Possible McCain VP pick Jindal deals blow to separation of church and state

[gcoll]

And yes, to me it's on the exact same level as fairy tales

So what? To them it's not. And I think that deserves to be respected.

What does comparing their beliefs to fairy tales, add to the conversation? Just answer that question. How does it further the debate/conversation, and does it raise or lower the civility of that conversation?

However, when they start incorporating theories of how the world began (big bang) that have not been proven, I think thats where the problem enlies because then you can insert Creationism into that list of theories.

They don't call it "creationism" anymore. They call it "intelligent design" to try and pass it off as a relevant scientific theory, which it's not.

So it has no place in a science class room.

But it certainly has place in a class room, if you want well rounded, knowledgeable students. Just not the science class room.

[statsman88]

[QUOTE=gcoll;5732484

They don't call it "creationism" anymore. They call it "intelligent design" to try and pass it off as a relevant scientific theory, which it's not.

So it has no place in a science class room.

But it certainly has place in a class room, if you want well rounded, knowledgeable students. Just not the science class room.[/QUOTE]

I agree to an extent. My only question would be if you can talk about the 'big bang theory', I guess I dont get why you cant even bring up 'intelligent design'. They are both theories of how the world was started and neither is proven. If it were up to me NEITHER would be brought up because they aren't facts, but I think if one is brought up you should at least be able to bring up intelligent design

[DenButsu]

So what? To them it's not. And I think that deserves to be respected.

What does comparing their beliefs to fairy tales, add to the conversation? Just answer that question. How does it further the debate/conversation, and does it raise or lower the civility of that conversation?

I'll tell you how it furthers the debate: Because when people make arguments like the one statsman makes above that attempt to justify the teaching of creationism (religion) in science classes or the cessation of the teaching of evolution (scientific theory) by attempting to place the theory of the big bang and creationism on the same level (they're both just theories, "they aren't facts"), then it's time to go that extra distance to drive the point home EMPHATICALLY:

THE BIG BANG AND CREATIONISM ARE NOT "THEORIES" THAT ARE ON THE SAME LEVEL SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH NAMED "THEORIES"!!!!!!!

That is, simply put, a lie.

There is a MASSIVE amount of scientific physical evidence to support the Big Bang. The rate and degree of the expansion of the universe, the location, age and movement of stars and galaxies, density and mass, etc, etc, etc. So it's not just a "theory" in the same sense that an eight year old has a "theory" that if they dug a hole straight down eventually they'd end up in China. It's a highly developed model of how the universe arrived at its current state, based on the objective physical realities of its current state. If the police find a car that crashed into a telephone pole, they can understand the approximate speed and trajectory of the car before it crashed based on the wreckage. The understanding of the big bang is similarly a backtracking from the current state of things into where previous states MUST have been at in order for them to arrive thus.

The entire basis for creationism can be summed up as this: People said so, and wrote it down, so it must be true. That's it. There is no further scientific evidence to support it. Period. So you may call it "mocking" or "ridicule", but I don't. I'll grant you, maybe, "being defensive", but dammit, when zealots are trying to push religion into and science out of SCIENCE classes, I'm not going to apologize for being defensive about that, and doing everything I can - including pointing out that their stories are made up just like bedtime stories - to prevent it from happening.

And in fact, I'd go so far to say that creationists insulted rational empiricists first by trying to claim that science should take a backseat to their theological views, even in science classes.

THAT is mocking US. Or, at the very least, it's offensive.

[ari1013]

I agree to an extent. My only question would be if you can talk about the 'big bang theory', I guess I dont get why you cant even bring up 'intelligent design'. They are both theories of how the world was started and neither is proven. If it were up to me NEITHER would be brought up because they aren't facts, but I think if one is brought up you should at least be able to bring up intelligent design

Because to be a real theory, there has to be a factual basis to begin with. The Big Bang can be traced back factually to within a few milliseconds (or maybe even less now -- where's YF4L when you need him?). That makes it about 99.999% likely to be "what happened."

