Creationism education bills

[IMMensaMind 462]

straw.... come on man... he's already fabricated quotes from shapiro. you don't think he'd have an issue doing that with a fake anonymous poster?

 

 

You try sticking to weak claims. Shapiro is attacking Darwinism, and his research is forcing adjustments to Evolutionary theory that far better align with those who believe that the process of Evolution and the view of reality as designed/programmed can co-exist harmoniously - and that's a good thing.

[nikki2200 4]

You're no different than me. You think you're right - but you insult without provocation because you think you're right - and (as you've said) "I scare you". I believe I'm correct, but I continually attempt to post why using Shapiro's own words: he's the one who said that "we can now begin to bridge the gap between Christian and Darwinist".

 

Is this an acknowledgement that Science isn't enough?

 

 

Since you are accusing me of having weak claims, I have a simple question here Mensa. Doesn't require thesaurus.com or a 20 page response.

 

Did Dr. Jim Shapiro ever utter those words?

[Me_2006 14]

Since you are accusing me of having weak claims, I have a simple question here Mensa. Doesn't require thesaurus.com or a 20 page response.

 

Did Dr. Jim Shapiro ever utter those words?

 

Good luck getting a direct answer. I talked about someone else plowing his wife and suddenly he can't answer a simple question.

[Frank M 181]

Since you are accusing me of having weak claims, I have a simple question here Mensa. Doesn't require thesaurus.com or a 20 page response.

 

Did Dr. Jim Shapiro ever utter those words?

 

I think FeelinMN did this before, but it bears repeating:

 

The only place this has been said is in this thread. In fact, it is the only link Google can come up with. Apparently if Mensa says it enough, it will magically become true!

 

[Frank M 181]

You're right. I just expected that because he wrote a book on the subject, he might know something about what he talks about in his book.

... http://www.talkorigi...er/day12pm.html

 

One of the most telling exchanges of the examination:

 

 

 

Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed?

 

A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.

 

Q. And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out those?

 

A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful.

 

Q. It would be a waste of time?

 

A. It would not be fruitful.

 

 

Translation: I believe the immune system was intelligently designed and it would be a waste of time to put any serious scientific study behind it.

 

Yeah, this guy is a focking genius!

 

Here's another great one:

 

 

 

Q. You've got Immune System Accessory Cells, Fornusek and Vetvicka, and that's got a chapter called "Evolution of Immune Sensory Functions." You've got a book called The Natural History of the Major Histocompatability Complex, that's part of the immune system, correct?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. And here we've got chapter called "Evolution." Then we've got Fundamental Immunology, a chapter on the evolution of the immune system.

 

A lot of writing, huh?

 

A. Well, these books do seem to have the titles that you said, and I'm sure they have the chapters in them that you mentioned as well, but again I am quite skeptical, although I haven't read them, that in fact they present detailed rigorous models for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection.

 

Q. You haven't read those chapters?

 

A. No, I haven't.

 

Q. You haven't read the books that I gave you?

 

A. No, I haven't. I have read those papers that I presented though yesterday on the immune system.

 

Q. And the fifty-eight articles, some yes, some no?

 

A. Well, the nice thing about science is that often times when you read the latest articles, or a sampling of the latest articles, they certainly include earlier results. So you get up to speed pretty quickly. You don't have to go back and read every article on a particular topic for the last fifty years or so.

 

 

Translation: I haven't read anything about immune system evolution, but I'm confident that even though I am not up to date on the latest studies, the immune system didn't evolve.

 

Why is this guy an expert on anything? His ass must have been sore for days after that.

[JackARoot 2]

 

You try sticking to weak claims. Shapiro is attacking Darwinism, and his research is forcing adjustments to Evolutionary theory that far better align with those who believe that the process of Evolution and the view of reality as designed/programmed can co-exist harmoniously - and that's a good thing.

 

Why do you believe evolutionary theory and the idea of intelligent design can't coexist in their current forms? Evolution is just a process, there's no reason that it couldn't have been "designed" by a higher power. It's just that there's no evidence that it was designed by a higher power, and there probably never will be any evidence of this.

