Censoring Science: The Kansas Controversy

[Detector]

Oh, would that be the same majority that thinks In God We Trust has no place in American government? I'm sure it is since the truth is 82% of Americans have no problem with In God We Trust or a reference to god in and on government buildings. It's those 18% minority, "they" that push to get their way.

If you notice it's the same response on here. The majority, although they don't smoke" don't have a problem with those that do. So once again we have a few "Nazi's" that feel it's their place in the world to control the actions of the rest.

Save your ridiculous quotes on "the official definition of science" BS. People aren't as dumb as you might believe. Anything can be scientifically studied or tested IF the motivation is there. Labeling "the other theory" as creationism in an attempt to call it religion really puts a black eye on science.

Where would we be today if science took such a narrow view of what is science and worth investigating years ago?

Even today science has been unable to prove the theory of evolution. In fact, some scientists have scientifically tested the possibility that evolution ever happened, on a macro level, and yet no evidence has been found. The odds, scientifically, are zilch. To have had all the species that have ever lived on earth evolve from a single parent and yet not one example be found is a mathematical impossibility.

As long as "they" continue to label "the other theory" as religion and not worthy of scientific study, we may never know the truth. And "they" call that science?

[Turiel]

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The bible as a historical document? Well, yeah, but in the same way that Aesop's fables are a historical document.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..

[Detector]

OK, bare with me here.

You've got to remember the moment in time the bible, for example, was written. This was a period where teaching was done through stories. A document could easily be written as a story. This was also a time of little understanding of how nature works. If it fell from the sky or came out of the sea it was from the gods. I'm not saying the bible is all fact only that science has already proved many of the stories are based on an actual event.

One of the reasons the Egyptian hieroglyphs were so hard to decipher was because they told stories to describe actual events. These stories are like the stories of the bible and often reference a god helping in battle, but you don't see science refusing to study them because they are religious and have no place in science. No, they take these stories and call them historical documents and say you just ignore the reference to a god.

I'm just saying some science of today is a joke. I say some because not all people of science turn such a biased eye when it comes to science. Those scientists that are more interested in finding the truth than their personal beliefs, are the ones that have discovered things such as that pesky sediment ring all over the world dating to the time of the great flood in the bible. You know the one that indicates that there was in fact a great flood.

Ya, science doesn't hesitate to rush off to Oregon when there is a new Bigfoot sighting or spend countless hours and dollars researching Lockness for monsters. It's that many scientists of today have let their personal beliefs get in the way of what they really should be doing.

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

Now tell me how you get that this means no prayer in school? or no mention of god in government buildings?

All this says is Congress(government) can make no law forcing a particular religion on you. Freedom of the religion of your choice is guaranteed. How you can derive separation of church and state out of this is beyond me.

Put this in context with history and it's as plain as can be.

[cky]

"You know the one that indicates that there was in fact a great flood."

There have been many great floods, and many flood myths that have followed. Not all scientists agree the idea that you're speaking of, and to say that anyone who doesn't is just "biased" is just silly.

[cky]

" It's those 18% minority, "they" that push to get their way."

That's what you call being ruled by a majority while protecting the rights of the minority. What if stuck something on money that said "There is no God" or prayed to a different God at a school ball game. Oh boy, what a mess that would be! Typical xtian attitude is "It's Merica, if you don't like it move." Followed by some drooling of course.


"Save your ridiculous quotes on "the official definition of science" BS. People aren't as dumb as you might believe. Anything can be scientifically studied or tested IF the motivation is there. "

You are crazy man, you can't test for the existence of God. Jeeez man. I think people are as dumb, and some don't even know the definition of scientific theory and try to pass off some simplified version that fits their own purpose (ie you).

"Even today science has been unable to prove the theory of evolution. In fact, some scientists have scientifically tested the possibility that evolution ever happened, on a macro level, and yet no evidence has been found. The odds, scientifically, are zilch. To have had all the species that have ever lived on earth evolve from a single parent and yet not one example be found is a mathematical impossibility."

Again, it's not a perfect theory, however your OPINION that it's impossible and and that the odds are zilch are nothing more than your biased opinion. Nothing more. There are scores more informed on the subject who disagree with you like it or not.

"As long as "they" continue to label "the other theory" as religion and not worthy of scientific study, we may never know the truth. And "they" call that science?"

Creation stories are not science. Must we repeat this? They are beliefs. They aren't provable. Doesn't Christianity call for faith anyway? I understand it's not right to label anything other than evolution as religion is bad but right now it is and will be as long as Biblical creationists try to edge themselves in. Even a non-organized form of belief in a God should not be taught in a Bio class. It's not science, it's a belief, and it can never be science until said God comes and shows his face. Science is empirical by nature, but you knew that.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Detector

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

Now tell me how you get that this means no prayer in school? or no mention of god in government buildings?

All this says is Congress(government) can make no law forcing a particular religion on you. Freedom of the religion of your choice is guaranteed. How you can derive separation of church and state out of this is beyond me.

Put this in context with history and it's as plain as can be.

