Greetings From Idiot America Au contraire. It is the "intelligent, educated segment" of American culture that is under attack.

Correct: it is the truly intelligent, educated segment - Christians who know that the Word of God is the primary reference in light of which we should interpret what we observe in the world and not vice versa - who are under attack by the demon-serving atheists who wrote that piece of garbage and who predicate all of their so-called "science" on the mistaken belief that God does not exist.

Atheism and atheistic worldviews are the height of ignorance. Science is most properly understood to be the study of God's creation.

I think a very strong message was sent when all 8 board members who voted for intelligent design, were voted out of their position in Dover, PA.

Story Here



There is no room for religion to be taught in schools. Period. If you want religion taught to your children, send them to private school or homeschool them. School subjects should be reserved for teaching facts, and since no religion is the "right" religion, none should be taught.

If they want to keep religion out of the public schools, then they need to quit teaching Darwinian evolution. It has been disproven by the scientific community and is no less "religious", albeit atheistic rahter than Judeo-Christian, than creationism.

I say we need to kick the atheists out of the public schools. And public office. And the media, etc.

Then again, since religion informs one's worldview so fundamentally, school choice may be the only truly valid way to avoid violation of either the establishment or free exercise clause of the constitution. But the atheists who currently control the public schools and so much of the government refuse to give us our children's education funds to invest in the school of our choice. Until they do, the public schools must be made to accommodate the majority view - which is Judeo-Christian.

Thats not what Pastor Mummert said. Are you asserting he's not a Christian or just disagreeing with the implication that creationists arent intelligent or educated? Your "mistaken belief" is that science is predicated on God's non-existence. Science only "disproves" the literal interpretation of your creationist myth. As a parable, the evolutionary timeline in Genesis ['Let there be light = big bang etc] is remarkably prescient. The "revelation" of DNA as a mechanism of reproduction would certainly have seemed, to a primitive nomad, similar to the 'double helix' of a ribcage.No surprise to find a Christian fundie advocating a truly invalid violation of the 1st Amendment.Got any support that natural selection has been "disproven by the scientific community" or, as usual, are you just being a blowhard?As opposed to Adam and Eve, those demon-serving believers, who partook from the tree of knowledge? The roots of the Judeo-Christian conflict between knowledge and faith are long and deep indeed.

The "study of God's creation" is most properly understood to be the art of myth and superstition. btw - which of the two creation myths in Genesis do you subscribe to?

Anyone see the cartoon in the weekend HM showing God holding a lighter? I liked it -- kinda sums up my belief in the big bang.

Natural selection and old earth theories of origins are only the best theories if you start with the Atheistic religious belief that God does not exist. Until "science" sends a camera crew back in time to record the creation of the universe and all that fills it, it cannot ever disprove the biblical account.

You are making the mistaken assumption that our perceptions are the ultimate measure of reality and can be used to prove or disprove what God says in the Bible. I posit that God's word tells us the absolute truth and that observations made by mankind must be evaluated against the truths of scripture, realizing that human perceptions are flawed, but Gods are not.

You would have us officially become an Atheist nation. Forget it: ain't gonna happen. The Constitution gurantees freedom OF religion, it most definitely does not establish state-sponsored Atheism. School choice is the best answer, but if any religious system is to be taught in the public schools and rule our public policies, then this being nominally a democracy, the majority should rule, not the Atheists.

Plenty. You're the one who's doing all of the blowing here, but I don't find it very stimulating. Keep trying.

If the U.S. taught one religion in school, based on a vote, the constitution would no longer be valid in upholding freedom of religion. It would have to be an all or nothing deal, which is how it is now, since there already isn't enough time in the day to incorporate religion into the curriculum.

Until Yahweh sends the son of man or somesuch, back to earth to miraculously verify the creationist myth, y'all cant ever prove the biblical account.lol...and I posit youve used your fallible human perceptions to misinterpret "the word" as the absolute truth. Matter of fact, there must have been quite a bit of that ol' human perceptual fallibility involved in the writing and re-writing of the bible. You'd think an omnipotent being might be a little less ambiguous in the presenting humanity with the "absolute truth".Nice example of fallibility in fabricating that straw man argument out of my statement. Your "...the public schools must be made to accommodate the majority view - which is Judeo-Christian" would clearly be a 1st Amendment violation...a point you even acknowledge by proposing school choice specifically to avoid violating the 1A establishment clause. No, its you who is ultimately arguing that the status quo "officially" makes us an atheist nation because 1) "atheists...currently control the public schools and so much of the government" and 2) only "God's word tells us the absolute truth". Good luck getting any court in the land to seriously consider science as an aetheistic religion. Besides being an idiotic assertion, your special definition of science as a religion would prohibit, per the 1st Amendment. science from even being taught in public school.

