|
|
|
Separate This
December 1, 2004
During my first two years of high school, I was a closet-Christian. I was like, you know, undercover and whatnot. I had mastered the art of not saying anything and fading into the background. Probably like some of you. Then again, I'm certain this disposition had to have been specific to me, right? It was the summer before my junior year that I went with my mother and sister to Zimbabwe and had my life totally transformed in one moment during a conference of thousands of Zimbabweans, collectively praising the God of the Universe. After that point, I was "firebrand Ambra" as a fellow blogger once called me. When I returned to school that fall, my first order of business was to try to start a Bible study group at school along with a few of my friends. If I knew then what I know now (one of the dumbest phrases ever to be uttered by humanity), I would have petitioned the school administration to be able to start an after school study group of a particular "historical text" for the sake of personal enrichment and a higher score on the SAT II subject test for Hebrew. Instead, thinking our "cause" was certainly just as valid as the queer folk (their self-imposed title, not mine, although it's fitting), who had recently been granted permission to start a group called "Gay, Lesbian, or Whatever" (GLOW), we approached the possibility in all honesty and purity with the words, "We want to start an on-campus Bible study". Just what were we thinking? Although my high school was private, it certainly wasn't "religious" and it definitely wasn't "tolerant" despite what the guidance counselor who got paid to hand out condoms may tell you. In all their autonomy and "independence" my private high school resorted to referring to the public schools' observance of "separation of church and state" law as a means to deny us our most humble and unobtrusive request. "No religious groups on campus," they said. And I might add, they were certainly well within their rights to say so. After all, anyone who charges $19,320 a year in tuition for a mere secondary education and perhaps a slightly higher possibility of making it into an Ivy League school, can do whatever the heck they want to. It's their world; we were all just squirrels tryin' to get a nut (and high paying salaries in our adulthood). But I will say this: they certainly didn't stop us from praying around the flag pole when we did so. And I can just about guarantee that following 9/11, nobody up on that campus had any problem with Bible OR prayer. Funny how things work that way. The tossing in of the "church and state separation" rhetoric was pretty low of them considering that A) most public schools I knew back then had on-campus Bible studies and B) That aspect of the First Amendment has been mis-interpreted for years, and thereafter manipulated to remove prayer from schools, force-feed evolution, and keep students from collectively discussing the Bible on their own free time. I submit to you that the greatest detriment of the Left's mis-representation of this aspect of the First Amendment is the effect it's had on how we educate in this country. Let us read the writing on the proverbial wall: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The "separation of church and state" language is a lie because it's not there. It is a sword improperly yielded by the the God-hating section of the Left (which is arguably all of the Left, except of course my Democrat family members and my next-door neighbors). The words "separation of church and state" were actually co-opted by Thomas Jefferson who referenced the words of another when referring to the "wall" or "barrier" that must be built between the church and the state. However, it is rarely noted that Jefferson did so in a written address to a Baptist Convention where he was assuring them that the state would not dictate to them how they ought to worship God or stop them from teaching Biblical values....Uncanny. The intention of the law is in fact to protect the church from the state, not the other way around. And how prophetic it was as someone a long long time ago was able to foresee that humanity, when left to its own devices will seek to destroy anything in its wake. During the time Jefferson's words were spoken, there was a fear present in the church that America would move towards adopting a national religion like the church of England and ultimately, regulate worship into the crevices of peoples' homes. And thanks be to God such a law helped us not to go that route as the the Church of England is stoic and nearly dead. Unfortunately, that same law was a double-edged sword. In his recent column, "We Don't Need Them", activist and pundit Mychal Massie eloquently and insightfully inquires rhetorically about our application of this law: "Why must we wage costly court battles to retain the right to ask God's blessing on our food; to not have our children subjected to the loathsome homosexual agenda in grades K--5; to not have our daughters taught how to deceive their parents; to have our children taught without bias and prejudice of agenda-driven professors? Why fight for our children to celebrate Christmas, but not Ramadan or Kwanzaa? Why would anyone-- much less a Christian -- continue to send their children to such institutions?Good question. And the answer is two-fold: one because the average person with the