Here is how I get it...let's say I am a buddist, or a hindu, or an athiest or agnostic for that matter. The Constitution states that I have the freedom to practice my religion or my lack of religion without any interference from the government. By you or anybody else putting reference to God or the 10 commandments or any other christian reference in or on government documents or on government property is forcing the christian God and christian ideals on me when that is something that I don't believe in, but the government guaranteed me in the constitution that they wouldn't force any religion on me, that I would be free to worship (or not) in whatever way I see fit.



In God We Trust became our National Motto and was officially put on all money in the mid-50's mainly as a response to the big "Red Scare" (communism).






for the record, I'm not a buddist or hindu or whatnot, I was raised a methodist.

[Detector]

You are crazy man, you can't test for the existence of God. Jeeez man. I think people are as dumb, and some don't even know the definition of scientific theory and try to pass off some simplified version that fits their own purpose (ie you).

On the contrary. I believe it is you that suffers tunnel vision. See, I didn't even need to call you names.

The problem with tunnel vision is you can only see "God" in the biblical sense. Your hatred of religion is blind siding you. God is many things to many people and not all fit your comfy little interpretation.

I see God as nothing more than a name given to a higher being. Don't you find it odd that since before man even started written language ALL races told stories of a God or a creator? Where do you suppose this concept found in every corner of the globe from day one started. Did some guy just up and say I think I'll make a name called God? Wouldn't this be something of interest to science?

Why out of all the possible concepts to explain extraordinary events did Gods come to be? I think this is one of those things that must have it's roots in fact. Why is it Gods are always different than man? Often they are described in human form but are in no way a simple man? Although Gods vary from one civilization to another they all have common traits.

Now I'm not a "scientists" but I did stay at a Holiday In last night!

Anyway, you don't need to be a scientists to see obviously something must account for this phenomenon. Some actual event(s) had to have happened many years ago to produce such a global uniform concept of a higher being, a creator a God in name. Would this be of interest to science? apparently not.

We're a race of common sense people. If we don't know how something works or happens we use common sense in an attempt to understand. Whats important is that evolution and creationism represent totally different periods of human intellect. They both try and explain the same event, but because of the gap in time, the concepts differ greatly.

Evolution is much easier to except today because it uses much newer concepts than creationism. Lets face it, its easier to understand the theory of evolution than some guy waving his hand and it all begins. Evolution makes sense, but there are some major flaws in the theory that just can't be ignored without just having faith in the theory.

To this day science still teaches that man evolved from apes. Absolutely no proof(see missing link), but thats still what science teaches. So the fact remains as far as we have evidence man just showed up on earth. Science has also gone back in time to what they say is when life began. Back to that single cell organism science says is probably the results of a lightning strike on a scum pond. Huston, we have a problem. In the fossil record beside this single cell organism we find other complex organisms. WTF?

OK now for the non-religious theory that keeps getting ignored. Common sense tells me that the lack of evidence to prove all things evolved from a single parent, and god knows they've looked, and that science has also found not just one beginning organism but several complex organisms that the theory that the earth was seeded makes far better sense. By seeded, this could have been by accident or intentional. This would be up to science, should "they" except the challenge, to prove or disprove.

God is nothing more than the name given by people with a very limited understanding of their environment. A name responsible for past unexplainable events. An earth quake buries a brothel and the story goes God caused the earth to swallow the sinners. A simple story of the time explaining a very real event that can be scientifically tested for accuracy. Without the knowledge of tectonic plates they improvise with common sense of the time. And teach a moral value in the process.

[Detector]

Bubba, how does seeing a coin with "In God we Trust" force you to except God? How does a picture of God force people to do anything? I see a Buddha in the store it doesn't force me to except Buddhism or even consider it.

Our founding fathers had a strong belief in God and as such it reflects in history. What is important is to know even though they felt very strongly about their religious beliefs, they still gave us the ability to believe or not. Freedom of religion or no religion without fear. I think it's important to remember what our founding fathers believed in and yet gave us the option to choose for ourselves.

Nowhere does these references to God force us to do anything we do not choose. They are, however, the thoughts and beliefs of the people responsible for our freedom. I believe leaving these thoughts intact is respecting what they have accomplished.

In my opinion anyone that feels they are being forced to except a religion by seeing In God we Trust or a picture of God at the courthouse has some real personal control issues.

So when you see that picture of Jesus/God in the courthouse it's not an attempt in mind control, It simply says the decorator is of faith or just thought it looked good. A choice in decor not a means of forcing their religion upon anyone.

IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-...we-trust.shtml

[Tee]

Originally Posted by cky

...you need to check into the mental institution

"Save your ridiculous quotes ...

People aren't as dumb... I think people are as dumb...

You are crazy man...

Jeeez man...

and some don't even know... ...(ie you).

There are scores more informed...

...like it or not.

We haven't seen this kind of arrogance and demeaning speech since..well, you know who. And I hear tell that you two are buddies. Is he using your ID to post on here? I bet when you go to parties you both are a hoot. All I wanna know is, who's on top?

[wordsmythe]

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do. -Anne Lamott,
writer
(1954- )