Home - List All Discussions

abstinence only sex education

by: teddybearhamster

i don't want to start arguments or anything about this i'm just curious what others think about it. i've heard a lot that abstinence only programs have proven to be ineffective as compared to european countries such as germany that teach more. while i don't think it would be good to teach teens that doing it is okay( i wish someone had told me it wasn't) i don't know what to think though when i see the statistics that compare problems such as teen pregnancy and stds in this country to the statistics in europe. this was the topic of a dr. phil show i saw not long ago and he had this guy on there rev. t.d. jakes. this td jakes seemed like a good fellow and i think maybe i agree with what he said about some stuff. he thinks parents should talk to their kids about such things and i think that's correct but the only thing with that is that some kids don't have good parents which is sad but unfortunately true. that leaves the school. to that rev. jakes said something to the effect of finding a happy medium between the two meaning to first of all teach abstinence as the ideal but teach the rest of it in conjuction because as much as it does suck and it's wrong that kids have sex, it's real. i think it would be good to prevent teen pregnancy and stds. what do you guys think? wouldn't preventing teen pregnancy to begin with be a good thing? that i think would drastically reduce abortions too i'd be willing to bet. anyways, just tell me what you think. i'm not posting this for an argument. i'm just curious what others think about it.

reply from: cracrat

Now now teddybear, don't you go lumping us Brits in with the rest of those Europeans. Our teenage pregnancy rates are amongst the highest in the Western world and certain STD infections have reached almost epidemic proportions. Might have something to do with the fact that during my whole 14 years of schooling I received maybe 6 hours of sex education, and it's not got a whole lot better recently.
Abstinence is the only guaranteed way of preventing unwanted pregnancy or embarressing infection. However, the people designing such education programs must be realistic and accept that kids are going to fool around, they are going to get themselves into situations their parents wouldn't like and they are going to make mistakes. It's all part of the fun of growing up. Unfortunately we have a very vocal, prurient middle class who equate any attempt to arm children with the facts they need to make good choices with encouraging them all to spend their every waking minute rutting. So things don't change, and the pregnancy rates continue on the up and up.
I agree totally with you. Children should be taught about sex, love, relationships and all the rest from an early age (7 or 8 years old). That way you can be reasonably sure that when they do start eyeing up the opposite sex, they'll know exactly how to minimise their own risk.

reply from: teddybearhamster

sorry, now that you mention it i have read that great britains rates are a bit higher. i think the countries that have the lower rates are germany, holland and norway. my daughter isn't quite one yet so i guess i have some time but what i want to teach her first and foremost is abstinence. i totally want to keep her innocent just as long as i can. but i feel like i would have to be realistic too. teens have for centuries had a way of disobeying so i'm not naive enough to think mine never will. if she does i want her to have facts. i figure if she has that maybe she'll think twice or at least proceed with caution. it does scare the crap out of me though that these things might happen someday. i'm so happy she's still so little.

reply from: MC3

Before I address the issue you raised, I would strongly caution you against using either Dr. Phil or T.D. Jakes as models for addressing sanctity-of-life, cultural, or moral issues.
That aside, the primary argument against abstinence-only education is that it is unrealistic because "teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we do." To understand the fallacy in this claim, imagine that a teenage girl tells her parents that she is not interested in having sex but her boyfriend is pressuring her. The question is, should her parents tell her that she is being unrealistic to expect him to be abstinent? Should they tell her that she will have to either jump in bed with him or just accept that he will go out and have sex with other girls?
Obviously, no decent parent would say that to their daughter. They would tell her that abstinence is entirely reasonable. That exposes the "kids-are-going-to-have-sex-no-matter-what-we-do" argument as a lie. After all, if it is realistic for a teenage boy to abstain because his girlfriend doesn't want to have sex, then it is equally realistic for him to abstain because he has been taught that it is the right thing to do. And the same standard also applies to teenage girls.
Today, people are starting to pick up on the fact that, after public schools began introducing contraception-based sex-ed in the 1960s, America's relatively small teen pregnancy problem exploded into an epidemic of promiscuity, teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. They are also noticing that children are now having sex at much younger ages. Whereas forty years ago it would have been front-page news for a 12-year-old girl to be pregnant, today it is not even unusual.
This has caught many liberal social engineers between a rock and a hard place. They abhor the abstinence message, but they see it gaining popularity among parents who have seen that contraception-based sex education has been a train wreck. In this environment, the pill-pushers have decided to advocate what they call "Abstinence Plus" or "Comprehensive Sex Education." Trying to appear reasonable, they now claim to support abstinence-based programs as an addition to contraception-based programs. Some even grudgingly, though insincerely, agree that abstinence should be primary.
This is a scam. These people know that pushing contraception and abstinence together will neutralize the abstinence message. It's no different than parents telling their teenagers, "Don't drink and drive, but if you do, don't spill anything on the seats" or "Don't smoke, but if you do, use filtered cigarettes" or "Don't take a gun to school, but if you do, don't point it at anyone" or "Don't use heroin, but if you do, don't leave needles lying around where your little brother can get them" or "Don't drive my new Corvette while I'm out of town, but if you do, replace the gas you use."
The fact is, America's epidemic of teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases was caused by a dramatic increase in sexual activity among children, and all the condoms and birth control pills in the world will not turn that around. The only solution is to reduce the sexual activity rate of children, and mixed messages will never do that.
A good analogy can be drawn between contraception-based sex-ed and motorcycle helmets. As someone who has been riding, building and/or racing motorcycles for 48 of my 60 years, I can assure you that someone is certainly better off wearing a helmet than not wearing one. However, helmets do not make riding motorcycles safe and I have never heard one helmet or motorcycle manufacturer contend otherwise.
Let's say, however, that we decided to let our school systems make motorcycle helmets available to every teenager in the country for free and without their parents' knowledge. Let's also say that these kids were "educated" that wearing helmets made them seem mature and responsible because it meant that they were practicing "safe motorcycle."
In that environment, it would be pure idiocy to think that the number of children willing to ride motorcycles is not going to dramatically increase or that the number killed on motorcycles is not going to skyrocket.
So, if the question is whether helmets offer some degree of protection to people who ride motorcycles, the answer is yes. If the question is whether they should be pushed to children as part of a "motorcycle abstinence" or "safe motorcycle" message, the answer is absolutely not. In fact, it would be criminal to do so. But that is precisely how the condom/contraception message has been packaged to address teen sexuality, and the results have been as horrifying as they were predictable.
Some people argue that abstinence-only programs write off those children who don't remain abstinent and places them at a higher risk for pregnancy, diseases, and abortion. To some degree, that is a valid argument. However, that doesn't mean abstinence-only programs shouldn't be adopted.
When laws requiring children to be strapped into child safety seats were being considered, it was already known that some children would die because they were in these seats. For example, when cars accidentally go into a river or lake, some children will drown when their parents panic and can't get them out of their car seats. Other children will die in car fires because their parents were rendered unconscious during the wreck and not available to get them out of the car seat. In some crashes, children who might have a better chance for survival if they were thrown from the cars in which they were riding, will instead die because they were strapped into a car seat.
The legislators who supported these child-restraint laws were aware of these risks. But, in passing these laws, they were not saying, "We're willing to write off those children who will die because they were in a car seat." Instead, they recognized that child safety seats save more lives than they take. In a perfect world they would be able to pass a law to save every child who gets into a car wreck, but they don't live in such a world so they made decisions that they believed would save the most lives possible.
That dynamic also applies to abstinence-based sex education. No reasonable person could believe that it will save every child or that some children might not actually be harmed by it. Although the pill-pushers' argument that teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we do is a lie, we cannot deny that some kids will have sex no matter what we do. But we have to also accept the harsh reality that there is never going to be a perfect or painless solution to the massive destruction caused by Planned Parenthood's brand of sex education. Given that, we must look for the educational approach that will save the most children possible, and that is abstinence-only. It is the only solution that is 100% effective every time it is used.
One thing is for certain. It is the very definition of stupidity and insanity to believe that contraception-based sex education is a solution to the social problems that were created by contraception-based sex education.