insight Massie just gave probably can't afford to send their children to private school or homeschool, and two, because the Church isn't doing its job. We've left education of children as a responsibility for the government to handle and that's our first (and biggest) mistake. But the issue is complex. Massie points out some statistics behind our country attempting to remove God from schools: "Every facet of public school system has been negatively affected since the anti-God rulings in 1962 and 1963. It doesn't matter what those who revel in those rulings say -- the proof of the matter is as follows:Massie goes on to point out that these statistics are not the same for privately educated or homeschooled children. To counter this point a bit, I should note that it may be an unfair assumption to compare homeschoolers with public schooled children as some of these problems are a bit cyclical in nature (e.g. single mother is probably less likely to homeschool in the first place). In light of some of these facts, the trend in thought has been more geared towards the "mass exodus" concept which is to essentially create a Christian sub-culture of private (and better) schools where children are being educated without having to put on the full armor of God in order to combat the liberal crap taught in every crevice and corner of the average public school. I am in full support of this methodology, and regardless of my support, it will happen anyway once enough people get sick and tired of being sick and tired. But I am not in support of the "abandon the public school system altogether" philosophy. I'm not comfortable letting "them" getting away that easy. We need educators and lawmakers that will not only advocate for change within the school system, but will start holding people accountable to what our laws really say and not some faulty interpretation that's been passed on throughout the years. Liberals have this grandiose fear that the "American Taliban" will infiltrate the school system and force every child to recite scriptures and be spanked by a rod. While this is untrue, the reality is, liberals are threatened by the fact that their "religious doctrine" (because yes that's what it is) of secular humanism will be challenged by the truth and be defeated. Until then, we'll just continue to watch our kids shoot each other in the classroom and practice putting bubble gum flavored condoms on cucumbers. Maybe eventually the hard-hearted will see that their method doesn't seem to be working. 
re: tuition prices....laptops are much cheaper these days, unless those folk just like to throw away their money. homeschooling - everyone has notions that it's a flop, however those who do it and do it successfully have very well balanced, smart, successfull kids. I'm not going to fight the system with my kid and hope I win. I'm going to "copp out" next year with my kid because I want a well developed child plus I suppose that I should heed the Word of God and take responsibility for teaching my child rather than let a failed system attempt to teach him. After spending my Junior and Senior years of high school in Utah, I got to thinking that us Christians should start taking notes from the Mormons on how to skirt the church/state "separation". In Utah my classmates were taking mormon seminary during school hours. Seminary as a class. In a public school. Of course they didn't get credit for it, but it was blocked right into their schedule, between history and algebra or whatever. The LDS church goes around buying property next to every Jr. High and High School building and then erects a teaching facility/"seminary building". Then the good little mormon students only have to walk directly across the parking lot, and viola! they are at seminary. As a Christian, I was pretty upset. Of course there was no way my friends and I would be allowed to have an entire class period a day just for Bible study, but we were welcome to take seminary if we wanted. As for me, I used it to my advantage in other ways. While my classmates were all busy filling "empty" credits for seminary, I was taking the required credits to graduate, and ended up finishing school a semester early. :) It's time for the bible believing, and bible teaching churches to begin speaking reform into those that are lacking prudence. It's great that we've shown our strength at the polls. It's time that we continue that trend and stop groups like the ACLU from trampling over our ideals with their roughshod interpretation of the Constitution. How on earth did your PRIVATE school classify itsself as "state" in that equation? :) regarding "well-balanced, smart" home-schooled kids. being home schooled doesn't make a kid smart. if a kid is smart and home schooled, and blessed with above-average social skills and coping mechanisms, s/he will be just fine. if the kid isn't outstanding, then it is possible that a home-schooling will limit her/his educational horizons, or worse. i've seen it. i simply do not buy the argument that any caring parent (or any parent who heeds the word of God) will, in every case, home-school. there are many hours in the day that the child is NOT at school--many hours for parent-led education. it is not an either/or argument. parents who care about their kids' educations need to get involved, regardless of the educational method they choose. Christian parents need to find out what the