My post on "Our Views: Creationists show clout" by 2theadvocate.com, baton rouge

OPINION

Our Views: Creationists show clout

Advocate Opinion page staff
Published: Jan 17, 2009 - Page: 6B - UPDATED: 12:05 a.m.
http://www.2theadvocate.com/opinion/37752504.html

First of all this pinioned article is a perfect example of either uneducated or mis-educated people who shouldn't be reporting on anything, however this could be said of most of the U.S. population, especially those that were educated---oops, I mean indoctrinated---in the U.S. Compulsory "Education" system.

Science is the attempt to reach demonstrable, duplicable, conclusions about the natural world, however, the conclusions reached have to be demonstrable to others with physical evidence. Some people assume that scientists have generated a body of knowledge that is sure to be true. Some ideas, after all, are known with enough certainty that most of us take them for granted. An example is our common assumption that the earth orbits the sun. Much scientific evidence supports that idea, which is the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and most of us take it as "true". However, no human has observed the solar system from outside the system and seen the earth traveling in an orbit around the sun. It's just a theory, if a nearly inescapable one.

In that sense, most scientists will concede that, although they seek Truth, they don't know or generate Truth. They propose and test theories, knowing that future evidence may cause refinement, revision, or even rejection of today's theories. Ask a scientist about an issue that's not directly observable, and you probably hear an answer that starts with something like "The evidence suggests that . . ." or "Our current understanding is . . .". You're not hearing waffling or indecision. You're hearing a reasoned recognition that we can't know many things with absolute certainty - we only know the observable evidence.

It's worth remembering that a person's admission of uncertainty doesn't mean they're wrong, whether the issue is in politics, economics, religion, or science. In fact, a person who admits some uncertainty in their thinking is often closer to the truth, or at least understands the issues better, than someone who claims absolute certainty.

Consider the question "How did the world begin?". A scientist's answer will begin with the evidence that they've gleaned from astronomical study, which includes several lines of evidence about the motions of galaxies. It will conclude with a THEORY that fits the accumulated evidence. There won't be, or at least shouldn't be, any statement about absolute truth. Science seeks to explain the origin, nature, and processes of the physically detectable universe. Science uses physical evidence to answer its questions and relies on modern humans to make inferences from that evidence. Thus theories, the large-scale concepts that are based on huge amounts of data and try to explain and predict large bodies of phenomena, may be powerful ideas, but they are constantly subject to revision or even rejection as new knowledge emerges.

The only reason science clashes with religion is because there are people who believe science is complete truth or that religion is complete truth and neither wish to believe that the other might be true or partly true to any degree. They refuse to open their minds. Teachers tend to pass evolution/big bang science as irrefutable truth and if a student contradicts or says they don't completely believe it but instead believes we were created by a higher power (whether or not it is God or some other entity/entities) then they are chastised by the teacher and/or told that they are breaking the law.

Then there are those few of us who always try to keep an open mind and are willing to re-examine what we thought to be "true". Even if you take everything back to the Big Bang there are still unanswerable questions like... what caused it, where did the "ingredients" come from, etc. The fact is that no scientist can ever be 100% certain because they weren't there to observe it and they can't replicate it to the full extent.

The term "Big Bang" generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some time in the past, and continues to expand to this day based on the assumption (FAITH) that if the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. It comes down to either believing that everything was accidental or purposeful.

Creationism is as conclusively dis proven as much as Evolution is conclusively proven true. Meaning... to prove creationism false, you must prove God does not exist and disproving an intangible to not exist is well problematic on all logic levels. In the same manner, Evolution implies evolving from something prior, but gives no indication to the original point of origin other than by pure guess ... which is faith.

I'll get back to the Science and Religion in another post for now lets move on to something else the article says. They say that teaching creationism is breaking the "Rule of law". The constitution is the law of the land (at least it's suppose to be and for now we still claim to use it), and Louisiana's Constitution pretty much mirrors the U.S. Constitution.

The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."
Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government – including the courts – to act in this area.

Moreover, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution plainly states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This means that the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, having been explicitly withheld from the United States, is reserved to the states or to the people.

Taken together, therefore, the First and 10th Amendments reserve the power to address issues of religious establishment and free exercise thereof to the different states and their people.

In the Louisiana Constitution...

Article 1, Section 8 repeats the religion/religious part of the First amendment of the U.S. Constitution "No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
So this means since there can be no state law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the state government – including the courts – to act in this area.

And Article 1, Section 26 says "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free and sovereign state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled."
This means that the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, having been explicitly withheld from the United States, and in Art.1 sec8 of the LA Constitution withheld from the State is reserved to the people.