reply from: joe

How can you be so naive? The amount of arrogance is unbelievable. The acceptance of a immoral lifestyle is the cause of this slaughter. Teaching which in essence is promoting a corrupt lifestyle will have only one end result...the murder of the innocent.
How about teaching children the value of life and God. How about eliminating the worship of idols who promote destruction and teach them to follow the ones that lead to fulfillment.
How the government was able to brainwash so many is startling.

reply from: sander

Just a few quick thoughts:
"Back in the day"...don't want to give away my age too much, (), there was a societal stigma attached to single people who had sex outside of marragie.
That "stigma" kept more young people in line, for lack of a better phrase, then anything else.
As a society, we've removed nearly all stimga attached to behavior that will lead to unwelcomed consequenses.
Instead, society parades sexual activity across all the forms of entertainment and the media in general as if it's to be accepted as the norm.
Sex was designed as an expression of deep intimacy with one partner (of the opposite sex) for life and for procreation. Go outside that prescription on a large scale and disaster awaits society, on a one on one scale, for the individual.
When anything goes, everything happens.
Teddybear, I admire your desire to let your little girl be "little" as long as possible.
You'll have to be diligent to protect her from outside influences and have a plan in mind to counter all those who will try and tell her differently.

reply from: teddybearhamster

most of the time i can't even stand to hear dr. phil talk it's just that the topic that day caught my interest. i can certainly see the logic in your explanation too. i certainly don't want it to send the message that it's okay for these children, and that's what they are, to make adult decisions. looking back it makes me furious what my mother taught me about sex, love and relationships(she was a hippie and believed in 'free love' you see). her teachings did a lot of damage and i definetly think parents need to teach their children what's right. what's really unfortunate sadly is that some parents are hardly parents at all and don't teach their children the right way. i know i'm not the only person in my school that had parents like that. so i just wonder for such kids if the school should step in where parents fail. i don't really know what all these abstinence only programs cover but if it's just 'the only way to prevent stds and pregnancy 100% is through abstinence. the end' i'm just not sure that's enough. that's basically a very bland biology lesson and it doesn't address the emotions that these kids face with this subject of sex, love and relationships.

reply from: xnavy

my daughter is 13 and my son is 17 and my other son is 22 and i have taught all of them that abstaining from sex is the best because
there are std's that once you get them they are yours for life and there is pregnancy and i don't believe in abortion. i told them about
failure rates in the different birth control like condoms.

reply from: teddybearhamster

i agree with this about the stigma. being slutty is practically acceptable today. look at lindsay lohan and paris hilton for example. with my daughter i don't know what to do except be that horribly strict parent that she ends up hating and then she gets into trouble in college and she's away from me for the first time. i had a friend like that. i don't want it to be like that so i've thought about it and what i came up with was at least explaining to her why i will say no. i'll be her friend, but her mother first, plus i think i know firsthand what the consequences of such behaviors can be.

reply from: sander

Err on the side of logic...works for me and it worked for many, many years before the new sex education classes.
If the outcome of these sex education classes isn't proof enough, then the kids in the future are as likely to keep the std/pregnancy and abortion rates statistics climbing.
What on earth else could be added to these all ready failed classes? The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
Stressing abstinence is the key.

reply from: teddybearhamster

i do agree with that. every kid deserves to be taught that.

reply from: sander

Being "strict" without the balance of un-conditional love is most likely what caused your friend to get into trouble.
Teaching our children the consequences of bad behavior without the foundation of love is only going to backfire.
Love your child, create a close and trusted relationship while teaching good morals and you'll increase the odds hugely of her having the tools necessary to make good choices.
With the proper foundation, she'll trust you before anyone else.

reply from: teddybearhamster

i also think this is good too. scary statistics might make them think before acting. i think boosting confidence is important too. when i was your daughters age i was bulimic and insecure about my looks and my body. my mom's advice for that was, get this, 'don't worry. i used to be fat too. i was a size 5'. i saught attention from boys to feel better about myself. then when it comes to boys, and i think this is sad. i have a male friend who was taught right by his parents and wanted to wait until he got married. i'm sure you can guess what his male peers accused him of being. yep, gay, which he is anything but. this played on his insecurity in his masculinity and sadly he didn't wait til marriage like he wanted and lives with that regret.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

How can you be so naive? The amount of arrogance is unbelievable. The acceptance of a immoral lifestyle is the cause of this slaughter. Teaching which in essence is promoting a corrupt lifestyle will have only one end result...the murder of the innocent.
How about teaching children the value of life and God. How about eliminating the worship of idols who promote destruction and teach them to follow the ones that lead to fulfillment.
How the government was able to brainwash so many is startling.
That's a scary thought; have the government schools start teaching 7 and 8 year old children about sex, love and relationships. The problem is, the government wants to do this in a non-judgmental manner that does not denigrate any sexual practices choices.
After the recent report that 25% of teenage girls (50% by age 25) in the US have STDs, especially HPV, we took our two daughters out of the public school system to homeschool them. My wife is a stay at home mother and can dedicate the time to their education.
Conventional public education seems to be bringing about disasterous results. Teachings on evolution and sexual practices in the public schools are harmful.
We nearly took our oldest daughter out of the Public School system when the sexual perverts Bill Clinton and Jocelyn Elders with her condom display were ruling the roast. But even with the conservative George Bush in office; there continues to be concern over the advancing agenda of the immoral. An agenda that advances because of a call for tolerance, non-judgement and loving acceptance.

reply from: galen

My husband and I have taught both of our sons about abstinance and why... they also volunteer at the shelter where i work. This we think gave them a better understanding of our veiws...We were also very open with them about sex stds and the like... they have seen all the gory pics online after they hit about age 11, and they also go to a public school that has teenagers who are pregnant in classes with the other kids. BTW the rate of pregnancy for girls under ager 18 in our state is pretty high... but not in our school's demographic. I think this is because while we have a wide economic backround, we are the school they ship the pregnacies too, so the kids from our area see more of the consequences associated with it. We also do not have a readily accessable abortion mill for these kids to get to if they do have a problem. We do however have several readily available church and civic orgn. that cater to teen and adolecent problems for someone to be able to talk to if they feel they can not talk w/ their parents.
mary

reply from: teddybearhamster

i definetly think this approach will help your sons make good choices. volunteering is such a good thing too. i used to voluteer at an spca which is different but also good.

reply from: sander

Good for you, Teddybear. That takes courage too.

reply from: teddybearhamster

it was certainly rewarding. i love animals(especially hamsters which i have five of).

reply from: sander

Aww, hamsters are so adorable.
I love animals too..I'll PM you a link that if you click on daily it will help feed rescued pets.
Both my cat and dog are rescues.
I have a chihuahua and a cat that has cerebal palsy...she's a handful, but we lover her.

reply from: teddybearhamster

ooh thank you. i rescued my hamsters too. i'm kind of in competition with this guy in town who breeds snakes. whenever i see an ad for a free hamster in the paper i try to get there before he does. he doesn't want to keep them as pets just to feed to his snakes.

reply from: cracrat

I don't know what level of education your kids get in schools, if it varies from state to state or even school district to district. Is it unreasonable for me to assume it is similar to what we get here? Bare minimum of facts, divulged by a general teacher (not a specialist), every proposed addition to the syllabus opposed by various parents who think it will cause the world to end or something?
The massive increase in sexual promiscuity from the 50s and 60s onward was due to massive cultural change across the whole social spectrum. There was the baby boom, a much larger than expected generation. Teenagers suddenly had money to spend, and they did so on cars and clothes and taking out their dates. Secularisation took off, particularly in cities, and the religious rules which had guided these people's parents were less important to them. The contraceptive pill arrived and probably didn't help, but birth control has been around for thousands of years (there have been ancient eqyptian texts found which scholars believe refer to an early condom), the arrival of another, albeit convenient one, isn't by itself going to cause the mass decline of society as you would like to remember it.
I would refer you to teenage pregnancy statistics of 2002: USA 53 births per 1000 women 15-19 (highest in the Western world), UK 20 per 1000. In both these countries there is a powerful lobby that espouses the kind of thinking you laid out in your post. Just tell the kids not to do it. Ignore the fact that most teenagers are willfully disobidient on matters they assume they know best (which is most matters). Ignore the fact that modern media sexualises children from an appallingly young age (I have seen girls of 8 or 9 walking around in 'sexy' clothes designed for women my age). Ignore the fact that sexual conquest is widely viewed as a right of passage amongst teenage boys. Ignore the simple biological fact that as young people's bodies prepare themselves for procreation, they are going to have thoughts and urges which they've never had before, and some kids are going to give in to and act on them.
In Holland, school children are introduced to the idea of safe sex from age 7. They are taught, by a properly trained teacher, how to minimise their own risk of harm, an emphasis being put on abstinance as the only guaranteed method. They are shown how to use condoms and other contraception, the importance of a loving relationship, different types of relationship (hetero-, homo-, bi-), they are told the importance of 'No means No', that sex is an expression of love and not your ticket to being a man/woman, etc. I suspect this mature, realistic approach to teaching their children about sex/relationships goes a long way to explain their teenage pregnancy rates.
5 per 1000 women 15-19yo in 2002.
A quarter of ours, and less than a tenth of yours.

