Texas School Board/"Creation Evidence Museum"

[BLUEHAWK]

I just do not see any time when creationism is going to be taught exclusively in very many American schools. And, what is more, I trust the kids to graduate and make up their own minds about these matters anyway.

[Gimpy]

Col. Murph said!

Can you believe I'm saying that?

Me neither!

But, this time he's RIGHT!

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy Col. Murph said!

Can you believe I'm saying that?

Me neither!

But, this time he's RIGHT!

Well, maybe even he has something to learn, from a fellow Marine...

wrbones

"There is a difference between religion and spirituality. The two are not the same. Religion is a matter of meaningless outward forms that may or may not lead one to spirituality and to salvation. A mere recitation of words and of forms does not lead one to salvation, whether that 'one' be an individual or a nation. Spirituality is a matter of inward truths.

In the past, Morning Coffee stated many spiritual truths in a metaphor and an allegory. They can be found in every column. In Morning Coffee, I spoke as to children. It was never written as mere entertainment or education. Of late, I have merely spoken of such things sans the metaphor and allegory, and I speak as to adults. Additonally, many people make many claims about the origins of this nation being founded upon things spiritual, and they often call upon a return to our national "roots." They make such claims on the one hand, and on the other hand become quite uncomfortable when such things are openly discussed. Such people are engaged in an insidious form of self-deception, preferring their own ignorance over knowledge. (Thus, they're "dancin' inna dark.") I thought to engage in a look at the bottom line of those thoughts. In order to understand our spiritual heritage in this nation, we must know what the Founding Father's knew about such things. Many of the articles that I've shared of late are about many of the things that those men knew. They knew them intimately.

We do not know today what we think that we do about such things. Indeed, we abide in absolute and complete ignorance. G-D willing, I'm going to be addressing that ignorance among us all. If we wish to regain our spiritual heritage, we must first know what it is. It is not what many people think, nor does it fit their present political ideologies. The bottom line in regards to the troubles in this nation have to do with its spirituality and its sins before G-D. It has nothing to do with churches or religion. It has to do with individuals and with their spirituality. None among them seek the truth.

I can well explain all of this from a secular point of view, but it comes down to the same thing: We have abandoned our roots so completely that we have no idea what our roots are.

It was as nothing for the Founding Fathers to speak of spiritual matters, either publicly or privately, and without shame. Until we understand that, this nation is lost.

Bones

We will not be lost because "G-D will punish us"...but because you reap what you sow."

[BLUEHAWK]

This is a bit lengthy, but is apropos and interesting...

The Founding Fathers and Deism

by David Barton


"(We receive numerous requests from across the country to answer various editorials and letters-to-the-editor. The subject is usually the religious persuasions of the Founding Fathers, and the standard assertion is that they were all deists. The following is but one of many possible replies to such accusations.)

I notice that your newspaper has an ongoing debate concerning the religious nature of the Founding Fathers. A recent letter claimed that most of the Founding Fathers were deists, and pointed to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, and Madison as proof. After making this charge, the writer acknowledged the "voluminous writings" of the Founders, but it appears that she has not read those writings herself. However, this is no surprise since the U. S. Department of Education claims that only 5 percent of high schools graduates know how to examine primary source documentation.

Interestingly, the claims in this recent letter to the editor are characteristic of similar claims appearing in hundreds of letters to the editor across the nation. The standard assertion is that the Founders were deists. Deists? What is a deist? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist" appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. Do the Founders fit any of these definitions?

None of the notable Founders fit this description. Thomas Paine, in his discourse on "The Study of God," forcefully asserts that it is "the error of schools" to teach sciences without "reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin." He laments that "the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism." Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning" built "on Christ, the Corner-Stone." Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist.

Nor does George Washington. He was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn "above all" was the "religion of Jesus Christ," and that to learn this would make them "greater and happier than they already are"; on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that "To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian"; and when he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that "without a humble imitation" of "the Divine Author of our blessed religion" we "can never hope to be a happy nation." Washington's own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.

Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton's death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. And at the time he did face his death in his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton met and prayed with the Rev. Mason and Bishop Moore, wherein he reaffirmed to him his readiness to face God should he die, having declared to them "a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ." At that time, he also partook of Holy Communion with Bishop Moore.

The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his "Bible." Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a "Bible," but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth"). What Jefferson did was to take the "red letter" portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided?at the government's expense?Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison's writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be "fervent advocates in the cause of Christ." And while Madison did allude to a "wall of separation," contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that "wall." According to Madison, the purpose of that "wall" was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.

None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.

The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon?founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry?founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King?helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin?a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom?also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson?placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.

Any portrayal of any handful of Founders as deists is inaccurate. (If this group had really wanted some irreligious Founders, they should have chosen Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen). Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven."

Thank You,
David Barton/WallBuilders


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warren "Bones" Bonesteel
"Morning Coffee"
Author and columnist

[urbsdad6]

Blue...Great posts! The idea that we as human beings are a divine creation along with all of this huge universe is undeniable to me. If you look at the sequencing of our human DNA it is possible to see an orderly and intelligent design, not some random thrown together TV dinner. What we should be teaching our children is not the differences between science and religion but how to live a spiritual life with respect for all. We should be teaching them how to experience the wonders of the inner world when we sit in quiet contemplation. Religion and Science in and of themselves are not the means to an end, instead given proper instruction of the scientific method and a balanced view of the lessons in the Bible they both (Science and Religion)become a stepping off point for a deeper more meaningful life. How to reconcile that in the education system of today is only possible if you homeschool today. Otherwise it is up to us as parents to "Teach Your Children Well" as the Crosby, Stills, and Nash song proclaims. "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord", fortunately I am not the Lord. Am I rambling?



