Creation debate going Global. Sigh.

[kimba1]

actually evolution at this very momeny does not say that
only certain people who believe in evolution say creation is bunk
in fact more likely creationist tend to say evolution is counter to creationism
I`ve been debating evolution just about the exact same time I joined you guys at yahoo.
and the established folks who research evoltution approuch it not as a origin issue but as research primarily of how we change through the years.
there really isn`t much talk about how it all started.

[Amianthus]

That sidesteps my question. Do they have the right to say that religious beliefs are bunk?

No, they have a right to say that religious myths are not science.

[BT]

No, they have a right to say that religious myths are not science.

Should state agents be penalized for calling religious beliefs concerning creation bunk or otherwise assigning personal values  to those beliefs?

[Amianthus]

Should state agents be penalized for calling religious beliefs concerning creation bunk or otherwise assigning personal values  to those beliefs?

Yes.

[Plane]

That sidesteps my question. Do they have the right to say that religious beliefs are bunk?

No, they have a right to say that religious myths are not science.

Should a teacher have a right to say that Science is fallible?

[Amianthus]

Should a teacher have a right to say that Science is fallible?

It's not fallible, it's self-correcting.

[_JS]

When my faction wins an election , and we inherit the power to enforce the teaching of truth as you have set it up, you will understand why humiliy is good for freedom.

So your faction wishes to run on teaching children how to be the world's worst scientists?

[Plane]

When my faction wins an election , and we inherit the power to enforce the teaching of truth as you have set it up, you will understand why humiliy is good for freedom.

So your faction wishes to run on teaching children how to be the world's worst scientists?

Of course not, we will teach the truth in perfection as we see it , and if the rigor of the teaching seems a bit harsh , then you might regret being insistant on this rigor from the time that your faction held controll.

There is no constitutional mandate to consider science more highly than religon , rather, there is a prohibition on Congress to interfere in matters of religion.So if a matter of science contradicts a matter of religion the state must not involve itself in the settlement of the issue .

It is not inconceveable that sience could insist on something much worse than evolution , was it not the habit of the NATZI's to justify many of their aims (even the poorly researched ones ) by calling on science?

The common man was poorly prepared to argue with fellows in white lab coats and  bearing University degrees that their scientific understanding of eugenics and Arian suprimacy was flawed .

Religion is not infallible either , only God himself could be that ,  history seems to show that arrogance in religion is usefull to tyrants , arrogance in science is not diffrent in this respect. 

To enforce the teaching of truth on the unwilling could be a very good definition of despotism , at least it is a very common element of tyrany.

[modestyblase]

Plane-When my faction wins an election , and we inherit the power to enforce the teaching of truth as you have set it up, you will understand why humiliy is good for freedom.

Humility is the worst form of arrogance.

[Plane]

Plane-When my faction wins an election , and we inherit the power to enforce the teaching of truth as you have set it up, you will understand why humiliy is good for freedom.

Humility is the worst form of arrogance.

Meaningless , but on a very profound level.

[_JS]

It is not inconceveable that sience could insist on something much worse than evolution , was it not the habit of the NATZI's to justify many of their aims (even the poorly researched ones ) by calling on science?

Hitler was quite adept at discussing religion and used it often in his speeches. Religion and mysticism were very important components of Nazism.

The common man was poorly prepared to argue with fellows in white lab coats and  bearing University degrees that their scientific understanding of eugenics and Arian suprimacy was flawed.

Many people did argue with it. It was not science that captured the spirit of racial pride, it was nationalism. Nationalism and patriotism were the true softspots that Fascism exploited with amazing success and are still extremely easily exploited by charismatic politicians. Scientists and academics will never be able to compete with charismatic individuals when it comes to capturing the adoration of the public. Nationalism, patriotism, racial pride, were all beautifully (from a Machiavellian point of view) woven into a tapestry of adulation by Fascists like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar.

Also, please be careful in your language. "Arianism" was a heresy in the days of the German gothic barbarians. "Aryanism" was an invented race of perfection that never really existed.

then you might regret being insistant on this rigor from the time that your faction held controll

I have a faction?

[Amianthus]

The common man was poorly prepared to argue with fellows in white lab coats and  bearing University degrees that their scientific understanding of eugenics and Arian suprimacy was flawed .

There was no need to argue about the scientific merits; after all this continues to be practiced today, just under different names. Eugenics has gone on since humans became self-aware. After all, don't you look for the features you are attracted to in your mate? This is a form of eugenics - producing offspring that will attract mates in the future. Screening for birth defects is another form. Retrovirus repair of damaged DNA is an even newer form.

State sponsored eugenics, however, is generally considered immoral, especially if it comes alongside the "ideals" of genocide.

[Plane]

The common man was poorly prepared to argue with fellows in white lab coats and  bearing University degrees that their scientific understanding of eugenics and Arian suprimacy was flawed .

There was no need to argue about the scientific merits; after all this continues to be practiced today, just under different names. Eugenics has gone on since humans became self-aware. After all, don't you look for the features you are attracted to in your mate? This is a form of eugenics - producing offspring that will attract mates in the future. Screening for birth defects is another form. Retrovirus repair of damaged DNA is an even newer form.

State sponsored eugenics, however, is generally considered immoral, especially if it comes alongside the "ideals" of genocide.

Science is rapidly approaching the ability to custom build your baby , suppressing the expression of undesireable genes can reduce certain diseases or the insertion of desireable genes could build immunitys and strengths so that you baby could be made to order.

Any scientific reason not to?

[Amianthus]

Science is rapidly approaching the ability to custom build your baby , suppressing the expression of undesireable genes can reduce certain diseases or the insertion of desireable genes could build immunitys and strengths so that you baby could be made to order.

Any scientific reason not to?

Nope; and current queasiness regarding the issue aside, "genefixing" (fixing genetic abnormalities) and "genemodding" (adding new or improved features genetically) will become common place in a century or so. I expect that parents who do not, at a minimum, perform genefixing on their offspring will be ostracized.

[yellow_crane]

That sidesteps my question. Do they have the right to say that religious beliefs are bunk?

No, they have a right to say that religious myths are not science.

Should a teacher have a right to say that Science is fallible?

Should a preacher, et al,  have a right to say that the Bible is fallible?

In my entire life, I have never heard one.

Which of the two is more fallible--Bible or Science?