reply from: cracrat

What would you have them taught in science lessons in place of evolution? Creationism? The place for that is Religious Studies class. Intelligent design? By the vary nature of that 'theory', it isn't science. Scientific theory must be testable empirically. The idea there is some intelligent entity behind life on Earth cannot be tested in any way and so is an article of faith belonging in R.S. with creationism.
I assume that the harmful sexual practices you refer to are homosexual ones. Fortunately relatively few people respond with fervent vigour to the Bible's gay-hating ideals as you. Teaching generations of children that to act on gay impulses is worthy of ultimate sanction would lead to, at best, massive erosion of rights hard won by our homosexual brothers and sisters. At worst, those children would assume that any gay tendancy should be punishable by death and the lynchings would begin.
Another happy message of love and tolerance brought to us by a fundamentalist, foaming-mouthed, Christian bigot.

reply from: cracrat

How can you be so naive? The amount of arrogance is unbelievable. The acceptance of a immoral lifestyle is the cause of this slaughter. Teaching which in essence is promoting a corrupt lifestyle will have only one end result...the murder of the innocent.
Equipping children with the facts they need to make good (or at least informed) choices is the fundamental moral duty of any education. Teaching children what constitutes a good choice or bad choice is for the parents. It is the parent's responsibility to ensure that the lives their children lead are not morally corrupt.
If you want to raise your children in a particular faith, that is your choice. It is not for a school to decide which faoth is best and therefore which one should be imposed on its pupils. Your consitution guarantees everyone the right to worship whatever God or idol they choose. Your suggestion that this should be trampled over is considerably more arrogant than my suggesting children should be taught the facts of life/procreation in school.
What brainwashing have I suffered? How is it any different from the indoctrination of followers into the tenets of their faith (any faith that is)?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

What would you have them taught in science lessons in place of evolution? Creationism? The place for that is Religious Studies class. Intelligent design? By the vary nature of that 'theory', it isn't science. Scientific theory must be testable empirically. The idea there is some intelligent entity behind life on Earth cannot be tested in any way and so is an article of faith belonging in R.S. with creationism.
I assume that the harmful sexual practices you refer to are homosexual ones. Fortunately relatively few people respond with fervent vigour to the Bible's gay-hating ideals as you. Teaching generations of children that to act on gay impulses is worthy of ultimate sanction would lead to, at best, massive erosion of rights hard won by our homosexual brothers and sisters. At worst, those children would assume that any gay tendancy should be punishable by death and the lynchings would begin.
Another happy message of love and tolerance brought to us by a fundamentalist, foaming-mouthed, Christian bigot.
I've read the statistics in "Is the Homosexual my Neighbor; a Christian Response", in fact, I've read the complete book a couple times, just as I've read the Quran (authored by Satan) twice. I believe in being informed, even if it means reading the literature of those who encourage the most profane thoughts and actions. One of the two authors is referred to as "lesbian". This book admits that those men who engage in homosexuality are promisious. The book says they cruise (to pick up one night stands) and engage in sex acts at public restrooms. The women encourage that the men act more like "lesbian" women and commit to lifetime same sex unions. The fact is men are damaging their anus, lower intestine and health. These kind of things should not be celebrated (gay pride). Choosing to engage in such behaviors should bring shame.
All plants and animals were given jobs to do, they were carefully designed. We likewise were designed to carry out certain functions. We were made for God's purposes. Homosexuality is outside the bounds of lawful activities.
PS My wife shredded my copy of the Quran; she complained about having Satan's message in the house. Satan encourages armed conflict now. The Bible does no such thing; but actually allows you a period of work days to try out your ways and ideas. However, there will be a day of accounting when He sets his King on the throne (Jesus will rule from Jerusalem). Men's governments will be abolished. Those who previously went down the wrong path may have an opportunity to choose God's Ways instead of man's ways at that time.

reply from: cracrat

Sure, some gay men are promiscuous. Plenty of straight people are too. But there are plenty of same sex couples whose relationship is based on a firm foundation of love and mutual respect, just as the best marriages are.
Childbirth can cause horrific damage to a woman's genitalia. Should that be campaigned against on the basis of health too?
Any behaviour which increases love, repect, joy and not hurting people (homosexuality included) should be celebrated in my book. Maybe if we all celebrated getting along a little more, we'd be less inclined to hurt each other so much.
Only if you ascribe to God's law, and only then if you take a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. As the world changes it is necessary for institutions, such as the Church, to change with it less they risk their message, which I think is mostly a positive one, being considered old-fashioned, out-dated and archaic. The result of such marginalisation of your message will be a collapse in Church attendance and perceived relevance. Oh no, wait, we've already got that going on with the mass (and growing) secularisation of the West.
Perhaps if you Christians concentrated a little more on the love bits of the Bible, and a lot less on the hateful bits, people would be more inclined to listen to what you have to say.
If judgement day comes and God considers me unworthy of his kingdom because I stood up for all people, not just the ones whose lifestyles I approved of, then bollocks to him. I wouldn't want to live in the kingdom of a bigot anyhow, God or otherwise.
Not sure how your references to the Quran are relevant here. I'd suggest you don't go telling any Muslims your wife shredded the Quran though - their reaction might not be too much fun to go through.
You didn't answer my question about evolution/creationism.

reply from: joe

Human Secularism is the religion you are imposing unto all who go to public schools. You say you value freedom....brainwashed.
If you believe it is the parents role to teach moral principals then why impose your morally corrupt teachings to children against the wishes of parents?
The worship of idols and corrupt lifestyles is killing the unborn, that is not freedom of religion, that is a cult. Religion promotes peace and values life.

reply from: cracrat

My faith is my business and mine alone, just as yours is. Human secularism is not, by definition, a religion and is not imposed on anybody. Removing religious doctrine from the education system allows parents and pupils alike to come to their own decisions as to what faith, if any, they should follow. Why should the children of a Jewish family be subjected to Christian teachings at school? Or Muslim children to Hindu teachings?
I do value freedom. Chief amongst which is the freedom to make up my own mind about things. You and your ilk are vile creatures who would take that freedom away from me. Wars have been fought over less.
If sex education is part of the curriculum for a school, the parents have the choice of whether or not to send their child there. Just as they can choose to send their kids to a school that specialises in sports or the arts.
No, people deciding for whatever reason that they cannot have a child kills the unborn. Do keep up. There is no doctrine that I'm aware of that tells people they must kill their unborn, maybe it's some wierd suicide-by-proxy cult you've been lumbered with in the States.
Some religions promote that message, others not so much. All religion can be interpretted to justify mass murder, invasion, genocide or pretty much anything else you choose - that's part of its appeal.
Don't forget it's religious doctrine that's exacerbating the AIDS/HIV problem in Africa, the Catholic Church teaching as it does that (potentially life saving) contraception is ungodly and should not be used. Superb work in valuing life that.

reply from: joe

Secular Humanism is a religion based on theory not fact. Actually more like a cult because of its extremist view on human life.
If you truly mean what you say then you should be in favor of eliminating all aspects of this religion (evolution, promoting of certain lifestyles, etc.) from our school system. If you advocate teaching Secular Humanism principals than you are no better than any other religion forcing its views upon people. A hypocrite and a bigot, no respect for other values.