 

Just because there's no evidence supporting intelligent design shouldn't effect your beliefs. That's why they call it faith, belief without evidence. This is also why it shouldn't be taught as science.

[penultimatestraw 473]

straw.... come on man... he's already fabricated quotes from shapiro. you don't think he'd have an issue doing that with a fake anonymous poster?

I am interested to read the exact wording of the support, to ensure MMIAFN hasn't just been wrangled in by another Simarillion passage.

 

I guess a long thread with a lot a views is indirect evidence of this support. There is no other conclusion a reasonable person could draw. Can you disprove he is being supported?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Why do you believe evolutionary theory and the idea of intelligent design can't coexist in their current forms?

 

Of all the posters in this thread, Jack, I would tell you that I am closest to this position (other than you, of course). Evolutionary Theory is dominated - and has been - by Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Professor Shapiro's work casts severe doubt on the veracity of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, but not Evolutionary Theory itself.

 

ID doesn't look to condemn the Theory of Evolution itself. In fact, those who I have cited (and I include myself in this belief system) is that there is clearly a process of Evolutionary development taking place. It is irresponsible, though, to posit microevolution (known fact; observable/etc) as supporting all parallel claims within macroevolution and chemical evolution. Those extrapolations are engaged for political purposes IMO (in short I believe that activists lump all Evolutionary Theory together, to attempt to allow parts of it which aren't testable/etc to gain as much credibility as the rest of the study.

 

Evolution is just a process, there's no reason that it couldn't have been "designed" by a higher power. It's just that there's no evidence that it was designed by a higher power, and there probably never will be any evidence of this.

 

The Science of ID doesn't state that it will prove a Designer per se; it simply wishes to perform the research necessary to determine it.

 

SETI cannot prove that there is extraterrestrial life, but it is a legitimate scientific endeavor that looks for intelligent patterns in receieved radio signals. How that is legitimate, while parallel efforts to search for patterns in terrestrial life aren't...is beyond me. That does not compute to me.

 

Just because there's no evidence supporting intelligent design shouldn't effect your beliefs. That's why they call it faith, belief without evidence. This is also why it shouldn't be taught as science.

 

Now, that's not exactly correct IMO. Much science is engaged in without evidence, and that's why I brought up SETI. To the "scientific", there is just as much evidence supporting the notion of extraterrestrials as there is a Designer, and those who support SETI but deride ID cannot explain their inconsistency in supporting one but dismissing the other.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Just to add another thought: I believe the concept of ID exists because it isn't a hypothesis within other science. There would be nothing wrong IMO in asserting Intelligent Design as a working hypothesis, and then compare known ID to items which are in question in this regard.

[IMMensaMind 462]

One of the most telling exchanges of the examination:

 

 

 

 

 

Translation: I believe the immune system was intelligently designed and it would be a waste of time to put any serious scientific study behind it.

 

Yeah, this guy is a focking genius!

 

Here's another great one:

 

 

 

 

 

Translation: I haven't read anything about immune system evolution, but I'm confident that even though I am not up to date on the latest studies, the immune system didn't evolve.

 

Why is this guy an expert on anything? His ass must have been sore for days after that.

 

I answered this in the GW thread, I'll answer it here:

 

I think you're trying very hard to get those statements to mean something that they do not. Behe does not agree with the Darwinian approach to the study of the evolution of the immune system, and - still - there is no research that establishes how the function of Evolution naturally guided could have arrived upon the past or present function of the immune system.

 

Did you see something in there - or read any (or even one) of the 50+ cited articles on the subject that does? Of course not. There isn't such a cite.

 

So what exactly is Voltaire - and now Frank - trying to assert? That because Behe didn't read all the articles on the topic, that he missed one that actually refutes his claim? There isn't a refutation to his claim or the cross-examiner would have pointed it out.

 

Why should Behe be responsible to conduct clinical experimentation following an ideology in which he doesn't believe? Behe believes the answer lies elsewhere! So Franks condemnation of Behe is as pedantic as complaining that Behe thinks that studying Darwinian evolution of an immune system would be a fruitless endeavor? That isn't saying that Behe isn't all for whoever wants to studying it in that manner, for crissakes! It just means that Behe isn't studying it in that manner.