kids are learning in biology, in literature classes, in history, in philosophy, in whatever, and supplement it with sound teaching. now, if we have a bunch of well-educated Christian kids running around our public/private schools, thoughtfully confronting the religion of secular humanism (and whatever other un-truths that crop up) that strikes me as a good thing for everyone involved--the non-Christian kids who are exposed to the light of the truth, and the Christian kids who are in the world, but not of the world. of course, i went through a pretty good public school system, accepted Christ at age 4 and don't have any kids of my own yet, so what do i know? What for and when were public schools created for? There are not MANY hours in the day for education after a full day of school and parents work - maybe 3 or 4 at the most. Unless of course you don't have to cook dinner, commute, clean, shop for food etc. You may be left with 3 at best. Many parents are more interested in making sure their kids play ball after school rather than try to understand what goes on in school. Very few parents know what goes on in a classroom. Good Public Schools are few if one goes to a good school consider yourself lucky....or maybe you just think you went to a good school? i'm thinking that SharonB's last question was directed at me, so i'll answer. yes, (as i mentioned), i do admit that i went to a GOOD school. but i, by no means, went to a CHRISTIAN/TRADITIONAL VALUE-LOVING school. very, very far from it. lesbians making out in the hallway? can't do a thing about it--that would be discriminatory (they cracked down on straight couple PDA without impunity--i don't mind the cracking down--just crack down on EVERYONE, please). here's the thing. i know a lot of exceptionally bright young people, some of whom are home schooled, some not. some of the public schooled kids that i know come from strong, healthy, truth-founded families, and they are making a difference in their schools, while positioning themselves to be very successful in their future endeavors (you know, west point cadet, pre-med, architecture major, just to name a few). when i say 'make a difference,' i mean it. they tell me about their experiences standing up for Christ and a Biblical worldview; like the student body president who stepped down in protest to abhorrent 'multiculturalism,' and wrote several open letters to various administrators and his fellow students explaining his decision. every single time they walk into those doors, they know it is a mission field--a field NO ONE ELSE has access to. i can not do that work for them. they have to do it themselves. perhaps it is because of my overwhelming admiration for these kids that i think it is a good thing they went through (and are going through) the public school system in my town. some of the points i pick up in your comment, SharonB, have to do with a lack of time and parental responsibility. i was trying to remark on parents that were already willing to home-school, which obviously also takes a lot of parental time (i'm guessing something like the 3-4 hours you mention). so, to me, it didn't seem out of line to advocate this kind of support for public/private-schooled-kids. it sounds like we agree that parents need to know what's going on in the classroom--i'm just suggesting that those parents respond to it by making sure their kids are learning the truth, in addition to what they're being exposed to at school. (ambra, sorry for being so long-winded. this hit one of my buttons. man, i sure hope this didn't jeopardize my chances in the card lottery . . .) i think it is ridicuous that the governemtn feels it has the authority to regualte what a parent does in their own home in regard to raising their child. I willbe homeschooling my son. if women have a "right to privacy" to have an abortion, then i have one to raise my child. b Sondra: I've long said that Christians should be taking notes from LDS--doctrine aside. As for the whole homeschool conversation, I'll comment on that later on tonight. Too much brain power required. "now, if we have a bunch of well-educated Christian kids running around our public/private schools, thoughtfully confronting the religion of secular humanism (and whatever other un-truths that crop up) that strikes me as a good thing for everyone involved--the non-Christian kids who are exposed to the light of the truth, and the Christian kids who are in the world, but not of the world." Great points Brenton, sending our kids to public schools equipped with the word of God is beneficial to all parties. I have a 9 year old attending a public charter school and we have faced this very situation on many occasions. I must admit, I've been pleasantly impressed with my sons resilience and fairly strong convictions. He openly and honestly dicusses the Lord with his classmates, especially those who do not agree. Every other day I am greeted with another story of what a classmate said or did and how he shared the truth of Christ with them in response. Amazing! I find my own faith increased from hearing about his adventures. While I've considered homeschooling myself or private Christian schools, I must admit, I am in no hurry to pull him out as of yet, knowing that his presence could be making a profound difference in others lives. Maybe this is something all Christian parents should consider before pulling their kids