reply from: joe

That is a flat out lie. Being a product of the public school system I know first hand how evolution is indoctrinated, how the acceptance of corrupt lifestyles is indoctrinated. Only by questioning and critically analyzing the brainwashed rhetoric of the public school system did I learn the value of all life. If you believe in freedom then advocate the elimination of this doctrine from our schools and let the parents decide alone.
You say not to send kids to public schools? Then offer full tax breaks for those that don't use the public school system, since not all can afford to pay for schooling twice.
You only value the freedom of your religion not the freedom of every individual. Your extremist cult devised to devalue life and make abortion acceptable is the only freedom you truly value, in essence a freedom to kill the unprotected and keep it that way.

reply from: cracrat

Evolution is the best fit scientific theory that we have to explain how life has changed and adapted here on Earth. One day somebody may come up with a better theory, at which point that will be taught. What would you teach instead of evolutionary theory in science lessons?
The freedom I espouse is to have no one set of ideas promoted above others to those still undecided about life, ie children. Children should be exposed to as many ideas as possible, given the skills to critically analyse them and decide for themselves the validity or not of said ideas. Your suggestion that we should only teach our children 'Good Christian Values' is the polar opposite to what I think school is for.
A tax break for private school fees is by definition a tax break for the better off. Taking even more money out of the schools for the poor will hamstring them even further.
Now you're putting words into my mouth. I thought I had made it quite clear else where how highly I value human life. I no more want to see another child killed than you do.

reply from: joe

A scientific theory that promotes Secular Humanism. I was under the impression you would like to keep religion out of schools and yes it does qualify as a religion/cult. The students would still learn all they need to know without this doctrine.

reply from: teddybearhamster

Do you know why homosexual men are so promiscuous? ALL men are naturally (biologically) that way but in the hetero society, women keep that in check by being choosy and insisting on monogamy. When that control (by the women) is removed and the men are in a homogenous group, the promiscuity runs rampant because there is no group to counter or balance it. It's fascinating and natural. Lesbians do not share the promiscuity on the same scale because they don't share the basic biological urge to spread their seed.
i never thought about that but i see your point. not all but a lot of guys are dogs so if two of them are together i guess they wouldn't have to worry about the repercusions of cheating on their wife or girlfriend. i've met gay women and men and it does seem true that the women prefer monogomy and the men don't.

reply from: xnavy

my children also know about my niece who was pressured by a boy to have sex or he was going to leave her and she got pregnant and
had a little girl. she has finished school and received a hs diploma and plans to go to college for nursing is the last i heard.
that little girl is named grace and everyone loves her and my niece is now 19 years old. she was fortunate in
that the boy stepped up to the plate and supported her and the family gave her support as well.

reply from: teddybearhamster

that is wonderful for your neice. the boyfriends a scumbag though imo.

reply from: joe

There is absolutely no reason to teach evolution. Let the children know it is not proven and to talk to their parents for the best answer.
You say children should be exposed to as many ideas as possible...that would be impossible in practice, let the parents do their job individually.
Those that kill or advocate killing the unborn devalue human life. That is the only way most human beings can be so vile and evil as to commit such an act. To say that you are against the killing of innocence and then promote a religion that devalues human life therefore permits the human conscience to accept such evil is irrational. The truth is never easy and the lifestyle that is promoted in society and the devaluation of human life through indoctrination has lead us to the massacre of 50,000,000 human beings.

reply from: teddybearhamster

while that may be true, and it always bothered me because i always thought teaching evolution was contradicting a separation of the church and school thing, but it is unfortunatly required. maybe it should be taken out of the curriculum but until it is they are required by law to learn it. i know, it sucks. i remember when i learned about it, i remember sitting there in school being uncomfortable.

reply from: cracrat

Of course there is reason to teach children about evolution. Pretty much every child has asked 'Where do I/we come from?', for a science teacher to turn around and say 'Go ask your Mum/Dad', who may not know the scientific answer to that question is a dereliction of their duty. It is up to the science teacher to teach science. The best scientific explaination for where species come from is the theory of evolution.
BTW, nothing can be proven to be true, only proven to be not true. That is one of the fundamental facts of scienific investigation. By your logic, the entire scientific syllabus should be chucked out.
You still haven't answered my question. What would you teach children in science class instead of evolution?
It would be impossible to expose children to every idea, but perfectly possible to expose them to a broad spectrum of ideas. That goes out the window as soon as you have one group or another (such as Christians) calling the shots on what ideas will and won't be taught.
I have promoted no religion, simply argued that your religion should not be promoted in publicly funded schools. There is a difference.
Plenty of evil has been committed by people in the name of one God or another. Religion does not hold all the keys to attaining a higher level of civilisation. Some of the ideas in some religions would actively hold back that progress.

reply from: cracrat

while that may be true, and it always bothered me because i always thought teaching evolution was contradicting a separation of the church and school thing, but it is unfortunatly required. maybe it should be taken out of the curriculum but until it is they are required by law to learn it. i know, it sucks. i remember when i learned about it, i remember sitting there in school being uncomfortable.
Teaching evolution is entirely within keeping with maintaining separation of state and church, such teaching is the dissemination of the best available science of the day. Teaching creationism as science, however, goes directly against separation of church/state.

reply from: joe

LOL. Point proven about indoctrination.

reply from: cracrat

Joueravecfou, unfortunately there are no facts in science, just theories that haven't yet been disproved.
Evolution is the best fit model we have to understand how the diversity of life arose on Earth. Our understanding of it, its ramefications and how it's influenced are improving everyday. It may well be in due course evolution is disproved as a theory, at which time we'll have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better idea.
What I could never accept though would be the teaching of the story of creation or some such similar in a science class. It has no place there, it is a matter of faith, not science.
A few weeks ago some Jehova's Witnesses came round my house. We had a bit of a chat which culminated in the bloke giving me a book arguing the case for creationism and against evolution. I read it, because I said I would. Never in my life have I read a piece of literature more insulting to my intelligence. It was written in 1985, so takes no account of the last 23 years of advances in this field. It consistantly misrepresented ideas and took great swathes of literature out of context.
The basic underlying point to their argument was 'Life's really really complicated, we don't understand it, so it must have been God who made it all'. No suggestion that we should try to understand, enquire or learn. Just accept it was God and you can be happy.

reply from: joe

It is a question that cannot be answered with facts and for you to advocate that a scientist should push a certain viewpoint is promoting a religion. It should not be promoted in public schools.
I do not care for the best answer according to science, just the facts which it cannot provide. It does provide a doctrine that is dangerous to human life therefore should be eliminated until it is proven.

reply from: JasonFontaine

It is so naive to think this way.
Science is based in ignorance - any scientist will tell you that. Why do many here think Scinece is definitive fact - which it never has been nor ever will be. It's theory and testing this theory. That's it.
I knew a guy who spent 20 years studying the weather and had an IQ larger than my wildest imagination. I would often ask him to give me a quick 3-day forecast....and he would reply - "That's for TV - for show....I could give you my best guess"
Because the smartest people on this Earth realize our flaws - and no scientist will ever tell my child about evolution. It's ridiculous.
When I can get an accurate 3 day forecast every time - I might consider this. Other than that - it's theory....

reply from: JasonFontaine

Evolution - my dear friend - is still not fact.
While it does happen to an extent- there are just too many missing links for you to be so certain.
Evolution does not mean there is no God. God gave us free will on this Earth - he allowed us to have science and discoveries.
But before I start looking at a money and wondering who it is in my family - you're gonna have to do better than Darwin and his theory (most have been proven incorrect.)
I don't totally disagree - but don't make bold statements

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

So if something is written in a book, it's true? You say the mechanisms of evolution are unproven (a theory is an unproven hypothesis) but you know evolution is a fact.
The scientific evidence shows that new life forms appeared suddenly with no transitory/evolutionary links beforehand. The Pre-Cambrian "big bang" explosion is an example of nearly all major life forms suddenly appearing without predecessors. Scientific evidence shows intelligent design and irreducible complexity.
There is no evidence for a gradual evolutionary improvement of life forms through a series of fortunate accidents. Evolution contradicts Laws of Science (life can only come from a previous living source, things break down and become more disorganized and less useful over time).