 

Must we all follow the same hypothesis in order to please Frank? It would seem to me that in order for Frank and others to remain consistent, you'd want no stone left unturned: that doesn't mean that ONE GUY has to flip every rock, for crissakes.

 

The purpose of cross-examination is to make the cross-examined look bad. I have read the entire transcript, after hearing the exchange. I do not see in it what you do; not by a long shot. I think Behe defended himself well, and the core claim you've made - that Behe doesn't know the science - is refuted because not a single cited thesis on immunological evolution actually accomplishes what Behe said doesn't exist: there is no Evolutionary specific which explains natural development of the mechanisms in the immune system. There are scads of information on the topic, but Behe is correct: none do what he said does not exist.

[GettnHuge 2]

Since you are accusing me of having weak claims, I have a simple question here Mensa. Doesn't require thesaurus.com or a 20 page response.

 

Did Dr. Jim Shapiro ever utter those words?

 

http://thesaurus.com/browse/crickets

No results found for crickets: Did you mean crackers? Thesaurus: crocked cracked crooked Find definitions, audio pronunciations, example sentences, spelling, synonyms, antonyms, translations, word games and more.

 

[Voltaire 5,491]

Q. I'm going to read some titles here. We have Evolution of Immune Reactions by Sima and Vetvicka, are you familiar with that?

 

A. No, I'm not.

 

Q. Origin and Evolution of the Vertebrate Immune System, by Pasquier. Evolution and Vertebrate Immunity, by Kelso. The Primordial Vrm System and the Evolution of Vertebrate Immunity, by Stewart. The Phylogenesis of Immune Functions, by Warr. The Evolutionary Mechanisms of Defense Reactions, by Vetvicka. Immunity and Evolution, Marchalonias. Immunology of Animals, by Vetvicka. You need some room here. Can you confirm these are books about the evolution of the immune system?

 

A. Most of them have evolution or related words in the title, so I can confirm that, but what I strongly doubt is that any of these address the question in a rigorous detailed fashion of how the immune system or irreducibly complex components of it could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection.

 

------

 

On the one hand, it can be said that it's a courtroom stunt to drop a stack of obscure immunology books onto the table.

 

On the other hand, when a focker spouts claims that "there is no scientific evidence for the evolution of the immune system" while at the same time deciding not to take the trouble to read any of the very books that make that assertion, nor any of the supporting studies that are quoted in the books, what are we to think of him?

 

All these books, presumably, agree with each other and overlap. All the evidence in the world backs them up. Meanwhile, Behe's the fruitcake that says they are wrong, he'd better show where, how, and why. It's pretty clear that Behe is only interested in getting back to making up sh*t to write in The Idiot's Guide to Intelligent Design so he can cash in and just ignores everything else.

[Frank M 181]

I answered this in the GW thread, I'll answer it here:

 

I think you're trying very hard to get those statements to mean something that they do not. Behe does not agree with the Darwinian approach to the study of the evolution of the immune system, and - still - there is no research that establishes how the function of Evolution naturally guided could have arrived upon the past or present function of the immune system.

 

Did you see something in there - or read any (or even one) of the 50+ cited articles on the subject that does? Of course not. There isn't such a cite.

 

So what exactly is Voltaire - and now Frank - trying to assert? That because Behe didn't read all the articles on the topic, that he missed one that actually refutes his claim? There isn't a refutation to his claim or the cross-examiner would have pointed it out.

 

Why should Behe be responsible to conduct clinical experimentation following an ideology in which he doesn't believe? Behe believes the answer lies elsewhere! So Franks condemnation of Behe is as pedantic as complaining that Behe thinks that studying Darwinian evolution of an immune system would be a fruitless endeavor? That isn't saying that Behe isn't all for whoever wants to studying it in that manner, for crissakes! It just means that Behe isn't studying it in that manner.

 

Must we all follow the same hypothesis in order to please Frank? It would seem to me that in order for Frank and others to remain consistent, you'd want no stone left unturned: that doesn't mean that ONE GUY has to flip every rock, for crissakes.

