Quoted from Box A Rox

Don't do as some Conservatives would have us do and Teach Science with a Religious book.

Yes, do as liberals, submit to the power of the Federal Government, and allow public educators to indoctrinate your children in the sciences like it's a religion.  

Where did Bill Clinton send Chelsea to school?  How about Obama children and Biden's grandchildren?  Ohhh...Sidwell Friends School - where they practice weekly worship.  Must be nice to be part of the hypocritical ruling elite that dictate to the little people.  The best part is box, you sit there and advocate for these people like they're looking out for the peoples best interest.  

For a mere $32K a year, anybody can send their children to Sidwell and practice religion while in school.

Quoted Text

Sidwell Friends School Philosophy
Sidwell Friends School is an educational community inspired by the values of the Religious Society of Friends and guided by the Quaker belief in "That of God" in each person.  We seek academically talented students of diverse cultural, racial, religious and economic backgrounds. We offer these students a rich and rigorous interdisciplinary curriculum designed to stimulate creative inquiry, intellectual achievement and independent thinking in a world increasingly without borders.  We encourage these students to test themselves in athletic competition and to give expression to their artistic abilities.  We draw strength from silence—and from the power of individual and collective reflection. We cultivate in all members of our community high personal expectations and integrity, respect for consensus, and an understanding of how diversity enriches us, why stewardship of the natural world matters and why service to others enhances life. Above all, we seek to be a school that nurtures a genuine love of learning and teaches students "to let their lives speak."

http://www.sidwell.edu/about_sfs/school-philosophy/index.aspx

Quoted from CICERO

Yes, do as liberals, submit to the power of the Federal Government, and allow public educators to indoctrinate your children in the sciences like it's a religion.  

Where did Bill Clinton send Chelsea to school?  How about Obama children and Biden's grandchildren?  Ohhh...Sidwell Friends School - where they practice weekly worship.  Must be nice to be part of the hypocritical ruling elite that dictate to the little people.  The best part is box, you sit there and advocate for these people like they're looking out for the peoples best interest.  
http://www.sidwell.edu/about_sfs/school-philosophy/index.aspx

Cicero is trying soooo hard to find an argument that he can back in this evolution question. And he's trying so hard to pick a fight where none exists.

If you want to send your kids to a religious school (like I attended) then you can, and they can teach what ever religion they want.
If you send your kids to a public school, then it can't teach religion.  Creationism is not Science, it's Religion.

Just for Cicero's clarification:
My position, in a public school,  Teach Science in Science class.  The best, most modern, most up to date Science available.
Teach what ever Religion you opt to teach in a private school.

Box, i'm not picking a fight, it's called a debate...My point really isn't even about evolution or creationism, or any other ism. My point is, that if a small community school board in southern Montana CHOOSES to teach on a subject like, let's say,,,creationism, THEY CAN'T, because  big brother government liberal totalitarians won't allow it, because they want to dictate what can and cannot be taught.  The elites want an intellectually homogeneous society-and that intellectual level is LOW.  While those same ruling elite that make their money off on the backs of the under educated middle class, they educate their children counter to what they preach is good for the rest of society.

Quoted from CICERO

Box, i'm not picking a fight, it's called a debate...My point really isn't even about evolution or creationism, or any other ism. My point is, that if a small community school board in southern Montana CHOOSES to teach on a subject like, let's say,,,creationism, THEY CAN'T, because  big brother government liberal totalitarians won't allow it, because they want to dictate what can and cannot be taught.  The elites want an intellectually homogeneous society-and that intellectual level is LOW.  While those same ruling elite that make their money off on the backs of the under educated middle class, they educate their children counter to what they preach is good for the rest of society.

The responsibility of our education system is to educate our youth.  Teaching them fairy tails about how the earth was created is NOT education.  Teaching them that an Ark held pairs of all the animals of the world, is NOT an education.  
If you want to teach religion, then teach religion.  Don't disguise it as science.  

If a small community school board in southern Montana wants to teach RELIGION... Then show them the 1st amendment to the US Constitution which forbids teaching Religion in a Public School.

Quoted from Box A Rox

If a small community school board in southern Montana wants to teach RELIGION... Then show them the 1st amendment to the US Constitution which forbids teaching Religion in a Public School.

A school board is NOT CONGRESS, and a school board IS NOT establishing a RELIGION.  

REREAD THE 1ST AMENDMENT AGAIN - The elective participation in the teaching of creationism or anything else for that matter isn't a LAW ESTABLISHING RELIGION.  What public schools actually do more often than not is PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.  

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Quoted from CICERO

A school board is NOT CONGRESS, and a school board IS NOT establishing a RELIGION.  

REREAD THE 1ST AMENDMENT AGAIN - The elective participation in the teaching of creationism or anything else for that matter isn't a LAW ESTABLISHING RELIGION.  What public schools actually do more often than not is PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.  

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

We agree:
~ "What public schools actually do more often than not is PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF." ~  
They should, under the constitution, any public religion is prohibited... so teaching Religion, any religion, in a public school is promoting a State Religion.