Still waiting for some support to your claim that the "atheistic" scientific community has disproven "atheistic" evolution :}

Why are people so afraid of their children learning about theories, ideas or facts that do not align with their own?

I see this fear on both sides, so I am not saying one or the other is correct.

If a child is being taught evolution and you believe in Intelligent Design, then discuss with your child why you believe the way you do. Conversly, if you believe in evolution and your child learns about Intelligent Design, explain why you believe in evolution.

There are many different opinions and methods in this world, giving us the opportunity to explain to our children what we believe and why. At the same time it teaches them that there are two sides to every controversy and trains them on how to back up their own beliefs, should they ever feel compelled to enter into a conversation with someone who believes differently.

If only one way of thinking on every single subject, or portion thereof, is taught in our public schools, I fear for the ability of our students to think for themselves and test new ideas and theories.

If you are an aetheist and do not want your children to ever hear about religious views, you have a long road ahead. If you are religious and do not want your children to learn aetheist views, you are also in for a long road ahead.

As far as not teaching certain things (like religion) in schools, I think there are already too many personal things, other than academics that are taught, like sex education and character counts, and DARE as well.

Bottom line, I would like for my children to go to school to learn academics. I beleive it is up to me to teach them about morals, religious beliefs, when and with whom to have sex, how and why to say no, etc. etc....

I don't care if my kids learn different scientific theories, or either one of the two currently under discussion, they are smart enough to research and come up with their own conclusions on what they choose to believe.

I think some people were taught once that the world was flat. Weren't they?

Oh come on! I know you're not REALLY one of those morons who screams "****phobe" every time somebody disagrees with them.

I have no fear of Darwinian evolutionary theory being taught for what it is: a theory. What I take offense to is the false portrayal of it as if it were proven fact. Intelligent design and straight biblical creationism have just as many facts to support them, in spite of the attempts by atheists to portray anyone who opposes their evolutionary religion as an idiot (point proven, considering the title of the article posted - "Idiot America").

Why do you insist that bible-believing Christians MUST be the ones who are forced to teach their beliefs at home in private like they're some kind of dirty little secret? Our beliefs should be given equal credence and standing. That's all we're asking for.

Okay, then if that's your goal, and it sounds reasonable, then teach all of the theories on an equal footing in the public school and present the most persuasive arguments from all sides of the debate to the kids in the classrooom, so they can learn critical thinking and debating skills and choose for themselves. Don't ban Christian-based theories while at the same time promoting Atheist ones. Today's modern public schools are in many respects the equivalent of Atheist Seminaries, where kids are brainwashed into accepting a whole host of Atheist beliefs and immoral "values", while anything remotely Christian is automatically banned.

Not to worry: every way imaginable is being taught, EXCEPT FOR Judeo-Christian ways. They are banned, while everything and anything else is portrayed as somehow superior. What I object to is having my beliefs singled out for discrimination.

Keep dreaming. The fact is, they spend a lot of time around other people, in school and out. You are only one of many who will impact their beliefs, and there's no way you can realistically hope to limit school, especially the public schools, exclusively to whatever you choose to call "academic". It bears mentioning by the way, that religion, philosophy, and theology are all proper ACADEMIC subjects, and a mandatory part of any well-rounded education.

Careful there: your horns are showing! That was an extremely thinly-veiled attack on Christians and Christianity. Very uncharacteristic, but your bias is duly noted.

Would you be afraid of your kids learning the theory that 2+2=3 just because it doesnt align with your own idea of simple arithmetic?Christian fundamentalists fear "theories, ideas or facts" that do not align with the "absolute truth" of the Bible. The "intelligent, educated segment of our culture" fear the religious belief being used to malign "theories, ideas or facts".Critical thinking isnt important if, as Big believes, human perception cant be trusted and that truth is only discovered after being filtered thru the literal prism of the Bible.The court ruled Intelligent Design is not scientific theory but a thinly disguised version of creationist religious belief. The Supreme Court ruled in '87 that the teaching of evolution does not have to be balanced by teaching creationism as a competing theory. Creationism is the religious belief that forms the basis of Christian theology. Evolution is the scientific theory that forms the basis for modern biology. Cant have it both ways webbie. Either your kids "learn different scientific theories...either one of the two currently under discussion" or they learn physics and biology in school and then you explain your own creation beliefs at home. If youre of Eskimo descent those beliefs would involve a black raven as the creator :}

Doubtful that the "demon-serving" atheists at Biggie's biotech employer depend on biblical scholarship for their research and production methodology. Certain that those same atheists would be shocked at Biggie's implied plan for an American theocracy.Only until advanced Islamic astronomy enlightened the backward Christian west in the middle ages ;}

To paraphrase cf - "a battle of wits with the witless". If youre gonna spout on about "absoloute truth" ya really should try not to contradict yourself so absolutely.Point proven indeed (see above).