 

The purpose of cross-examination is to make the cross-examined look bad. I have read the entire transcript, after hearing the exchange. I do not see in it what you do; not by a long shot. I think Behe defended himself well, and the core claim you've made - that Behe doesn't know the science - is refuted because not a single cited thesis on immunological evolution actually accomplishes what Behe said doesn't exist: there is no Evolutionary specific which explains natural development of the mechanisms in the immune system. There are scads of information on the topic, but Behe is correct: none do what he said does not exist.

 

You must be sore twisting into a pretzel to try to make that anything other than it was. Evidence to refute what he says is dropped in his lap and he discounts it while admitting he has no idea what the research said.

 

Your heroes ain't scientists.

 

HTH

[nikki2200 4]

http://thesaurus.com/browse/crickets

No results found for crickets: Did you mean crackers? Thesaurus: crocked cracked crooked Find definitions, audio pronunciations, example sentences, spelling, synonyms, antonyms, translations, word games and more.

 

 

Why won't he answer my question?

 

*stomps feet*

 

*shakes fists*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Frank M 181]

I answered this in the GW thread, I'll answer it here:

 

I think you're trying very hard to get those statements to mean something that they do not. Behe does not agree with the Darwinian approach to the study of the evolution of the immune system, and - still - there is no research that establishes how the function of Evolution naturally guided could have arrived upon the past or present function of the immune system.

 

Did you see something in there - or read any (or even one) of the 50+ cited articles on the subject that does? Of course not. There isn't such a cite.

 

So what exactly is Voltaire - and now Frank - trying to assert? That because Behe didn't read all the articles on the topic, that he missed one that actually refutes his claim? There isn't a refutation to his claim or the cross-examiner would have pointed it out.

 

Why should Behe be responsible to conduct clinical experimentation following an ideology in which he doesn't believe? Behe believes the answer lies elsewhere! So Franks condemnation of Behe is as pedantic as complaining that Behe thinks that studying Darwinian evolution of an immune system would be a fruitless endeavor? That isn't saying that Behe isn't all for whoever wants to studying it in that manner, for crissakes! It just means that Behe isn't studying it in that manner.

 

Must we all follow the same hypothesis in order to please Frank? It would seem to me that in order for Frank and others to remain consistent, you'd want no stone left unturned: that doesn't mean that ONE GUY has to flip every rock, for crissakes.

 

The purpose of cross-examination is to make the cross-examined look bad. I have read the entire transcript, after hearing the exchange. I do not see in it what you do; not by a long shot. I think Behe defended himself well, and the core claim you've made - that Behe doesn't know the science - is refuted because not a single cited thesis on immunological evolution actually accomplishes what Behe said doesn't exist: there is no Evolutionary specific which explains natural development of the mechanisms in the immune system. There are scads of information on the topic, but Behe is correct: none do what he said does not exist.

 

I would expect that he would have had an answer for evidence that directly contradicts his claims, but apparently since he believes what he believes, he doesn't need one.

 

Dr. Behe, you believe the immune system did not evolve, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

So what do you say to these 58 papers and numerous immnology textbooks that say that it does?

I havent read them, but I don't think they prove anything.

But you haven't read them, so how would you know?

I just don't believe it.

Are you an expert in immunology?

No.

 

 

Yeah, he really defended himself well.

 

:laugh:

[Me_2006 14]

I would expect that he would have had an answer for evidence that directly contradicts his claims, but apparently since he believes what he believes, he doesn't need one.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, he really defended himself well.

 

 

 

Here comes the start of the next cycle.

[Frank M 181]

Here comes the start of the next cycle.

 

[nikki2200 4]

Here comes the start of the next cycle.

 

Do you think this thread will beat the "I'm gonna go ahead and throw a name out there thread?" I'm certainly not going anywhere. Is that what intestinal fortitude is?

[Frank M 181]

The new tactic seems to be "IDers believe what they believe, they don't need to prove it, others need to prove them wrong."

 

I imagine the end result will be the same.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I would expect that he would have had an answer for evidence that directly contradicts his claims, but apparently since he believes what he believes, he doesn't need one.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, he really defended himself well.