But you already know that.

This whole issue suddenly disappears if the public school in question suddenly started teaching Islamic Religion and calling it a Science Class.  
The right wingers would surround the schools with pitchforks and torches.

I'm with Box on this one. Science is science and relion is religon. Creationism is purely religon.

So Box or Cicero or anyone- does a photon have mass ? -  

People like to use the term 'scientifically'  speaking without enough scientific acumen  to really know what the hell they are talking about ( myself included )

Maybe box or cicero both really mean' philosophically' speaking or 'politically' speaking ? which is ultimately where most of the conversations end up.

Quoted from Sombody

So Box or Cicero or anyone- does a photon have mass ? -  

It's beyond me, but here is an explanation.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

Quoted from Box A Rox

It's beyond me, but here is an explanation.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

When I was in school thirty years ago - a photon. ( Light ) had no mass.- now scientist argue about it.
I also listened to a debate that discussed the the science surrounding evolution.  The basic argument against evoulution is there lack sufficient ' transitional forms ' - you know fossils that show how we get from an amoeba to a human or even anything in between. Most pictures that you see. Are drawn by humans.- so as I remember it. There has alwas been a lack of scienece showing how we evolved from. A tadpole to a human.

If you consider that 90% of all species that ever were, are now extinct, and we have little evidence of their existence except for a very few fossils... it's not surprising that most evidence of evolution especially from the very early stages is almost impossible to find.

Consider the COELACANTH; A prehistoric fish once thought to be extinct has been found living today.  Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the Late Cretaceous, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.  The coelacanth has been nicknamed a “living fossil”, because its fossils were found long before the actual discovery of a live specimen. The coelacanth is thought to have first evolved approximately 400 million years ago.
("Living Fossil,")
http://www.dinofish.com/

Quoted from Box A Rox

It's beyond me, but here is an explanation.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

When I was in school thirty years ago - a photon. ( Light ) had no mass.- now scientist argue about it.
I also listened to a debate that discussed the the science surrounding evolution.  The basic argument against evoulution is there lack sufficient ' transitional forms ' - you know fossils that show how we get from an amoeba to a human or even anything in between. Most pictures that you see. Are drawn by humans.- so as I remember it. There has alwas been a lack of scienece showing how we evolved from. A tadpole to a human.

Quoted from Box A Rox

It's beyond me, but here is an explanation.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

When I was in school thirty years ago - a photon. ( Light ) had no mass.- now scientist argue about it.
I also listened to a debate that discussed the the science surrounding evolution.  The basic argument against evoulution is there lack sufficient ' transitional forms ' - you know fossils that show how we get from an amoeba to a human or even anything in between. Most pictures that you see. Are drawn by humans.- so as I remember it. There has alwas been a lack of scienece showing how we evolved from. A tadpole to a human.

Quoted from Box A Rox

If you consider that 90% of all species that ever were, are now extinct, and we have little evidence of their existence except for a very few fossils... it's not surprising that most evidence of evolution especially from the very early stages is almost impossible to find.

Consider the COELACANTH; A prehistoric fish once thought to be extinct has been found living today.  Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the Late Cretaceous, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.  The coelacanth has been nicknamed a “living fossil”, because its fossils were found long before the actual discovery of a live specimen. The coelacanth is thought to have first evolved approximately 400 million years ago.
("Living Fossil,")
http://www.dinofish.com/

sorry for the  multiple redundant postings ( blame it on the blackberry ) I dont believe religion and science should mix ( in this forum that means political philosophies ). Science is based on reason. I dont happen to think that there is enough science to support evolution ( the attempt to prove my grandfather was a monkey )  Evolution  and Intelligent Design both try and use science to support their theory.

I dont think anyone posting here is a biology major but you happen to be very very good at providing information to support your points of view- so I expect you and others can start cutting and pasting all over the place. ( which is why I gave the example of a photon ( light ) having or not having mass ).

Im not going to cut and paste anything- I would hope people would just look at what is the main chink in the evolution theory- THE LACK OF CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN FOSSIL DOCUMENTATION-  supporting evolution- getting from primordial ooz to human- i dont see it.

Quoted from Sombody

I dont believe religion and science should mix ( in this forum that means political philosophies ). Science is based on reason. I don't happen to think that there is enough science to support evolution ( the attempt to prove my grandfather was a monkey )  Evolution  and Intelligent Design both try and use science to support their theory.

Though you may not believe religion and science should mix.(which everybody is entitled to their belief,and I tend to agree).  My point is, why aren't the people in the small town in Montana allowed to teach a theory like creationism if they so choose?  My argument is WHY and HOW did we get to a place in the US where the small community isn't allowed to teach a subject that the elected school board agrees to teach.  The small school board in Montana is not legislating religion or forced worship punishable by law.

It's the Dogma of science that and perverted use of the 14th amendment that crushed small community and individualism, and replaced it with federal collectivism.