out of public school. First off, Tae, stop writing in prose please. It makes your comments longer than they need to be and it's irritating. Secondly, thank you for posting precidents and interpretations of the law. This is my point. For far too long, we've been allowing these to be our guidance on something that was written long enough ago that the current generation has no care in what the words penned truly meant. That's why my declaration of smarter lawmakers still stands. Get in there and re-write the precidents. Lastly, you failed to address one of the points central to my first paragraph. The protection of the church from the state. Where exactly does students gathering on their own time to read a text so widely accepted that it's the number one selling book of all time conflict with this law? No poetry please. Full paragraphs. Ambra, you might enjoy perusing the writing or radio shows of Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition. He calls the secular humanism religion "Nimrodville." "now, if we have a bunch of well-educated Christian kids running around our public/private schools, thoughtfully confronting the religion of secular humanism (and whatever other un-truths that crop up) that strikes me as a good thing for everyone involved--the non-Christian kids who are exposed to the light of the truth, and the Christian kids who are in the world, but not of the world." Sentiments like this is why some Christian folks on the Left (no Ambra, not all folks on the left are all God-hating) get a bit squeamish about folks wanting to "put God back into public schools". Not everyone views, nor should they be forced to view, Christianity as the one and only way to know God. If there were a way to "put God back into public schools" by respecting the truth found in other faith-practices and it not resorting to proselytizing to non-Christian youth, then there wouldn't be such an uproar about it. But, the main folks who advocate putting God back into public schools do not accept an interfaith understanding of God. While the problems that Massie lists are troubling, to assert that the only way to address them is by putting God back into the public school system is short-sighted. Nappi: For starters, I just want to say that I find it interesting that you profess to be a Christian and have an issue with putting God back into the school system. Just had to let that be known. But In anycase, let's just be real. We can say all this stuff about how the Left doesn't want people proselytizing the non-Christian youth and how folks who advocate putting God back into public schools do not accept an interfaith understanding of God, and whatever whatever, but in my most honest opinion, I think it's all bunk. Why you say? It's bunk because outside the realm of "Your god is fine with everyone else's god as long as no one's feelings get hurt" (which is really only espoused by the Agnostics and the Left), there is no such thing as the interfaith understanding of God. Why? Because as Lester Spence once said in my comments, "Religion is by definition, absolute". Every religion professes to be the truth and therefore unaccepting of the reality that their equation just might be wrong. It's bunk because there is nothing about Christianity that will ever be appealing to the Left because the Left finds anything that has to do with Jesus Christ offensive. Why? Because the Bible said humanity would be offended by Christ. If two kids wanted to study the Bible in a corner by their lonesome, better believe somebody's going to be offended by it. Why? Because the Truth is threatening. So no matter which way you slice it, the religion of secular humanism wishes to have nothing to do with Christ. I don't believe that anyone here is suggesting that we push to make Bible Study mandatory in public schools. What they are saying is that there is a religion being preached in our public schools right now and it needs to be confronted. Kids should be able to pray study their Bible and engage in discourse about spiritual matters on campus. Period. Teachers need to stop teaching evolution like it's been scientifically proven (with all its holes) and present the information in a much less absolute manner. Sex-ed needs to be tempered significantly. Abstinence and pure lifestyles needs to be presented fairly alongside all the other crap they're peddling. If other religion can be taught, and the Koran assigned as text, the Bible should be allowed to be assigned as text. The words "Under God" in a historical politcal document should not stop it from being used as a teaching aid. These are mere baby steps. I think all the talk about, "putting God back into public schools" is code for saying, let's make public schools into Christian institutions. That is where I have a problem. Kids should be able to pray study their Bible and engage in discourse about spiritual matters on campus. Period. On the surface, I don't have a problem with kids in public schools wanting to start a Bible Study at the school. However, I wonder at what point does a Bible study turn into something that creates an intolerant and hostile environment on a campus. Do you really think that a school-sponsored Bible study can exist without it turning into proselytizing or berating another kid's faith-practice - or lack thereof. If we as adults have a hard time discussing matters of faith in manner that is