christians would have something to say about it. Leaving religion out altogether seems like the only fair and religiously neutral solution.

[shield772]

Where’s your argument?

I’ll go ahead and post my previous post that may relate…

Oh, how very wrong you are my good friend.

So we have to teach from every perspective except that of the majority of what americans believe in?

[shield772]

In the interest of fairness, religion shouldn't figure into it at all. The "under God" line in the pledge does seem blatantly dismissive of atheistic beliefs and I suppose atheists such as myself do have a right to be upset about it. After all, if the pledge said "one nation not under God because God does not exist", I'm sure Christians would have something to say about it. Leaving religion out altogether seems like the only fair and religiously neutral solution.

America while not a pure democracy is a democratic government, that means the government is what the majority of the people want, and I am sorry to tell you that 90% is a bigger number than 10%.

"Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep discussing whats for dinner, you will never see wolf on the menu" Benjamin Franklin (before anyone has a kanipshin this a paraphrase I may not be using his exact words)

[TehNinja]

Oh, how very wrong you are my good friend.

Intelligent Design is supposedly infalliable. In other words, the creationist behind it take for granted that it is true without exception and then go about trying to disprove anything that contradicts. It's not a theory, it's still just mythology. Science is not infalliable.

Science tries to explain how the world works, not why we have this world rather than some other world. It is not part of science to try to prove the world was or was not designed by God. It is not the job of science to try to explain the probability of biological developments happening by chance or not. If anyone wants to speculate about such matters, they are free to do so—as metaphysicians. ID is not scientific, but metaphysical. The fact that it has empirical content doesn't make it any more scientific than, say, Spinoza's metaphysics or so-called creation science.

ID is a pseudoscience because it claims to be scientific but is in fact metaphysical. It is based on several philosophical confusions, not the least of which is the notion that the empirical is necessarily scientific. This is false, if by 'empirical' one means originating in or based on observation or experience. Empirical explanations can be scientific or non-scientific. Freud's idea of the Oedipus complex is empirical but it is not scientific. Jung's notion of the collective unconscious is empirical but it is not scientific. Biblical creationism is empirical but it is not scientific. Poetry can be empirical but not scientific.

On the other hand, if by 'empirical' one means capable of being confirmed or disproved by observation or experiment then ID is not empirical. Neither the whole of nature nor an individual eco-system can be proved or disproved by any set of observations to be intelligently designed.

Science does have some metaphysical assumptions, not the least of which is that the universe follows laws. But science leaves open the question of whether those laws were designed. That is a metaphysical question. Believing the universe or some part of it was designed or not does not help understand how it works. If I ever answer an empirical question with the answer "because God [or superintelligent aliens, otherwise undetectable] made it that way" then I have left the realm of science and entered the realm of metaphysics. Of course scientists have metaphysical beliefs but those beliefs are irrelevant to strictly scientific explanations. Science is open to both theists and atheists alike.

If we grant that the universe is possibly or even probably the result of intelligent design, what is the next step? For example, assume a particular eco-system is the creation of an intelligent designer. Unless this intelligent designer is one of us, i.e., human, and unless we have some experience with the creations of this and similar designers, how could we proceed to study this system? If all we know is that it is the result of ID but that the designer is of a different order of being than we are, how would we proceed to study this system? It is presumptuous to assume that an intelligent designer would create an eye the way a human engineer would design a similar system with a similar function. By appealing to an "intelligent designer" to explain some complex phenomenon is to explain nothing about that phenomenon's relation to its alleged designer. The theory illuminates nothing.

The ID proponents are fighting a battle that was lost in the 17th century: the battle for understanding nature in terms of final causes and efficient causes. Prior to the 17th century, there was no essential conflict between a mechanistic view of nature and a teleological view, between a naturalistic and a supernaturalistic view of nature. Nature could be thought of as a vast purposive mechanism. With the notable exception of Leibniz and his intellectual descendents, just about everyone else gave up the idea of scientific explanations needing to include theological ones. Scientific progress became possible in part because scientists attempted to describe the workings of natural phenomena without reference to their creation, design, or ultimate purpose. God may well have created the universe and the laws of nature, but nature is still a machine, mechanically changing and comprehensible as such. God became an unnecessary hypothesis. Or, if one couldn't live without God, one could identify God with Nature, as Spinoza did, and argue that belief in final causes or purposes in nature is demeaning to God and the height of folly for man.*

so, that how the world came into existance shouldn't be taught in science? That creation isn't a theory? That the ONLY thing that should be taught is what you belive to be true?


2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy.

[Lullaby Chainer]

So we have to teach from every perspective except that of the majority of what americans believe in?

No, we teach science in science class. Weird, I know. But it's true. Creationism is not science, sorry!

[Lullaby Chainer]

America while not a pure democracy is a democratic government, that means the government is what the majority of the people want, and I am sorry to tell you that 90% is a bigger number than 10%.

"Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep discussing whats for dinner, you will never see wolf on the menu" Benjamin Franklin (before anyone has a kanipshin this a paraphrase I may not be using his exact words)

lol, dear. Read the constitution before you embarrass yourself again! Here, I'll make it easy for you. I really do want to help.

The First Amendment of the Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

[shield772]

So we should teach it in History?

[shield772]

lol, dear. Read the constitution before you embarrass yourself again! Here, I'll make it easy for you. I really do want to help.

The First Amendment of the Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Exactly, meaning that the only restriction on religion in government is congress. it says what it means

[Lullaby Chainer]

so, that how the world came into existance shouldn't be taught in science?

Nope.

That creation isn't a theory?

Nope. Theories aren't infalliable.

That the ONLY thing that should be taught is what you belive to be true?

Haha, cute.