mormonsandscience

This is a really good post and well said.

I really agree with this: “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.”

However, part of having a government not favor one God or another needs to include the idea that the government also does not favor no God.

Governments should not in any way pressure students to be Catholics or Buddhists, etc... but in addition it is not the government's role to pressure people to be atheists.

I don't think there's anyway that a belief in God can be included in schools without including some specific conception of God. Even the notion of god as all powerful creator of everything is unique to western traditions and would make those believing in eastern traditions uncomfortable. Moreover, those that do not believe in God would then be excluded from civic discourse as they are by the current pledge. Our current school system does not advocate for no god only for an agnosticism or a lack of mention of deity which I think is the proper balance.

Creationism as defined by pastors and other religiously overboard pushers should stay out of school. That said, the science of Intelligent Design should be a part of school curiculum.

One of the problems with evolution and its teaching regardingt he constitution is that it's ideals destroy free thought and promote anti-religion in schools. In that sense, evolution itself is a religion because it trys to persuade people against their faith beliefs into believing a different faith beliefed system. A person in school can thus get a failing grade for not changing his religious beliefs and convictions to fit into athiest teachings on evolution, biology, health, geology, etc.

In many instances, public schools run an anti-God campaign in some areas while in others they promote an ideal belief in God.

One issue with the constitution is that it was specifically referencing organized religions such as the Catholics, Lutherans, etc. This was because they had formerly come from countries where organized religions were stateor government sponsored and/or controlled. The founding Fathers recognized the importance of this while still aknowledging their Creator and God in all things. Belief in God or a lack of is not a "religion" in and of itself. A Religion is an institution that promotes to others ideals and beliefs.

In reality, if the government decided to promote evolution while at the same time rejecting Intelligent Design, then it has crossed over the line because it supports and respects ones religious beliefs over anothers. So, how to combat this?

Personally I think that "all theories" in regards to scientific beliefs should be discussed and given equal time in the class while at the same time not grading students on certain beliefs that have religious overtones such as atheistic teachings or salvation teachings. Adam and Eve could be brought up as one side of historical beliefs while on the other side evolution from natural selection could be brought up. Both could then be discussed as "theories" without ever respecting one religion over another.

This being 9/11 I am reminded of the terrible acts of terrorists who flew planes into the various buildings and ground. What was one of the first things the President did? He led the nation in prayer and song- clearly showing that we are a country who believes and relys on a creator for our freedom. In fatc, America has always generally believed that we were created in God's image and that our rights and freedoms come from him and not man or nature. It could be strongly argued in court that the constitution protects and promotes individuals to be religiously earnest when it comes to freedom and laws.

I would therefore not at all be afraid to defend the ten commandments on governament property, Nativity scenes on the lawns of government institutions. At the same time I am also not against Atheists putting up their things on government property as long as it did not slander and critique the Creator or mankind- the very things that grant us our freedom.

Brent:"I also don't believe that man evolved from lower orders, but rather devolved from a higher order. Hence, the "fall" of Adam. From my perspective, evolutionist have it backwards, at least as far a humans are concerned"

Amen and Amen. I would go so far as to state that the mutations that scientists say caused us to evolve into a higher order is completly opposite. It seems that in Ancient times, man lived longer, had more children, less plague and disease. Scientists have proven that mutations are the cause of man to not live as long and have less children.

As for intelligence, I believe ancient man was smarter than us today because he had to be more ingenuitive to not only survive but to get the ball rolling invention wise.

Actually, I think public schools should teach comparative religions, with the goal of promoting tolerance to diverse views. In fact, I would let leaders of the various religions edit the readings to make sure they were being properly represented.

I am FOR prayers in schools, as long as students have the freedom to participate or not. Communities should determine these issues, NOT Federal governments.

As for I.D., it pretends to be science. Perspectives properly labeled as SCIENCE should be actively discussed in the top scientific journals and conferences. I.D. is dismissed at those levels.

Consequently, I.D. needs to be dismissed as a scientific topic in public schools. I am fine if the topic is raised in the study of civic controversies or even religion. I think, however, I.D. makes for poor religion. I won't call it poor science, because it is NOT science.

The root of the problem is our decision to send our children to government schools. Radical? Perhaps. But, that's what Brigham Young said. He said that if we send our children to public schools (where this kind of intellectual stricture dominates), then we will loose them. I think he understood the conflict of faith and science that would emerge in public schools, and he wanted the Saints to avoid it.

Reply to Brent:

Any evolutionary scientist, regardless of religious belief or disbelief, can look upon living organisms and appreciate their wonderful design. The design of organisms is NOT random, but is the product of natural selection.

Natural selection is sufficient to account for design. That having been said, as a Mormon I might go a step farther and say All-knowing God allows natural selection, gravity, quantum mechanics, and chemical reactions to happen. They are all natural processes.

I FAIL to see how natural processes are incompatible with God. I simply do NOT understand all the fuss some make about "no death before the fall," etc. When I read the Bible I do NOT think I understand automobile mechanics, and neither do I come away with knowledge about biological mechanics.

Why do some Biblical literalists think they KNOW how God did creation?????? It just baffles me. Sorry.

I must admit that I read scriptures for spiritual enlightenment, NOT scientific enlightenment. But, that's just me. (I love the scriptures, by the way).

Rob,
It's been clearly explained to you on another blog how new species are easily created (and quite recently too).
Could you at least look into it? All I have to do to create two new species from one is to destroy a few specific populations of salamanders in California. Just like that, a new species is created.

Dave-
"The biggest question that still needs to be answered is the random mutation question. I have not heard an adequate explanation for reconciling random mutation with purposeful creation."

I don't believe there is an answer. And that's ok.