I'll admit that the Founders wanted "separation of Church and state" but neither was the gov. (especially the fed. gov.) meant to be so entangled in/controlling of education and peoples daily lives. From the very beginning a well-educated citizenry was thought to be essential to protect liberty, i.e. educating the basics of reading, writing, math, and geography, but reading included History.

"The reading in the first stage, where [the people] will receive their whole education, is proposed.. to be chiefly historical. History by apprising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:106

'Education for liberty' meant preparation to exercise and protect the basic freedoms of religion, press, assembly, trial by jury, security of person, due process and other guarantees of the Bill of Rights of 1791 and to understand why they chose a Republic form of government. That was the only reason Jefferson advocated for compulsory attendance. It was also not their intention to FORCE the mockery of todays "education" system, that forces upon even the youngest in our society a low self-esteem, and a stifling of individual, independent thought, on anyone.


Compulsory-attendance laws imply that government has to force parents to educate their children. Common sense and history prove this notion false. Up to the 1850s, when we didn't have public schools, the average literacy rate was almost 90 percent (excluding slaves of course, because it was a crime to teach a slave to read because, as Madison put it, "A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people"). Yet most parents taught their children to read at home. They did not need town officials to force them to educate their children. Compulsory-attendance laws also imply that some parents are too ignorant or indifferent to their children's welfare to educate their kids. If this was not the case, then why compel parents at all? Local governments therefore believe they have to force these "bad" parents to deposit their kids in public schools, for the alleged good of the children.

In effect, local governments and public-school authorities don't trust average parents to have the decency and common sense to educate their kids unless school authorities force them to. That notion is as absurd as claiming that parents would not feed their children unless government authorities forced them to. Compulsory-attendance laws create, in effect, an education prison system. Prisons get their prisoners because the police drag them in. Public schools get their students because compulsory-attendance laws let school authorities drag children into their schools, with or without parent's consent.

Compulsory education was not part of early American society, which relied instead on private schools that mostly charged tuition or education at home. The spread of compulsory education in the tradition of threatening to take children away throughout America, especially for Native Americans, has been credited to General Richard Henry Pratt. Pratt used techniques developed on Native Americans in a prisoner of war camp in Fort Marion, Augustine, Florida, to force demographic minorities across America into government schools. His prototype was the Carlisle School in Pennsylvania.

We have gone from giving the public the OPPORTUNITY to be educated for their liberty to forcing them into a type of prison system that conditions and indoctrinates them to become "good workers for the government" and "good surrenders or advocates for collectivism/socialism" and charging parents with child "abuse" if their child doesn't attend school for 180 (or whatever) days no matter what illness (unless excused by a doctor) or calamity might prevent/hinder it.

Just like everything else we've gone from Quality to quantity and/or given up one for the other altogether almost since the beginning of government involvement. First they lengthened the school year. I'm still searching for reason. 1905 - 7mths for whites and 4&1/2 mths for blacks, including the holidays. Then they lengthened the school day. 1906 - 5-6 hours including recesses and lunch, from 9am to 2pm or 3pm... one hour (or 1&1/4 hr) for each subject. The various reasons I could find: give children more time to learn the 4 subjects, especially for those slower learners, and to more reflect the average business day. Only just like everything else that is suppose to "give more time" they started teaching more subjects and this is something they continue to do to this day while shortening recess and lunch. And yet more and more stories of Obesity in children, well that's what happens when you "train" them to wolf down food in about 15 minutes which is what the average time the elementary child gets to actually sit and eat plus taking away recess time which actually exercise for the average child. Can we say DUH!

So, back to the article. It is not against the rule of law unless you are someone who takes a very liberal view of both the U.S. Constitution and the LA Constitution which, if you do your research and educate yourself, you will find was NEVER intended. (psst. look for my upcoming post on "General Welfare" as an example)

As to teaching creationism vs. evolution it should be either both, giving the children all the information and letting them make their own choices, or Neither, leave out any part of evolution teaching that assumes that we came from nothing. IF teaching both you would have to have someone very well educated in all the various religions plus evolution, not likely. If neither you might stifle important parts of science. so then there is compromise, which I believe is what they are trying to here. Teach evolution without the assumption that we came from nothing. There are still missing links and many questions about the origin of the universe and man that science hasn't, and possibly can't, answer. That needs to be left for the child to conclude without being told they are wrong or unlawful.

For people like myself there is no conflict between Science and Religion ("The Quantum AUM/OM") and more people would see this if they opened their minds. People don't really think about how much more there is to learn on their own. They're so busy that there isn't room for them to learn new information about the important things. Their mind is made up (or made up for them), they don't want to be confused with more information that doesn't fit what they think they know, which coincidently coincides with their indoctrination!