reply from: cracrat

In that case, very few questions can be answered with fact. Atomic thoery, theory of gravity, quantum theory, theory of relativity, big bang theory, computational theory, chaos theory, etc.
Evolution can be tested in the lab on a small scale. The emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria is just one example of this. There are no other scientific theories to explain the emergence of species or the changing of life on Earth. Until there are, which can adequately answer where we come from and stand up to rigorous examination, evolution must maintain its place as the explanation given to students.
What would you put in its place? Since nothing can be proven to be true, whatever fills the void of those abandoned science lessons will be doctrine also. Why is your doctrine better that the consensus of pretty much the entire scientific community?

reply from: galen

jo- i believe i would have agree with everything you said untill you started talking facts.
to clarify a point.... Evolution is a theory, it will remain as such untill prooven by scientific method and then it will become a law or group of laws. At such time it will be taught and spoken of as the Law/s of evolution. to say it is a fact before that time is foolhardy and gives the scientific community a bad taste in the mouths of lay people. Persons who do so are irresponsible.
No teacher worth his/her salt will every make a statement of fact untill all the facts are in.
Einstein/ Hawking/ Darwin, etc. all knew that the best theories of man are often laughed at by the creator...

reply from: cracrat

The scientific evidence your refer to is the fossil record. The gaps in this are fantastical. Imagine if you will trying to determine the picture on a 50000 piece jigsaw from a couple of dozen unconnected pieces. That is the job facing scientists when they are trying to fit together how this all came about. The 'sudden' emergence of all those species in the pre-Cambrian happened over several tens of thousands of years, a blink of the eye in geological terms but considerably longer than all of recorded human history. Evolution of large flora/fauna occurs on a timescale incompatible with human comprehension, it is not surprising then that some people assume it is not happening at all.
Intelligent design is either the laziest or most disingenuous piece of science. Lazy because it seeks to stop further investigation into why or where we come from. Disingenuous because it seeks to dress up religious fundamentalism in a respectable veneer of science. I also always wonder this: all life on Earth created by an outside intelligence. Ok. Where did that intelligence come from?
There is evidence of evolutionary improvement. The very oldest fossils are of the simplest forms of life and they gradually become more and more complex. Life in general contravenes the laws of entropy, not just the evolution part.

reply from: cracrat

The scientific evidence your refer to is the fossil record. The gaps in this are fantastical. Imagine if you will trying to determine the picture on a 50000 piece jigsaw from a couple of dozen unconnected pieces. That is the job facing scientists when they are trying to fit together how this all came about. The 'sudden' emergence of all those species in the pre-Cambrian happened over several tens of thousands of years, a blink of the eye in geological terms but considerably longer than all of recorded human history. Evolution of large flora/fauna occurs on a timescale incompatible with human comprehension, it is not surprising then that some people assume it is not happening at all.
Intelligent design is either the laziest or most disingenuous piece of science. Lazy because it seeks to stop further investigation into why or where we come from. Disingenuous because it seeks to dress up religious fundamentalism in a respectable veneer of science. I also always wonder this: all life on Earth created by an outside intelligence. Ok. Where did that intelligence come from?
There is evidence of evolutionary improvement. The very oldest fossils are of the simplest forms of life and they gradually become more and more complex. Life in general contravenes the laws of entropy, not just the evolution part.

reply from: cracrat

Sorry, double post. Website's being a bit wierd.

reply from: galen

yeah i was getting those too... when you get the server error, check to see if the post went through, then repost if not.

reply from: nancyu

God: self respect
No God: self esteem
God: The bible says
No God: Studies have shown
God: Save sex until marriage
No God: Don't be pressured or coerced by (evil) men.
You ALMOST hit the nail on the head. You have taken God's arguments and tried to make them your own. Not quite the same if you ask me. This subliminal difference explains a lot to me. It isn't enough for girls and women to merely have "respect " for themselves, they should hold themselves in "esteem." This implies that she is superior, not merely equal to men. What about boys and men? Don't you think they are ever coerced or pressured to have sex?
And what studies are you talking about? Who made these studies? Why should we listened to these studies instead of to God? Were they made by someone who is superior to Him?
You can have your studies. I'm listening to God. His argument is the same, only better.

reply from: teddybearhamster

you are exactly right. boys and men are pressured. they try to do right and wait until marriage and their peers pressure them by calling them gay. i feel sorry for them.

reply from: teddybearhamster

you are exactly right. boys are pressured by their peers. they try to do right and wait until marriage and their peers call them gay. i feel sorry for them.

reply from: carolemarie

Please get a science book. Evolution is a FACT. It has occurred and is not disputed by biologists and scientists. What has not yet been proven is the mechanisms by which the evolution occurred. That is the essence of science - it continues to search and test. It is a BIOLOGICAL FACT and therefore is taught in BIOLOGY class. There is EVERY reason to teach SCIENCE unless every child has a scientist at home to provide them with the correct answers. Somehow, I doubt that is the case.
Did I miss that example?
evolution is a theory. It isn't a fact.
while we can prove micro evolution, (a fact that has never been in dispute)
macro evolution has more problems. I suggest that you check out a book called Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. The eye is a big problem to evolution, and so is the entire blood clotting system. Bio chemistry raises more questions that evolution is unable to answer. Real science doesn't insist that we demand an unproven theory be accepted as fact. That is more along the lines of the church insisting that the sun revolved around the earth...

reply from: sander

I don't think anyone wants God taught in the science classroom.
But, to deny any other "theory" as being relevant is holding children back as well, imo.
ID doesn't promote God per say, just an "Intelligent Design".
So, why are some so afraid of allowing a discussion of ID?
It works both ways.

reply from: faithman

Well your buddy Dawkins says space aliens.

reply from: sander

Well your buddy Dawkins says space aliens.
Took the words right out of my mouth!

reply from: sander

In the science classroom.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

reply from: faithman

Without the christian faith, education as we know it would not exist. most universities were started by christians. The first text book in American schools was the bible. It has only been the last 50 years or so that the godless secular humanist have invaded our institutions and tried to chase God out. God and science are not incompatible. ID explains things much clearer than evolution. There is just simply no evidence of evolution, while the evidence of a creator abound. So why dont you evolutionist put your little pointy dunce cap on, and stick your nose in the corner. It takes 10 times the "faith" to believe evolution, than it does to simply look at the complexity around us and know it didnt just "evolve" from mud, but there may be a good aurgument for that for what is in your head. Evolutionist are smug little dumb a$$es, who are wise in their own eyes, but are too stupid to realize they are wrong.

reply from: faithman

That is because those institutions have been over run with punks like you, and are out to bully anyone who disagrees with them. So you call Newton ludicrous? The father of modern science, who gave us the math to make modern science posible believed in a creator. I believe Einstien did as well.

reply from: sander

That is because those institutions have been over run with punks like you, and are out to bully anyone who disagrees with them. So you call Newton ludicrous? The father of modern science, who gave us the math to make modern science posible believed in a creator. I believe Einstien did as well.
Since both evolution and ID are both theories, wonder why evolutionists fear anything contrary to their "theory".
The mere possibility that ID could point to something other than man sends shivers down their spines...then they might have to look deep inside themselves, and THAT's scary.

reply from: sander

No conspiracy, but it's a known fact that as long as evolution remains a "theory" those who support it continue to stifle fee thinking.
The onus is on the evolutionists.

reply from: faithman

That is because those institutions have been over run with punks like you, and are out to bully anyone who disagrees with them. So you call Newton ludicrous? The father of modern science, who gave us the math to make modern science posible believed in a creator. I believe Einstien did as well.
Since both evolution and ID are both theories, wonder why evolutionists fear anything contrary to their "theory".
The mere possibility that ID could point to something other than man sends shivers down their spines...then they might have to look deep inside themselves, and THAT's scary.
Their theory is their way to kill God. Secular humanist hate God, and a part of the humanist manifesto is to completely destroy the christian church. One part of that plan was to take ove the education system. John Dewey was the architect of that effort. Margret Sanger was the major player in destroying morals. They also courted young law students and brain washed them, and they later became judges. They also infiltrated main line denominations, and infected them with humanism. Gay pro abortion "ministers" who do more to tear the bible down than teach it.