respectful of other faith practices, what makes you think that kids will be able to? Since matters of faith is increasingly becoming a divisive issue that we as adults can't come to a respectful understanding on, then I'd rather leave it out of the public school environment altogether (just like we rarely discuss matters of faith in the work environment) until we can figure it out ourselves. It's bunk because there is nothing about Christianity that will ever be appealing to the Left because the Left finds anything that has to do with Jesus Christ offensive. Why? Because the Bible said humanity would be offended by Christ. Again, not all folks on the left find Jesus Christ offensive. If anything, liberal/progressive/lefty Christians, whatever you want to call us, have a more tolerant and respectful understanding/appreciation for other faith practices. Yes, I can profess to be a Christian, and still recognize that OTHERS have a right to practice and exercise their faith as well. And maybe, just maybe find some appreciation - not necessarily full acceptance of doctrine - for what their faith-practice teaches. Sex-ed needs to be tempered significantly. Abstinence and pure lifestyles needs to be presented fairly alongside all the other crap they're peddling. Yes, I agree that abstinence needs to be presented alongside safe-sex messages. However, we are quickly swinging towards abstinence only curricula, which often has some very misleading information in it, as a recent report from Representative Waxman points out. http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf I agree with almost everything Ambra said. I would just like to ask when did being "offended" become a crime against humanity? If I banned everything I didn't like or was offended by, this would be a very boring world. Some things that are becoming more divisive: homosexuality, premarital sex, race, war, evolution, diet, enviromentalism... Since a lot of people are offended by these, does the left propose to ban these to? Nappi: You talk as if this is the first time in history that faith has divided people. Heck, I would venture to say that this is one of the LEAST divided times in our history. Ask the Catholic saints who were boiled in oil what they thought about their "times". How about Jesus for a divider? He was crucified for his "divisiveness", among other things. The freedom to offend others is as American as the mythical "separation of church and state" and I don't think it at all unusual that those on the Left can't see how their world view is tremendously offensive to Christians. They are simply blind to the idea that anyone could sanely disagree with their humanist belief system. Christians (specifically the born again variety) know very well that there are warring factions on this planet and understand that it is easy to be blinded to the Truth. The Devil IS a liar. We know that many will not believe as we do and it pains our hearts to know that they cannot share in the great blessings we receive. That doesn't stop us, though, from continuing to share the Gospel no matter the offense it may cause. TD, you might want to check out this study of the meaning (biblical) of "meek" http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2200.htm Ahhh, the myth of the myth of the separation of church and state... true, the exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the constitution... but if you read the writings of jefferson and madison, the authors of the declaration and the constitution, respectively, you will see the phrase over and over and over again. The phrase wasn't just made up in the 60's by liberals... That said... your private school is WRONG as well. If schools allow STUDENTS to form their own non-academic activity groups, then they certainly should allow students to have a student-run bible study (including a faculty supervisor, if that is the standard for other groups). That goes for PUBLIC schools as well... "force-feed evolution" As a scientist, I couldn't let that pass... (1) evolution is a fundamental cornerstone for our understanding of biology, and as such, belongs in the science curriculum. PERIOD. And finally... I never understood what evolution had to do with belief in God and faith in Jesus Christ anyway? Many of us believe in BOTH evolution and God... Is the reason why SOME Christians have a problem with evolution is that if they start to question or not literally interpret Genesis, then that might lead them to question their whole understanding of the Bible? Is their faith that fragile? Hey Jab, do you scientists still refer to the theory of gravity? How about the theory that the Earth resolves the sun? You guys can relax, they are facts. I don't mind evolution theory being taught just as long as other ideas are taught as well. What are you afraid of? If I were trying to find an alternative to GOD and his creation, Darwin's purpose, I'd find a little better idea. Evolution is kinda silly. Steven, Actually, yes... we still refer it to it as the "theory of gravity," because, believe it or not, we have alot of holes in the theory... As for holes in evolution... as I said, there are lots of holes... and I have no problem with them being discussed in a SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT... as in, flaws in a theory point us to new avenues of scientific research... Scientists DO NOT fear people questioning theory or