"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
And somehow this is a religious statement? An acknowledgement that still, to this day, as stated by eminent scientists such as Stephen Hawkings, there is still not 1...not even a single, solitary example of interspecies change...there is not 1 shred of proof anywhere in the known universe of macro-evolution, which is change between species, the above statement is so dangerous the ACLU feels compelled to fight it? This is needed for "separation of church and state", already a flawed concept that has somehow accorded the force of law? If you needed any further proof that evolution is mere religious philosophy just like scientology. Except less credible, if that's possible.
How dare people suggest evolution can't defend itself, that the "facts" are not sufficient to defend it from the onslaught of people actually noticing the fossil record shows only change within species, the rock strata contradict rather than confirm evolution, and that it is possible the unsubstantiated hypothesis taken as iron-clad fact by so many people might not stand up to actual scrutiny?
Note: The previous paragraph is extremely heavy on sarcasm.
It is sad that suggesting people look at something critically is now a religious statement. You are only free to state your opinion in this country if you agree with the vocal people, reality and truth be smurfed. This is sad and pathetic.
So let's go on miseducating the young people, letting them believe a hypothesis, for by the rules of naming that is what both Creationism and evolution are, is not "merely" a theory but is proven fact and therefore to be believed without question without any evidence backing it up. If we just keep saying it is true long enough then it will be. After all, it worked for the aether...
(editor's note: the aether was a substance assumed to exist everywhere based on Newtonian physics that was held to be true for hundreds of years without evidence until disproven by Einstein between 1905 and 1919. Interestingly enough, recent developments seem to suggest this thing, once disproven, may actually exist...)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3524585.html
4 years ago
4 comments:
U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the sticker "conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders."
How did this guy end up sitting on a Federal Bench??? How does this endorse anything other than the idea that there is at least a question of the truth of this material, so you should think as you study. The last half of that last sentence should be involved in all study anyway. The fact that it isn't is part of the reason that such an utterly ridiculous hoax has been perpetrated for so long.
Incidently, I could not quite understand the last paragraph. (Before the note)And there is something wrong with the Legitamizing legitamate legitamacy post.
It really disturbs me that you think separation of church and state is a flawed concept. You wouldn't want to be forced to accept someone else's religion in government, would you?
Except that we are every day. We are required to teach something that is 100% based on faith that ignores every fact involved in order to avoid believing that there might be a higher being to which we are responsible. Aetheism is every bit as much a religious belief as is christianity. But that is not actually the point. The point is that
A)There is no "seperation of church and state" anywhere in any founding document.
B)The Bill of Rights says, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or preventing the free excercise thereof." How does a sticker saying that "the materials you are about to read have not been proven to be true, so study with an open mind" establish a religion.
C)The Bill of Rights (except where specifically noted)applies only to the federal congress. States are allowed to establish any religion they wish and many of them did have official state religions early on. If I am not mistaken this is a state school and therefore not even subject to this argument.
D)This had no congressional involvement and therefore it wouldn't be relevant even if it were a federal school.
It's a funny thing, how every religeon or belief except those based on Christianity are tolerated, and then Christians are the ones who get called out for being intolerant and bigots.
Right now, I would say a Church is very much a part of the State-Atheism is being forced by the government on every person attending public schools.
When the 10 Commandments fell, our obligation for morality fell with it. Atheism has no moral code, it's only rule being "do as you like". Without some sort of enforcable moral standards, governments througout history have routinely fallen. The people in the French Revolution, for instance, did not only want freedom from their king, but freedom from God/gods also. They tried for a society free from all authority. They ended up with Napoleon. A government needs some moral backbone to work, and we recently lost ours. Watch how fast we loose the sanity we as a country still have.
Post a Comment