reply from: cracrat

I accept the evidence and arguments for evolution. I know that there is a whole lot more we need to know, but in time we will get there. I do not fear intelligent design, I view it more as an amusing attempt by those with a religious agenda to reinsert their fairytales into everyday life.
The biggest problem I have with intelligent design though, is that it isn't science. The scientific method requires a hypothesis, an experiment to test that hypothesis then modification or renewal of the hypothesis if the empirical evidence is contrary to expectation. When enough experiments have been done which support the hypothesis it becomes scienific theory. Sometimes a theory demonstrates itself to be so sound it become a law of science.
Intelligent design, by its very nature, cannot be tested empirically. There is no experiment that can be done to show that new lifeforms emerge by the hand of as unseen, unknown creator. It is therefore not science and should not be taught as such in a science lesson. It is a matter of religion dressed up in scientific language.
You cannot answer the questions of science with religion just as you cannot answer questions of religion with science.

reply from: cracrat

You're right, Einstein famously said of quantum mechanics 'God does not play dice'. Spent the rest of his life trying to disprove it too. Didn't get very far.
There is no need for scientists to have no faith, just so long as that faith does not influence their interpretation of the evidence they produce. Galileo was a Christian too, he didn't let his faith intefere with his work and look what happened to him.

reply from: faithman

Says a punk like you. It is a hundred times science that evolution will ever be. Evolution was a lie from the beginning, and remains so today.

reply from: faithman

That is your tact, not mine. I will trust the word of world class scientist who say the complexity of micro biology, thermo dynamics, and the geology of mount St. Helens, totally blows evolution out of the water. It is the evolutionists who stick thier fingures in their ears, and refuse to look objectively at the evidence.

reply from: cracrat

That is your tact, not mine. I will trust the word of world class scientist who say the complexity of micro biology, thermo dynamics, and the geology of mount St. Helens, totally blows evolution out of the water. It is the evolutionists who stick thier fingures in their ears, and refuse to look objectively at the evidence.
Thermodynamics are a product of quantum theory and simply the way that matters behaves. Geology has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
Just because something is complex, does not require God or some other entity to make it happen. Crystal structures can be fantastically complicated but are simply the result of intermolecular forces acting on each other.

reply from: sander

You do see that is exactly what YOU are doing, right?
On the other hand, those of us who attended public schools were forced fed the theory of evolution. We studied, took tests, listened to teachers expound on the theory ad nauseum, which debunks the thought we have put our fingers in our ears.
The very idea that ID should be studied as well and is so violently opposed, strikes me as a huge double standard.
The onus is still on the evolutionists.

reply from: cracrat

Oh, I missed this bit. It was Arabs that gave us the basic maths required to form the language of modern science. And quantum theory is the theoretical foundation to all of it, physics, chemistry, biology, astrophysics, thermodynamics, particle physics, chemical biology, etc. Quantum theory didn't come about till nealy 300 years after Newton's death.
Which isn't to say he's not important, just not as important as you would like to believe.

reply from: faithman

I wasn't referring to you in that post. Faithman spews nothing but silly names and conspiracist nonsense and it's funny.
I am open to learning and accepting new scientific ideas. When ID fits the criteria of science and is accepted as legitimate by those more knowledgeable than I, then I will listen. It still doesn't belong in a science class in public school.
That is your opinion, and it is a wrong one. There are many very inteligent, very educated scientitst that believe ID to be true. They are just oppressed by the secular humanist conspiracy to over throw anything that gives God credit. There is no free speach in the class room anymore. Knowlage is for everyone, not just a select few. we don't allow folks to dictate to us what we are to believe in America. We listen to both sides of an issue, and make a discission based on that. But with this issue, one side of the story is denied access, simply because secular humanist elitests so so. they are scared because they know evolution is a house of cards and easily toppled with open honest debate and truth. If ID is SSSSSOOOOO wrong, thenlet people look at it for themselves and make up their own minds. But the money boyz can't afford to let that happen, because they know they will loose.

reply from: faithman

Oh, I missed this bit. It was Arabs that gave us the basic maths required to form the language of modern science. And quantum theory is the theoretical foundation to all of it, physics, chemistry, biology, astrophysics, thermodynamics, particle physics, chemical biology, etc. Quantum theory didn't come about till nealy 300 years after Newton's death.
Which isn't to say he's not important, just not as important as you would like to believe.
Well punk, stick your fingures in your ears and ignore the facts. PBS is the ones who did a special on newton, and point blank said it was his work in calculous that made modern science posible. You are just trying to play his contribution down because he believed in a creator, and science was a way to better understand Him.

reply from: cracrat

I am not and would not play down the contribution of anyone for believing in anything. I am a scientist and understand better than you every will (given you got your facts off a PBS special) the contribution and influence of certain towers of science through history. I was merely pointing out that there were plenty more key aspects to modern science other than that which Newton gave us. Besides which, his work on calculus was done in conjunction with Gottfried Leibniz, who deserves a share of the credit.

reply from: cracrat

The beauty of an opinion is that it can not be wrong. It can be misinformed, it can be based on untruths but it can not be wrong.
Allow me to furnish you with a list of scientific groups that utterly refute ID as science:
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of University Professors, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Psychological Association, American Society of Agronomy, American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Botanical Society of America, Council of Europe, Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Faculty of Science at the University of New South Wales, Australian Academy of Science, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, Australian Science Teachers Association, International Society for Science and Religion, Kentucky Academy of Science, Kentucky Paleontological Society, National Science Teachers Association, Project Steve, National Academy of Sciences, Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences, The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, The Royal Society
There is a place for Intelligent Design/Creationism in the school syllabus but it is in religious studies class and not science class.

reply from: faithman

The beauty of an opinion is that it can not be wrong. It can be misinformed, it can be based on untruths but it can not be wrong.
Allow me to furnish you with a list of scientific groups that utterly refute ID as science:
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of University Professors, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Psychological Association, American Society of Agronomy, American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Botanical Society of America, Council of Europe, Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Faculty of Science at the University of New South Wales, Australian Academy of Science, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, Australian Science Teachers Association, International Society for Science and Religion, Kentucky Academy of Science, Kentucky Paleontological Society, National Science Teachers Association, Project Steve, National Academy of Sciences, Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences, The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, The Royal Society
There is a place for Intelligent Design/Creationism in the school syllabus but it is in religious studies class and not science class.
All the institution you number have been over ran by the religion of secular humanism. They are totally biased, and full of crap. All of them deny the evidence that this is simply way too complex to have evolved. All true science points to a creator.

reply from: faithman

Glad you agree. It is the most inteligent post you ever desinged here.

reply from: faithman

I am not and would not play down the contribution of anyone for believing in anything. I am a scientist and understand better than you every will (given you got your facts off a PBS special) the contribution and influence of certain towers of science through history. I was merely pointing out that there were plenty more key aspects to modern science other than that which Newton gave us. Besides which, his work on calculus was done in conjunction with Gottfried Leibniz, who deserves a share of the credit.
Just because you are an educated fool, does it make you any less a fool. Only a fool would try to keep God out of science. The belief in God is no disqualifier to be a true scientist. It is even more legitimate than a secular humanist fool using his science fiction to prove there isn't a God.

reply from: cracrat

I do not try to prove or disprove the existance of God. That is a decision each individual must arrive at by themselves. Belief in God or not does not make one a more or less legitimate scientist, the capacity to draw sound, testable, repeatable conclusions from the empirical evidence does.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about with respect to the scientific process. Your words are those of a fanatical zealot with a closed mind - precisely the opposite of what makes a good scientist.

reply from: cracrat

Why would it be any better if these institutions were over run by Christians or Jews or Hindus or any other religious group?
They would all bring their own particular set of prejudices and preconceptions. One of the single most important steps forward was when scientific enquiry was set free of the shackles of theological teaching. To undo that would cause incalculable damage to the prospects of humanity.

reply from: faithman

Why would it be any better if these institutions were over run by Christians or Jews or Hindus or any other religious group?
They would all bring their own particular set of prejudices and preconceptions. One of the single most important steps forward was when scientific enquiry was set free of the shackles of theological teaching. To undo that would cause incalculable damage to the prospects of humanity.
The social sciences prove you wrong. Since the hostile take over of sciences by humanist, it has become an evil and a curse. Humanism is the enemy of true science, and the oppressor of freedom. The most free sociaties the earth have every known are based on christian faith. The most opperssive and deadly are secular humanist. The shackles on science belong to the secular humanist, not ID.