 

:laugh:

 

It doesn't directly contradict his claims any more than a little boy arguing "no it didn't!". There is no contradiction there. There is someone that holds an opinion - based upon no science - that the immune system evolved from something else. There is no testable research to sustain that; there is nothing.

 

Do you want to produce some?

 

There is no difference between you stating that immune systems evolve, and a text claiming the same thing. You're not quoting anything; you're not offering a cite. You're simply quoting a lawyer whose claim is that text books on genetic immunological research claim that the immune system has evolved.

 

That is not a good case. In your head it is, but it is not. Can you quote for me from those textbooks where they prove their case?

 

You can not; you will not. Behe is stating something very simple: he has not read every text book, and neither have you. I believe Behe's lawyer allowed the cross-examiner to get away with a claim that he should not have allowed to pass - and it's a claim that you're only too happy to climb on board with, even if the claim if FOS. The most any scientist can say is "we believe that the immune system evolved in part (read: 'adapted', which is a position that Behe is in agreement with), but not a one of them can establish how an immune system evolve from something which wasn't an immune system.

 

Let me see if you can produce something that the attorney did not. Let's see your proof that the immune system evolved itself from something else.

[IMMensaMind 462]

The new tactic seems to be "IDers believe what they believe, they don't need to prove it, others need to prove them wrong."

 

I imagine the end result will be the same.

 

Huh! Interesting! You now hold the position that what rebutted Behe in court was that those texts do contain information that prove that the immune system evolved from something which wasn't an immune system, so let's see if you can attain the same criteria that you are attempting to hold ID to.

 

Waiting.

[Me_2006 14]

The argument has turned towards a debate over books no one in this thread has ever been in the same room with. Frank is not allowed to debate a book he hasn't read but Mensa can dismiss a link he wont watch. The pressure is mounting. What will he do? Certainly not sleep or make love to his wife, for someone is wrong on the internet and this must be stopped to prevent the secular humanists from ruling FFToday and ergo, America.

 

 

 

You can cut the tension with a knife and the ego with a chainsaw.

[GettnHuge 2]

The argument has turned towards a debate over books no one in this thread has ever been in the same room with. Frank is not allowed to debate a book he hasn't read but Mensa can dismiss a link he wont watch. The pressure is mounting. What will he do? Certainly not sleep or make love to his wife, for someone is wrong on the internet and this must be stopped to prevent the secular humanists from ruling FFToday and ergo, America.

 

 

 

You can cut the tension with a knife and the ego with a chainsaw.

 

this exciting video pretty much sums it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stfaBINDPyk

[IMMensaMind 462]

The argument has turned towards a debate over books no one in this thread has ever been in the same room with. Frank is not allowed to debate a book he hasn't read but Mensa can dismiss a link he wont watch. The pressure is mounting. What will he do? Certainly not sleep or make love to his wife, for someone is wrong on the internet and this must be stopped to prevent the secular humanists from ruling FFToday and ergo, America.

 

 

 

You can cut the tension with a knife and the ego with a chainsaw.

 

I did watch the video, and I read the entire transcript of the testimony. Did you? What so many of you sycophants are desperate to believe about that testimony simply isn't true. The excerpts that Frank posted aren't useful to an argument, but he thinks they are. We have a disagreement which revolves around what those books actually say in them (hint: they do not contain proof that the immune system has naturally evolved).

 

The lawyer could not proffer that they contain proof that immune systems evolved into their state randomly; that cannot be proven by Evolution; it can only be asserted. ID has assertions as well, and this comes down to which makes more sense - but it also comes down to both sides holding positions that are rational.

 

Which is not something that you all are willing to admit.

[GettnHuge 2]

but it also comes down to both sides holding positions that are rational.

 

 

don't try to suddenly glom onto actual study and research in some silly attempt to label your made up magic as rational.

[IMMensaMind 462]

And - because you all are also evading the tough questions I have asked, I'm going to start repeating them:

 

If your understanding of original intent is correct, how is it that the Founding Fathers began each session of Congress with a Christian prayer?

 

Incapable of answering that?

[IMMensaMind 462]

don't try to suddenly glom onto actual study and research in some silly attempt to label your made up magic as rational.

 

 

By that standard, our existence is magic as well, as science has not answered the question of our being either.