pointing out flaws... it happens all the time. Jab, you may not fully understand gravity (I know I don't) but the basic theories of gravity have been proven. They are now fact. You said "They are attacking not the theory of evolution because of perceived flaws, they are attacking the whole scientific approach/ philosophy." Sounds like you're doing mind reading here. Maybe they don't buy your theory and are searching for something else. Please do some googling, several books have been released recently using the scientific method you have so much faith in. I don't need to see any further proof. Wact ESPN sometime and watch Serena Williams. THAT didn't happen by accident! Definitely a gift from God! It's important to note that Darwin himself was not only an atheist, he was a God-hater (the terms themselves are mutually exlusive). That is why even today, his followers have well, followed suite. Neither the theory of evolution nor creationism can be fully proven. Scientists have theorized the same way Christian scholars have theorized about Genesis. The reality is that theory is theory, and theory should never be taught as absolute, and theory should always be open to be challenged. And even today, there is much research and physical evidence that has proven that the Bible isn't full of fairytales, but true accounts of people who actually lived and *gasp* did the things the Bible said they did. Furthermore, the idea that we all just got here via a big bang is so increibly lofty, and the theory of evolution not only has holes, it was originally designed to refute that there was a God. That in and of itself makes it sketchy. And while I believe all of it to be a big fat lie, that does little to convince the people on these discussions that don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The best part about this reality is that I don't really care. I'm not an apologist, nor do I get excited about apologetics, Ravi Zacccheus, and all the other worthwhile folks who are furthering the cause of Christ to help unlock the minds of the intellectually astute that have trouble with the concept of "faith". However, I can and will refer you to some wonderfully informative and factual sites that can state with clarity where I'm coming from so standby while I gather them please and thank you. Tae, again I ask...stop with verse please. ambra--looks like you discovered a hot topic, based on the length and thoughtfulness of the comments. congratulations! just real quick, here's a thought on the whole creation/evolution thing. life is unique. from the smallest mite to humankind, we all have something that is impossible to make. i have not come across an convincing alternate explanation for the genesis of life aside from creation--in some form or another. this difference (between alive and not alive) is so vast, that it seems to me that it can possibly fit outside the pale of biology. sure, it hurts to think that you can have an entire study that is clueless to its origins, but no one has explained to me how protons and neutrons showed up in the first place, either. that doesn't stop people from studying chemistry. now, evolutionary theory explains some things, no question. but it can't definitively explain the genesis of life--and that's what i have a problem with. i'd be happy if i heard a biology teacher say "this is evolution, here are the moths that changed colors, here are the birds with longer beaks, but we can't really explain where life started in the first place. it might have been something we don't understand fully. some scientists who deny any intelligent design think it was a mix of chemicals that combined one time to create life from non-life. this has never been observed in nature, so we can't be sure about it. on the other hand, some people think it was God, or something like that." If observable predictions are the proof positive I have to ask, what predictions of evolution are there that have been observed in the natural world and reproduced in the lab? Also evolutionary theory as it is currently taught is not about predicting future events but explaining past ones. I thought this post was about separation of church and state? Evolution and Creationism are both belief systems based on a set of presuppositions that either side already holds to. One belief is based on spontaneous generation and mutation while the other is based on design from a greater intelligence which allows for natural selection. So far as predictability, while the question is asked of creationism the same can be asked of evolution. It is easy to predict future circumstances of something observable without knowing how that particular observable curcumstance came about. I know that when I turn my key in the ignition of my car the car will start, I don't have to know how the car was made or even what it is made of, or what company made it in order to predict whether or not it will start. So to ask what creationism has predicted, without stating any specifics of what evolution has predicted is merely attempting to set up a straw man just to knock it down. Not very honest at all. In regards to teaching evolution in schools, it is intellectually dishonest for educators to continue to teach a theory as fact at the exclusion of alternative theories. That is called indoctrination, which ironically, is what secularist are afraid of in regards to excluding Christianity