reply from: cracrat

Medicine, communications, transport, space travel, the Green revolution, genetic engineering, fission/fusion power, computers. The list of advances made to the benefit of mankind since the secularisation of science is almost endless.
Ahh yes, those lovely free Christian societies like the sort we had in the Middle Ages. You know, the ones where persecution drove out minorities to the New World, where people could be executed for questioning the Church, where people could be executed for worshipping the 'wrong' God, the one that gave us the Inquisition, the Crusades, turmoil across Europe (particularly in England after the reformation), forced conversions of native peoples, etc. The good olds days, how I weep for them.
The longer you and your sort are kept out of making important decisions about society, the closer we will all come to achieving our potential.

reply from: faithman

Medicine, communications, transport, space travel, the Green revolution, genetic engineering, fission/fusion power, computers. The list of advances made to the benefit of mankind since the secularisation of science is almost endless.
Ahh yes, those lovely free Christian societies like the sort we had in the Middle Ages. You know, the ones where persecution drove out minorities to the New World, where people could be executed for questioning the Church, where people could be executed for worshipping the 'wrong' God, the one that gave us the Inquisition, the Crusades, turmoil across Europe (particularly in England after the reformation), forced conversions of native peoples, etc. The good olds days, how I weep for them.
The longer you and your sort are kept out of making important decisions about society, the closer we will all come to achieving our potential.
All those things pale in comparison to the secular humanist slaughters of the Nazis, comunist china, russia, viet nam...ect. the middle ages was a result of christianity being poluted with paganism, as we moved from paganism into true christian faith. The way out of the middle ages came when the word of God was printed in the common mans language. The cursades was a much a deffensive war as well as trying to regain land that was in christian hands 600 years before there ever was a mohamed. The inquisition was as much because of the islamic influence over spain as anything else. It is a fact the more christian a nation is, the freer and better educated they are. The exact oppisite is true under secular humanism. The more humanist America becomes the dumber and more violent it becomes. Secularism oppresses freedom, and limits potential in every place it is allowed to take over, no matter how much you secular humanist punks want to try and rewrite history, or scew the evidence to the complete failure of humanism to do anything but endanger life, and take credit for what others have done.

reply from: faithman

What this evolutionary punk has posted here is just simply wrong and has no bases in historical fact. The very foundation of modern science was laid by ID scientist. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

reply from: cracrat

Silly man. That's a list of scientists who believed in God. Doesn't make them fundamentalists like you.
BTW, what variety of Christian are you?

reply from: cracrat

The principle difference between the evil of the 20thC and early attrocities is potential scale. There simply weren't enough people available for killing when the Church held sway as there have been recently. Otherwise I suspect the blood would have flowed just a freely.

reply from: faithman

Silly man. That's a list of scientists who believed in God. Doesn't make them fundamentalists like you.
BTW, what variety of Christian are you?
The kind who believes in the God who created science, and the scientists.

reply from: faithman

The principle difference between the evil of the 20thC and early attrocities is potential scale. There simply weren't enough people available for killing when the Church held sway as there have been recently. Otherwise I suspect the blood would have flowed just a freely.
AAAAHHHHH wrong again. the difference is that yes, we had big fights in christiandom, but it purified us to the truth of the word. All the killing was a depature of true faith, not adherance to it. Adherance to secular humanist evolutionary thought is murderous at its very foundations. The only allowable killing in true christian faith, is defence against an evil aggressor against innocent life. Evolution justifies killing under the supposed excuse of bettering mankind. Abortion is a prime example. Pro-lifers believe that the innocent child should be protected from the evil aggression of the secular humanist planned parenthood that kills based on evolution.

reply from: faithman

What? How does evolution do that? Evolution is a biological process, so how does it "justify" anything?
Are you just playing dumb, or are you really that stupid? That is historically, and undeniably the effect evolution has on culture when it is accepted.

reply from: faithman

We are not in as much as a minority as you think, and things are changing very quickly. Micro biology blows evolution right out of the water. It is way to complex for it to have come about by darwins theory. That is why the secular humanist come against it so hard. They no the jig is up, if the truth gets out, and their stangle hold on science is over. Nothing good has ever come of secular humanist evolutionary world view. Only science fiction, and millions dead. 50 million preborn lives in America alone.

reply from: cracrat

Come on, Catholic? Anglican? Evangelical? Mormon? Jehova's Witness? What denomination are you?

reply from: cracrat

Oh I see. Fights within Christendom were a good thing because they purified the faith of the 'wrong sort' of Christian but secular fights between those who wish to purge the 'wrong sort' of people and those who mean to stop them are bad. I'm glad you explained that.
How is acceptance of evolutionary theory murderous?
Was all that killing in Christendom to defend innocents against evil aggressors? The English Catholic martyrs like Ambrose Barlow and Oliver Plunkett certainly weren't intent on killing anyone.
Eugenics seeks to justify killing the imperfect to better the human race. Evolution is a natural process that confers an advantage to survive upon those with favourable difference. The former is the deliberate removal of those who do not conform to a pre-set ideal. The latter is a blind process with no particular intended destination except continuation of genetic information. I think you need to spend some time with Yoda and his dictionary.
Abortion could not have less to do with evolution. Planned Parenthood provides a service to its customers in the name of convenience. Whatever the views of its founder (and they were widely held views at the time), they can not be compared to a natural and uncontrollable process.

reply from: cracrat

Pretty much all the objections the ID 'scientists' have brought to bear against evolution have been explained. In time the rest will be as well. Though I don't expect you to read up on such things. After all, they disagree with your postion and are so clearly the work of the devil or secular humanist conspiritors or something.

reply from: sk1bianca

well, my Church is the body of Christ and doesn't need to "evolve". for us, science is a way to discover the wonders of the universe and to see the greatness of God in His creations. this whole world is nothing but a prefiguration of the other one.
science is necessary to make this life easier and tho make this world easier to understand. christians don't reject science. but since they are not made for this world, they put God in the center of their lives, beliefs and principles.
abortion has nothing to do with real evolution. how "evolved" can a society be when it kills the most innocent and defenseless beings?
as for abstinence-only sex ed (since this is the subject of this topic)...
kids have to face a lot of aggressive propaganda for sex. tv, commercials, entertainment, music, fashion... everyone's "sexy", half-naked, shaking certain parts of the body, not to mention that the word "love" is often confused with "sex". and we all want to be loved...
how can that be fought with a couple of hours a week... in school!... for kids school = authority, which is exactly what they are trying to avoid. they hate being told what to do, especially by people who are much older than they are.
if you tell a kid "don't have sex until marriage" you have to explain him exactly why this is the best option.

reply from: faithman

Oh I see. Fights within Christendom were a good thing because they purified the faith of the 'wrong sort' of Christian but secular fights between those who wish to purge the 'wrong sort' of people and those who mean to stop them are bad. I'm glad you explained that.
How is acceptance of evolutionary theory murderous?
Was all that killing in Christendom to defend innocents against evil aggressors? The English Catholic martyrs like Ambrose Barlow and Oliver Plunkett certainly weren't intent on killing anyone.
Eugenics seeks to justify killing the imperfect to better the human race. Evolution is a natural process that confers an advantage to survive upon those with favourable difference. The former is the deliberate removal of those who do not conform to a pre-set ideal. The latter is a blind process with no particular intended destination except continuation of genetic information. I think you need to spend some time with Yoda and his dictionary.
Abortion could not have less to do with evolution. Planned Parenthood provides a service to its customers in the name of convenience. Whatever the views of its founder (and they were widely held views at the time), they can not be compared to a natural and uncontrollable process.
And you need to go back and actually read what I actually said. I said the killing among christians was a depature from faith, not adherance. the killing among secular humanist evolutionist was a direct result of adherance. Abortion on demand is a direct result of secular humanist philosophy. Look up humanist of the year award and you will find the names several presidents of PP. Any where secular humanism is the prevailing mindset, people are less educated, less prosperous, and less free and safe. Those are just plain and simple observable facts.

reply from: faithman

And you need to go back and actually read what I actually said. I said the killing among christians was a depature from faith, not adherance. the killing among secular humanist evolutionist was a direct result of adherance. Abortion on demand is a direct result of secular humanist philosophy. Look up humanist of the year award and you will find the names several presidents of PP. Any where secular humanism is the prevailing mindset, people are less educated, less prosperous, and less free and safe. Those are just plain and simple observable facts.

