| Wow, Mr. Detector, you're like totally detached from the world aren't you?
The bible as a historical document? Well, yeah, but in the same way that Aesop's fables are a historical document. They probably refer to some actual event that happened long ago, in a sorta kinda way.
The biblical flood for instance probably refers to a ancient flood on the euphrates river and the tale of an ancient Sumerian King who was able to get onto a large commericial barge and float out to sea and save himself. Which is a pretty different story then Noah saving every animal on the planet by marching them up on a boat. So does the bible refer to events that might of happened, yes, but the storyies are changed so much that rarely will we ever be able to use them as an acurate source of information at all.
CKY's definition of science isn't BS. In science, theories are made from the conclusions we can make using empirical evidence(things that we can observe), when we get an idea, we test it, over and over to see if the idea holds its own water. And that's how evolution has came up, in observations in the fossil record we have gotten a much better idea of how things have came to be, more of the hotly debated "missing links" are continuely turning up, and other clues (such as genetics) have arisen to give us a better understanding of the nature of life. And as we get learn more, we change the idea more, because in science, they aren't out to "prove" the complete validity of one thing over the other. In good science idea's and concepts change as we learn more.
Now the problem with creationism.
It can't be tested, which alone disqualifies it from the scientific realm. The idea in itself is dogmatic and rigid, which means that the idea is set and stone and isn't allowed to "evolve"(yes, bad pun). There is no serious physical/empirical evidence as well to point in the direction of creationism. You see, creationism at its best, essentially belongs in the realm of either a religious, theological, or philosopical setting, where abstract ideas that are generally untestable fall in the catagoryies of modern knowledge.
I believe personally you are missing some essential idea's in the founding of this country as well. You see, our county was founded by religious people, but people who didn't want to have to be subject to the tyranny of the majority. Keeping religious life out of public life is key to religious freedom. In older days, perhaps saying "In God we Trust" might of worked, because all the various strains of religious ideologies that existed believed in the general concept of one, monothestic god. However today i've known people of christian, jewish, shitoist, muslim I think, hindu, buddhist, pagan, wiccan, agnostic, and athiestic. We no longer live in a society that can be dominated by even just abramic religious ideals.
Honestly, if the founding fathers had wanted our society to be dominated by christian ideals, they would of said so, they were smart guys and i'm sure if they had wanted a christian theocrazy they would of clearly stated so. Instead they gave us a set of guidelines that allowed us to function freely and without the tyranny of the majority, regardless of the social structures of the time.
And your bit about the phrase "separation of church and state" not appearing.
Well, it does say this in the consitition:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
This is the establishment clause, the one the shows the principle of separation of church and state. I'm not sure how that can be so badly misread by people who think we need creation in biology, prayer in school, and so on, but damn they've been doing it for awhile..  |