Doc Urb

[SuperScout]

... What Sir Blue said and posted....

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by SuperScout ... What Sir Blue said and posted ....

I think not.

These kinds of approaches to introduce Intelligent Design theory into the biology curriculum is nothing short of ridiculous.

Intelligent Design is only a recent permutation of "creation science" that is being touted as an alternative to the modern theory of evolution.

It's argued by Creationists that molecular biology has now revealed that cells are formed from such a complex network of proteins and protein-generating processes that they could not have evolved without the intervention of a special outside intelligence.

Proponents of Intelligent Design claim that their approach does not involve religious tenets and therefore does not violate the separation of church and state principle on which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a number of cases involving attempts to teach some form of "creation science" in public school science classes.

School board members and the public are bombarded with arguments that including more than one approach to origins of life in science curricula promotes fairness, academic freedom, and intellectual openness.

Nothing is further from the truth.


From the National Academie of Science:


Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists.

Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science.

Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena. Many scientific explanations have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held irrefutable with great confidence.

The theory of evolution is one of these well-established explanations . An enormous amount of scientific investigation since the mid-19th century has converted early ideas about evolution proposed by Darwin and others into a strong and well-supported theory.

Today, evolution is an extremely active field of research, with an abundance of new discoveries that are continually increasing our understanding of how evolution occurs.

The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines.

In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions : the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes.


Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow based on true scientific evidence.


Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.


Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.


Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.


The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through just the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science.


They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.


The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation .


Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge .


No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course.


Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education.


Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modem life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.

######

AMEN!

[BLUEHAWK]

"Are you thinkin'
'bout telephones
and managers
and where you got to be at noon?

You are living
a reality
I left long ago
it quite nearly
killed me."

Crosby, Stills & Nash (maybe some Young in there too?)

[BLUEHAWK]

Thanks Gimpy...

"The Grinch goes in
The Grinch goes out
The Grinch plays pinochle
on yer snout."



"God is dead."
Neitszche (whatever)

"Neitszche is dead..."
God

[BLUEHAWK]

Here's another museum involved in the discussion:

BIBLE MUSEUM

OUR PERMANENT EXHIBITIONS
three thousand years of the Bible

"The Bible Museum was founded in 1988 as part of the R?day collection of the Danube-side Calvinist Division.

The official name of the museum is The World of the Bible Museum, because besides the beautifully printed old Bibles the museum also gives an insight into the background of the origin of the Book. Visitors can learn about the events and history of the Biblical people and the formation of the Bible itself.

The Museum can be devided into 4 different segments. 1: Archeology and the Bible. 2: History of the text and writing of the Bible. 3: History of the Hungarian Bible. 4: Bibles translated into other languages of the world.

Biblical archeology illustrates the stories involved in the Bible, and as such helps us better understand the written Word. Looking through the Egyptian materials, one can recall Joseph's stories, the Exodus, and the time of the wandering in the wilderness. In chronological order we can see the Cananite sanctuary found under the ruins of Hasor; Mesah, the column of the king of Moab, which tells us interesting stories of the times when under the names of Israel and Juda the kingdom separated.
The reliefs from the time of the Assyrian Empire teaches us about the times when Israel were to struggle for survival. Items are displayed from the time of the Babilonian Empire, which tell us about the Babilonian bondage and delivarence. Cyrus, the king of Persia gave permission to the Jewish race to leave Babilon and return home once again. Then the exhibition will lead us into the world of the Greek culture and the story of Alexander the Great.
The era of the Roman Empire tells visitors about the birth of Christ and the fast spreading of Christianity. Items displayed contain materials about the early Christian history of Pannonia, too.

The display about the textual and writing development of the Bible begins with the importance of the discoveries made in Qumran.
When we hear the word 'book' we mostly think of a printed material of some form, but printing is only applicable to the tenth of the 5000-year period of reading and writing. Back in old days books meant rolls of papyrus, and before that words carved into tables of clay. There is a long way from rolls of papyrus through drown codexes to the first printed Bible.

The history of the Hungarian Bible is closely and nicely connected to the history of the Hingarian mother tongue. The first translations of parts of the Book were kept for us from the beginning of the 15th centuary in the B?csi-, M?nvheni-, and Apor codexes. Reformation and printing opened a new era in the history of the Hungarian Bible translations. Visitors can see Bibles in the translation of Benedek Komj?thy, G?bor Pesty Mizs?r, J?nos Sylvester, G?sp?r Heltai, and other Bibles translated and published in later times.
In the centre the first entire Bible translation is displayed, the work of which was done by the Calvinist pastor and dean of G?nc, G?sp?r K?roli. The Bible translated by him is called the Vizsolyi Biblia (1590). Among the many beautiful and valued Bible copies, one of the most cherished by the museum is the one that belonged to the emperor I. Gy?rgy R?k?czi. Notes are in this Bible were written by the emperor's own hand.

The last part of the museum exhibits a collection of the Bible translated into foreign languages.

? museum.hu - 2003"