I "fear" you and similarly mindless nitwits about as much as I "fear" a petulant toddler. Your ignorance is mildly annoying, and that's about it.

Engaging in a battle of wits with as witless and ignorant a fool as you is a waste of my time. So please don't pretend to be surprised as I go back to ignoring your mindless babbling.

...and when dealing with someone whose arguments are so inane as to be unworthy of the effort necessary to continue debate.

When you grow up enough to stop using childish nicknames when referring to the President of the United States of America, then maybe I will consider honoring your opinions with reasoned rebuttal. Then again, maybe not.

E?

Is there any real purpose, other than getting your post numbers up, that you keep posting with B's statements?

Just wondering.

Not to defend E, but B certainly has a funny way of ignoring people.

me too ;}

The point of the article was if you're not a secular elitist liberal you're an idiot.

And they wonder why the republicans keep winning elections.

Actually, the point of the article defines the Republican majority.

Are U for or against torture today ;}

It must really suck being in the minority.

Not when the distinction is between mass idiocy and otherwise. The Esquire article also points out how much it burdens America to be ruled by idjits who, among their sundry transgressions against reason, willfully contradict themselves and continually ignore the consequences of having done so.

True, in a way, I suppose. Though I hardly ever consider them worthy of the effort to make long reasoned arguments against their idiocy, I find that I can't resist the urge to poke these sore loser libs with the verbal equivalent of a sharp stick every now and then just to see what kind of a reaction I get. This thread is the first time in a long time I have bothered to even begin to try. But the responses are just so ridiculous, I find I can't bring myself to continue. E and co. are just way too far "out there" to be worth my time.

One gets tired of watching them cheer each other on ad nauseum.

Udmas is right: It must REALLY SUCK to be them!

E - Does your wife know you're spending so much time obsessing about some man over the internet? This is really getting out of hand.

Vatican media opposes Intelligent DesignBut it can also be argued that Professor Facchini isnt American

Everyone has it wrong, we are just some one's scientific experiment--captured in a bell jar so to speak. read the many theories advanced by science fiction writers. their theories are probably just as good as the next guy. Neither of the two major theories can be proven by science at this point. It could be that the guy who owns the bell jar is the One we call God.

BTW my God can probably beat the crap out of your God--Let's have a war!! oops we already are.

Stretch your imagination for a moment, and let's just say that there really is a God who is much bigger than us, and created us. I can just imagine Him now, looking down at His Creation, saying, "Ohhh man!! They believe that they are descendants from apes, and they think this is intelligence?! "

Stretch your imagination to believe we actually are descendants of mud, tho in a complex manner far more deserving of an infinite intelligence than the belief we were molded by Almighty's manual labor.

My father was a scientist. I grew up on Darwin's therory of evolution and the Big Bang Therory. Yet, there is still one basic problem no matter which scientific theory you look at. Even with the big bang theory, it can only go back as far as a time that there was only "matter". It still does not explain how this "matter" got there. It assumes that "matter" always was. Hmmm.

Someone once said that the Big Bang theory is like an explosion in a paint factory and the results of the explosion becoming an art gallery. Matter just doesn't evolve into the complexities of the universe in my estimation. Just a thought.

Many scientists believe in a Higher Power and find alot of faults in Darwin's theory. It is not unreasonable to believe in a God who created us and everything else. Check out www.icr.com. I am sure you could find lots of faults to your liking , but I would be interested to see what you think about the information. The media generally portrays Creationism as if it is a myth and a children's biblical story. There is much scientific study to back it up! Check it out and see what you think.

I am back again! I just looked up the www.icr.com website and could not bring it up. But, if you want to see a different perspective on evolution, try www.emporium.turnpike.net. I studied this while I was in college, many, many years ago! I, since, have given up trying to convince anyone of evolution or creationism. I, personally, believe in God without a doubt. So I find alot of flaws in the evolutionary theory. I also believe that it is taught in our schools as if it is the truth. To me, it takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in a Creator who is Intelligent and designed the world (us, included) for a purpose. Of course, everyone is free to choose. But, no one, in the research of evolution, can say that they know how life actually started. There lies a problem. I would like to see more people who believe in evolution to fully research creationism and then make an educated decision. It is a fascinating subject on both sides and deserves full understanding.