Journal superyooser's Journal: Critical Thinking Ruled Unconstitutional 22
Here is the story and discussion.
[ Update: Gerv has weighed in on the issue in his blog where he traces the spiraling devolution of the Constitution's First Amendment to today's dogma of "separation of Church and State."]
If you're jumping in, you should consider checking out AiG's Science FAQ and their page on "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use."
Actually, I, too, disagree with the sticker. Evolution should not be dignified by elevating it to the lofty stature of scientific theory when it is little more than a collection of unproven hypotheses and wishful conjecture that has been assembled and molded to affirm a humanist view of reality.
If you were walking along a beach and found a watch on the ground, you wouldn't say, "Wow! This watch evolved from the sand!" But that's a lot like what the evolutionists would have you believe. Given a few billion years or so, those minerals and water produced life, and eventually, you and me. Sorry, I don't have nearly enough faith to swallow that. I could more easily believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy than that flimflam.
(I was going to call it "sophistry," but after looking up that word in the dictionary, I realized that even that term would raise Evolution's stature above its merit.
So, let's see... in my last JE, our tax money was being sent to fund terrorists. In this one, it's being used to fund a Godless religion that most Americans don't believe in and to push it exclusively down our kids' throats, as if it were State propaganda. What is this? Communist China?
"In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."
- a Chinese paleontologist (quoted by Phillip E. Johnson)
Re:Critical thinking. (Score:2)
See the evidence [amazon.com] for yourself.
Re:Critical thinking. (Score:1)
all the arguments written for evolution, of which there is a lot since evolution has been under sharp criticism since its inception, counts only for unproven hypotheses and wishful conjectures. But you pull out one book and claim it's evidence? Something's funny with your logic here.
Re:Critical thinking. (Score:1)
Depends (Score:1)
Re:Depends (Score:1)
I was impressed by... (Score:2)
Considering that they figure any rational person would consider it an endorsement of religion -- a statement that something is a scientific theory is an endorsement of religion -- smacks of judicially enforced group-think.
I disagree with the court (Score:2)
So Much Wrong... So Little Time (Score:1)
heh heh... (Score:1)
If you were walking along a beach and found a watch on the ground, you wouldn't say, "Wow! This watch evolved from the sand!" But that's what the evolutionists would have you believe.
Utter nonsense. Show one example of proofless evolutionary theory as stretched thin as that and I'll eat the turd from my cat's litterbox. Until you start to present actual proofs in either camp you're just another making superstitious rants.
Why should he? (Score:2)
Re:Why should he? (Score:1)
Stop. Please, stop (Score:2)
Re:Stop. Please, stop (Score:1)
I completely agree. (Score:1)
If we took the resources and energy that we currently devote to arguing over scripture, and devoted them to the rigorous teaching of critical thinking skills, we could have this whole religion problem licked in a single generation.
Here's your sticker - you know where to stick it (Score:2)
Re:Here's your sticker - you know where to stick i (Score:1)
Evolution is a theory, (Score:2)
The current thoughts on evoltion are not exactly what darwin laid out in 1859, but they are a direct decendent of it.
Evolution is a Theory, as are the laws of graviation, but the sticker is trying to misuse the word theory to mislead people.