By extension, Creationism/Intelligent Design can't tell you "what happened" but it does answer questions of "why it happened." Why does there happen to be life here on this planet? Why were we the fortunate ones out of all the other planets? A tiny percentile difference in the atmospheric components here and we'd be just like Mars. That's something that faith can help you answer. But it's still not something that you should be learning about in a SCIENCE course.

Teach theology -- and learn about lots of different interpretations. At the very least it'll help improve our cultural knowledge of the world.

[moonman]

I know what you are talking about, and for the most part I agree with you.

But, one of the "supernatural stories" in the Bible, is the existence of God.

So, saying that the supernatural stories of the Bible are no better than fairy tales, would be the same as saying that the existence of God is no better than a fairy tale.

And even if you discount the existence of God aspect....it is still inconsiderate, to compare someone's belief system to those of a fairy tale.

You're basically trying to claim you have some greater cosmic truth than they do, when really none of us know. ***see what I did there??

Seriously though. It's kind of a respect thing with me. You can respectfully disagree with someone's beliefs without mocking them.


I think it is.

To me, that is like looking at a great work of literature, and deciding it sucks because it's made up. Or doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, due to the fact it's made up. Or comparing it to Cat in the Hat...because "both stories are made up" It misses the point.

And if you argue with someone who does have a literal interpretation of the Bible....what do you accomplish by comparing their beliefs to a fairy tale?

Nobody, even non-believers, argue that there isn't merit in certain of the moral teachings found in the Bible. Specifically, the parables, such as the Good Samaritan, are accepted as fairy tales or events that didn't happen, to make a moral point.

Just as Dickens, Twain, Shakespeare and thousands of other writers used fiction to make a point.

Yes Virginia, er gcoll, one can call what is a fairy tale a fairy tale without showing disrespect just as one can support our troops without supporting the policy or mission our troops are given.

[statsman88]

I have 2 questions for moonman or whoever wants to answer them. These are 2 questions that I hear alot from the Christian community

1) If there is no God, is there moral absolutes? Is there a definite right and wrong or can everything be justified?

2) If there is no God, is there a point to life?


anyway, I'd be interested to hear some people's take on those 2 things

[statsman88]

.

[FOBolous]

I agree to an extent. My only question would be if you can talk about the 'big bang theory', I guess I dont get why you cant even bring up 'intelligent design'. They are both theories of how the world was started and neither is proven. If it were up to me NEITHER would be brought up because they aren't facts, but I think if one is brought up you should at least be able to bring up intelligent design

do you even know what a theory is? do you know what makes a theory a thoery? do you know what constitutes a theory and how a theory is formed? cause if you do...than you know "intelligent design" is not a real theory.

I have 2 questions for moonman or whoever wants to answer them. These are 2 questions that I hear alot from the Christian community

1) If there is no God, is there moral absolutes? Is there a definite right and wrong or can everything be justified?

2) If there is no God, is there a point to life?


anyway, I'd be interested to hear some people's take on those 2 things

completely irreverent. what does the answers to those questions have to do with Christians disrespecting other people's believes and trying to force their own believes on Buddhists, Hindus, Isalmist, and every other religious groups that lives in America. How would Christians feel if Hindus try to force their own version of how the world is created on Christian kids?

[ari1013]

Fob I know you didn't mean it that way, but:

Islamist = someone who takes Islam as an ideology (generally speaking, the people that we're fighting in Afghanistan)

Muslims = the people who follow the religion of Islam

[FanofCubs]

Jindal will not be the VP. I'd be willing to bet 100 bucks he'll be the nominee in 12 or 16.

[DenButsu]

Jindal will not be the VP. I'd be willing to bet 100 bucks he'll be the nominee in 12 or 16.

No way Jindal ever gets the nod for the presidential nominee. He's far too extreme, and can't carry any weight in the middle, where the real winning (swing states) is done.

[JHG722]

Jindal will be president in 2012.

[DenButsu]

Jindal will be president in 2012.

Not when he's defeated by his challenger, Mike Gravel.

[JHG722]

[blenderboy5]

hahaha poor gravel.