from the public discourse, yet have no problem with the afore mentioned being perpetrated upon or nations youth. Personally, I teach my son both evolution and creationism so that he can know the difference between a lie and the truth. All children should have the same advantage. since this thread is still warm (if not hot), is anyone able to tell me how things got started--where life came from in the first place? to me, creationism and evolutionary theory are somewhat apples/oranges, in a sense. i think that the Biblical model of a "God" creating life in the first place is plausible. (by plausible, i basically mean that anyone is going to have to take a leap of faith to explain the genesis of life on earth--either you believe in an intelligent design or you believe in a primordial soup thing or you believe in something else--they all seem to be counterintuitive in their own ways, but i have a much easier time believing in a creator, due to the absolutely spectacular nature of life, and that's my choice.) you can have evolutionary theory in classes, and i'm not even that upset about 'creationism' not being presented as a counterweight. i'd just love for a biology teacher to stand up and say "listen, we've observed that stuff can mutate. now, granted, to create the entire world of life that we currently live in, that's a whole freaking tons of mutations. scientists have to keep making the lifespan of the world longer in order to account for the absolutely mind-boggling number of evolutions that have happened. an influenza virus can evolve to avoid vaccines, but it ain't anywhere close to growing legs. anyway, i'll admit it takes some faith to believe that evolution, without any sort of intelligent design, is solely responsible for the existence of all the species of flora and fauna here on earth. oh, and set aside the fact that most of the 'scientific' ideas for how life started in the very first place are pretty shaky. i mean, they involve massive amounts of electricity, or just the right conditions, or whatever, but we've never seen anything like it, so it isn't really good science to purport to know how life started. anyway, get out your textbooks, and let's talk about how lamarck was an idiot, and how mendel wasn't, even though he had the audacity to believe in something he called God." hopefully you see my point: creationism is about CREATION--i.e., creating life. i'm not going to go crazy on you if you think that life evolved over eons and eons--you have faith that that is plausible, i believe that it is more plausible that the whole shooting match was designed by God. cool. but what evolution cannot explain is what it evolved FROM. in the first place. you can't get something from nothing. for this Christian, this is what i'd like to see mentioned in the classrooms. the entire study of biology is based on the fact that life exists, but there is no explanation of HOW. so, admit this is a mystery, and then go from there. does that discussion belong in religion classes instead of biology classes? yeah, the discussion does, but i think that biology teachers need to make sure the students know biology cannot explain the genesis of life. sure, it requires us "all-knowing" humans to admit we don't know something. but maybe that's good for us every now and again. (by the way, i'll be happy to admit that it is all a faith-based thing, when it comes down to how life began in the first place. i cannot conclusively prove that God did it. i don't need to.) and now i'm done, i promise. someone else, please have the last word. Steven Kelso said: "Jab, you may not fully understand gravity (I know I don't) but the basic theories of gravity have been proven. They are now fact." That is just flat out WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. Mr. Kelso... On re-reading your post... I see you never claimed you understood all the details of gravity. But the point still stands. Tae. This is not your blog, it's mine. I am the only one allowed to drop novellas in the comments section. Do you honestly think anyone is going to read through all that? Maybe, but I'm not. Condense. Otherwise, I'll condense it for you. Just couldn't let tae_diggs have the last word. Let's all breath now. I second you Ambra - who's going to read all of that stuff s/he posted? I read blogs because they are short & some are sweet. I dont care who is being quoted. Condese or link it so that the other person (whom you are addressing) can if they so choose read it at length. Aw man, you missed your chance! { Comments are now closed for this entry. } |
 May 2009 April 2009 August 2007 June 2007 May 2007 March 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004  Baldilocks Black Informant Booker Rising Cobb Evangelical Outpost DC Thornton Hip-Hop Republican Ill Doctrine Jen Lancaster* Joanne Jacobs Joel Stockstill La Shawn Barber Michelle Malkin Nerd With Swag Racialicious The Pioneer Woman You129 *indicates strong language Disclaimer: This is my personal blog. The views expressed on these pages are mine alone and do not represent those of my dog.
|
|||
 |
|
|
|
There is a point to all of my stories.
 RSS Feed |
It's hard for me to imagine you as a closet anything! :)
Homeschooling always seemed to me to be like copping out and letting them win, but I don't hold anything against those who go that route.
If I had the money, my kids would be in private school right now.