 

 

Keep remaining unable to answer the tough questions, tiny. Can you point out where those texts supposedly refute Behe's assertions? Those texts are available online. I'll wait.

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

 

how is it that the Founding Fathers began each session of Congress with a Christian prayer?

 

Because they were christian

 

 

 

Is this a trick question

[IMMensaMind 462]

Because they were christian

 

 

 

Is this a trick question

 

Not all of them, no. And how did this not violate "separation of Church and State" regardless of what they were?

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

Not all of them, no. And how did this not violate "separation of Church and State" regardless of what they were?

 

I think that you are getting offtrack. There are lots of people that consider themselves christians that believe in evolution. You do not gain anything by bringing "church and state" into this debate.

[Gepetto 1,454]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

 

as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. The original text reads: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. Like many other governing principles, the phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

 

So it actually isn't in the constitution of the United States. And what it does say is that the American peoples legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof". Which is saying it should be perfectly OK to practice your religion (e.g. pray to God) anywhere and at anytime.

 

Amen.

[GettnHuge 2]

Not all of them, no. And how did this not violate "separation of Church and State" regardless of what they were?

 

please provide us with the 'sep of church and state' quote from the constitution.

will eagerly await

[Strike 6,024]

I did watch the video, and I read the entire transcript of the testimony. Did you? What so many of you sycophants are desperate to believe about that testimony simply isn't true. The excerpts that Frank posted aren't useful to an argument, but he thinks they are. We have a disagreement which revolves around what those books actually say in them (hint: they do not contain proof that the immune system has naturally evolved).

 

 

What a lieing sack of sh*t. You went from "I can't watch it; it's TWO HOURS LONG!!!!" to "I watched it AND read the ENTIRE transcript." Holy Crap that's some funny sh!t!!!!

 

:banana:

[IMMensaMind 462]

I think that you are getting offtrack. There are lots of people that consider themselves christians that believe in evolution. You do not gain anything by bringing "church and state" into this debate.

 

Since that was the original question asked by the OP, it isn't off track whatsoever.

[IMMensaMind 462]

What a lieing sack of sh*t. You went from "I can't watch it; it's TWO HOURS LONG!!!!" to "I watched it AND read the ENTIRE transcript." Holy Crap that's some funny sh!t!!!!

 

:banana:

 

Quiz me. And if you call me a lying sack of sh!t again, I will hunt you down and pull out your testicles through your mouth.

[IMMensaMind 462]

please provide us with the 'sep of church and state' quote from the constitution.

will eagerly await

 

You aren't this dense, are you? Do you not remember the question asked by the OP? It's right at the top of the page.

[IMMensaMind 462]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

 

as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. The original text reads: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. Like many other governing principles, the phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

 

So it actually isn't in the constitution of the United States. And what it does say is that the American peoples legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof". Which is saying it should be perfectly OK to practice your religion (e.g. pray to God) anywhere and at anytime.

 

Amen.

 

In public/government places? Interesting! So what is your and the OP's objection to even ID in science class, or wherever the fock any given school chooses to put it?

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

Since that was the original question asked by the OP, it isn't off track whatsoever.

 

I do not think people have a problem with the christian aspect of ID, the reason people do not want ID taught in schools is because there is a lack of scientific evidence. Also there is strong scientific evidence that supports evolution.

 

Why would science class teach something that does not have a strong scientific backing?

[Strike 6,024]

Quiz me. And if you call me a lying sack of sh!t again, I will hunt you down and pull out your testicles through your mouth.

 

You're a lieing sack of sh*t. Bring it. I doubt you even viewed the video but I'm certain you haven't read the transcript. Heck, I doubt you even open up a book unless it has big pictures in it. I'm not gonna quiz you. Your answers are idiotic. I'm not gonna waste my time trying to have an intelligent debate with you. You're not capable. I enjoy mocking your idiocy, as I've said before. I'll continue to do so when you present the opportunity.

[Gepetto 1,454]

You aren't this dense, are you? Do you not remember the question asked by the OP? It's right at the top of the page.

 

Teaching creation in schools does not violate separation of church and state because separation of church and state is not a law nor is it in the constitution.