That seems to be the fear from republican candidates. That one will win then implement some sort of grand, sweeping agenda that is meant to impose their religious beliefs. If things remain as they are, then that’s not possible.
Why should Maine recognize an untraditional marriage from Georgia?
So you say. But you’re not a supporter of doma. So I’m not sure you’re qualified to determine what the motivations is.
No. You’re comparing the expression of marriage with its definition. Two different things.
That’s a fair point for which I am surprised no one has offered before on this thread. I do accept your premise. However, I wonder how much would actually be used for creationism, my suspicion is that it would be verylittle. The questions then becomes whether or not more information outweighs the time cost? I’m not sure. But you still have to prove that the students are less educated from a curriculum that offers creationism as supplemental.
Because there is a legal concept called reciprocity that has in the past been specifically applied to marriage. It was that that a marriage that was legitimate in the state where it took place had to be recognized as legitimate by all the other states.
This is why somebody who married their opposite-sex 10 year old first cousin in one state legitimately could travel to any other state without risk of statutory rape or incest charges. Even if said marriage couldn’t have taken place in said state, that state was bound to recognized the legitimacy of the marriage.
DOMA specifically repealed this requirement as related to same-sex marriage.
Excuse me? Creationism has absolutely no scientific underpinning whatsoever. There is no “more information” to convey. I can see creationism being a legitimate area of study (alongside astrology and phrenology) in some kind of comparative sociology course, but not as a supplement to evolution. It doesn’t “supplement” evolution, it flat out contradicts it, with no rational basis.
If reciprocity works in this instance, why doesn’t it work in every instance? And if does, then why do we even have states with their own constitutions, legislatures, etc.? If it doesn’t, why can’t this be an instance where it doesn’t?
Certainly. The traditionally recognized form of marriage. The idea ssm is a relatively new consideration, so appeals to the past may not hold muster.
There would seem to be some smart people, smarter than I, and maybe even smarter than you, who would disagree. So it’s not so cut and dried as you propose.
Still, if creationism is such a sham, why not take two days, teach it, and let the facts fall where they may? What are you so afraid of?
Yes, it is so cut and dried. US courts, including the Supreme Court, have so ruled multiple times, even when “creation science” is gussied up as “intelligent design”.
It is religion, pure and simple.
There may be people smarter than me claiming otherwise, but they are either charlatans with a political agenda, or delusional. Or perhaps both.
There’s also pretty much the entirety of the of the scientific community, and in particular the life sciences, who are firmly in the “creationism is junk science” camp.
How about this argument? Science live new fields to explore – it gets them more money, more jobs, more ways to get famous, and probably other stuff that I can’t think of at the moment. There are serious and reputable scientists who are studying all kinds of fringe stuff like ESP and telekinesis. But they are nearly unanimous in condemning creation science as totally worthless.
Well, since all things happen according god’s will, prayers work by appealing to god to change his will that some people must suffer. It must work once in a while, or the practice would die out. Unless the prayerful are just ignorant.
Why do you think so? If creationists are going to all the trouble of trying to revise school science curricula to include creationist alternatives to science, why do you imagine that they wouldn’t want to spend a significant amount of science teaching time on those alternatives?
Teaching creationism in a science class is not providing students with “more information” about science: it’s just wasting the time that is supposed to be devoted to a specific and well-defined subject.
Similarly, teaching science in a Sunday school scripture class would not be providing the class members with “more information” about their faith, which is what a scripture class is supposed to be for.
And yet, there are scientists who disagree. You know, those guys who have those odd letters in their names, and they study subjects that ology or onomy or something like that.
So at the outset, you’re reasoning is flawed. Not much of a scientist, are you?
so you’re saying scientist will sometimes do things for money? Huh! There’s something here that makes your universalist claims suspicious but I can’t quite figure it out. Any ideas?
Really? Please name some smart and scientifically knowledgeable people who claim that creationism is a scientifically valid alternative theory to evolution.
In the first place, you’ve offered no evidence beyond your own wishful thinking that teaching creationism in science class would be limited to “two days” or to any other arbitrary time interval. Let’s see you supply some actual evidence of such limitation before you try to argue that the time devoted to non-science teaching would naturally be so small that it’s no big deal.
In the second place, it’s not a sign of fear or irrational aversion to be opposed to deliberate misrepresentation of facts. I have nothing against believers teaching creationism to children in Sunday school or other faith-based venues as part of their religion. I have everything against believers trying to teach (or mandate the teaching of) creationism to students in science classes under the false assertion that it qualifies as a scientifically valid viewpoint.
I don’t have to be “afraid of” liars and fools in order to oppose their educational agendas.
They have not provided evidence to support a claim or to falsify the concept of evolution.
The body of evidence that exists in support of the Theory of evolution is so broad, so vast and so entwined with the basic concepts of our world that anyone who could disprove it would be famous and held as one of the greats in the scientific world.
Why have all of these men, who are smart, not falsified the theory?
A scientifically valid hypothesis demonstrates its validity by growing more and more widely accepted and experimentally confirmed as research and evidence accumulate over time.
The epistemic path of creationism has been in precisely the OPPOSITE direction. For many hundreds of years, most scientists within the Judeo-Christian tradition believed that biblical accounts of creation were a legitimate part of a scientific worldview. But over the past few centuries, everything that we’ve learned in the physical sciences and life sciences has contributed to making creationist ideas more and more scientifically untenable.
If a hypothesis with no general scientific credibility and no convincing supporting evidence should be accepted as a respected alternative theory just because a handful of fringe thinkers believe it, then there’s no reason we shouldn’t be teaching astrology and witchcraft in school science classes too.
Yes. What you’re having trouble with here is your own inability to distinguish between the concepts of doing research for money and telling lies for money.
Almost all scientists do the former, which is why they like having more research possibilities to explore, and why most of them would be perfectly happy to do serious research on creationist hypotheses if there were any actual evidence suggesting that creationism is in fact scientifically valid.
Most scientists, however, do not do the latter (based on the evidence about the overall validity and falsifiability of their inferences provided by peer-reviewed published scientific research). Which is why attempting to insinuate that scientists’ rejection of creationism is somehow suspect because scientists “do things for money” is a crock of shit.
Well, I’m certainly glad I have you to straighten me out.
Of course, this is total crap. You’re position there’s no research to explore creationism because no one is doing any research. Okay.
How pleasent. One is left to wonder what about this makes you so angry? I’m not insinuating it. I’m stating it. Scientists, legitimate or not, wouldn’t touch creationism with a ten foot, magnetized pole because other scientists will ostracize them.