reply from: nancyu

Please read the Bible. God is real.
Evolution has not been disputed???!! You are STUPID! (my mother used to hate that word, but I bet she would agree that it applies to you!)
What does the G stand for in OMG? You are an ASS (stands for arrogant slimey scum)
This is true, because if they don't accept what you teach you will see that they have no hope for success in the Godless world that you are attempting to create. And by the way, why is it that a child who does NOT seek a career in science is forced to learn this "theory"? Because it is religion, NOT science, that's why.
Probably for the same reason that you are afraid of kids being taught that God exists. It would completely tear down everything you have tried to impress upon them. But while we are trying to impress upon them morality and respect for life, you are trying to impress upon them self gratification, and disrespect for life.
(The G in God should be capitalized. Watch your grammar.)
Sure looks like it to me. I've read the Humanist Manifesto 1 and 2, and it is truly religion with no soul. It rejects God, and salvation. It explicitly encourages divorce and abortion. It offers amoral guidance to people who are afraid to look for the Bible for moral guidance. Reading it made me more than a little queasy.
And it sure seems consistent with your views.

reply from: cracrat

Done, on Wiki I'm afraid so not the best but I'm rather busy at the moment.
In that list there is one former president of PP (Faye Wattleton), a founder of PP (Margaret Sanger) and 11 people without further information.
You're so full of sh*t it's almost laughable the damage you must do to your cause.

reply from: yoda

We'll gladly take his "damage" in preference to your half-hearted opposition to abortion.

reply from: faithman

Done, on Wiki I'm afraid so not the best but I'm rather busy at the moment.
In that list there is one former president of PP (Faye Wattleton), a founder of PP (Margaret Sanger) and 11 people without further information.
You're so full of sh*t it's almost laughable the damage you must do to your cause.
Not as full of it as you are. You just named the ones you recognized, and if a founder, and a president are on the list, it irrefutably makes a conection. PP humanism and eugenics comes from the same pile. All of which rest upon the scientific lie of evolution.

reply from: cracrat

No I didn't. I went away, found the list and looked them all up. I had never heard of Faye Wattleton until a few minutes ago. If I tried to tell my boss that two links make an irrefutable connection, I'd be laughed out of my job so fast my feet wouldn't touch the ground.
There are a bunch of Nobel Prize Winners on that list too, does that mean the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is in cahoots with PP too?

reply from: cracrat

We'll gladly take his "damage" in preference to your half-hearted opposition to abortion.
Half-hearted or not, at least I don't resort to concocting bullsh*t to try a shore up my point of view.

reply from: faithman

No I didn't. I went away, found the list and looked them all up. I had never heard of Faye Wattleton until a few minutes ago. If I tried to tell my boss that two links make an irrefutable connection, I'd be laughed out of my job so fast my feet wouldn't touch the ground.
There are a bunch of Nobel Prize Winners on that list too, does that mean the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is in cahoots with PP too?
Yes it does. They are all tied into the secular humanist global take over.

reply from: yoda

Then maybe you should. Anything would be better than apathy.

reply from: sander

We'll gladly take his "damage" in preference to your half-hearted opposition to abortion.
All proaborts are the lowest life forms...but this character manages to crawl even lower...the one who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He's prolife but wants to keep abortion legal, that's the worse type of proabort of all.

reply from: faithman

I just "mis-spoke" a little. The planned parenthood conection is undeniable. Not all were presidents. they held other positions.
Margaret Sanger (founder of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1957
Albert Ellis (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1971
Alan Guttmacher (president of PP) - Signer of Humanist Manifesto II 1973
Mary Calderone (medical director of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1974
Betty Friedan (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1975
Isaac Asimov (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1984
Faye Wattleton (president of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1986
Lloyd Morain (member Board of Directors of PPFA) - Humanist of the Year 1994
Besides, I think 3 qualifies as several. SSSSOOOO my original post was acurate.

reply from: cracrat

We'll gladly take his "damage" in preference to your half-hearted opposition to abortion.
All proaborts are the lowest life forms...but this character manages to crawl even lower...the one who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He's prolife but wants to keep abortion legal, that's the worse type of proabort of all.
I thought you were ignoring me.

reply from: faithman

We'll gladly take his "damage" in preference to your half-hearted opposition to abortion.
All proaborts are the lowest life forms...but this character manages to crawl even lower...the one who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He's prolife but wants to keep abortion legal, that's the worse type of proabort of all.
I thought you were ignoring me.
just "mis-spoke" a little. The planned parenthood conection is undeniable. Not all were presidents. they held other positions. Margaret Sanger (founder of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1957 Albert Ellis (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1971 Alan Guttmacher (president of PP) - Signer of Humanist Manifesto II 1973 Mary Calderone (medical director of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1974 Betty Friedan (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1975 Isaac Asimov (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1984 Faye Wattleton (president of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1986 Lloyd Morain (member Board of Directors of PPFA) - Humanist of the Year 1994 Besides, I think 3 qualifies as several. SSSSOOOO my original post was acurate.

reply from: faithman

No I didn't. I went away, found the list and looked them all up. I had never heard of Faye Wattleton until a few minutes ago. If I tried to tell my boss that two links make an irrefutable connection, I'd be laughed out of my job so fast my feet wouldn't touch the ground.
There are a bunch of Nobel Prize Winners on that list too, does that mean the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is in cahoots with PP too?
just "mis-spoke" a little. The planned parenthood conection is undeniable. Not all were presidents. they held other positions. Margaret Sanger (founder of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1957 Albert Ellis (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1971 Alan Guttmacher (president of PP) - Signer of Humanist Manifesto II 1973 Mary Calderone (medical director of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1974 Betty Friedan (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1975 Isaac Asimov (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1984 Faye Wattleton (president of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1986 Lloyd Morain (member Board of Directors of PPFA) - Humanist of the Year 1994 Besides, I think 3 qualifies as several. SSSSOOOO my original post was acurate.

reply from: faithman

We'll gladly take his "damage" in preference to your half-hearted opposition to abortion.
Half-hearted or not, at least I don't resort to concocting bullsh*t to try a shore up my point of view.
just "mis-spoke" a little. The planned parenthood conection is undeniable. Not all were presidents. they held other positions. Margaret Sanger (founder of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1957 Albert Ellis (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1971 Alan Guttmacher (president of PP) - Signer of Humanist Manifesto II 1973 Mary Calderone (medical director of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1974 Betty Friedan (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1975 Isaac Asimov (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1984 Faye Wattleton (president of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1986 Lloyd Morain (member Board of Directors of PPFA) - Humanist of the Year 1994 Besides, I think 3 qualifies as several. SSSSOOOO my original post was acurate.

reply from: cracrat

Ignore this, I misread your list. Apologies.

reply from: faithman

just "mis-spoke" a little. The planned parenthood conection is undeniable. Not all were presidents. they held other positions. Margaret Sanger (founder of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1957 Albert Ellis (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1971 Alan Guttmacher (president of PP) - Signer of Humanist Manifesto II 1973 Mary Calderone (medical director of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1974 Betty Friedan (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1975 Isaac Asimov (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1984 Faye Wattleton (president of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1986 Lloyd Morain (member Board of Directors of PPFA) - Humanist of the Year 1994 Besides, I think 3 qualifies as several. SSSSOOOO my original post was acurate.

reply from: faithman

HARK!!!! Even one of them presidents signed manifesto 2. What would your punk bosses say about them apples HHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMM? Now just who is full of it. HHHHHHMMMMMMM? Planned Parenthood, and humanism are undeniable entertwined. I believe there is enough evidence to that fact.

reply from: faithman

Boo hoo!! Cratty don't want to play any more?!!!! Taste of foot got you gaging?!!!!

reply from: cracrat

No no, still here. Had to do some work. I'm 6 hours ahead of this forum remember.
The fact that various members of the Planned Parenthood hierarchy were humanists doesn't make PP part of a humanist plot to destroy all that is good.
Your president calls himself a Born Again Christian. Given his spectacularly ill-advised 'humanitarian' intervention in Iraq, does that mean Christianity is a conspiracy to destroy functioning states and snuff out what little hope those people had?

reply from: sander

We'll gladly take his "damage" in preference to your half-hearted opposition to abortion.
All proaborts are the lowest life forms...but this character manages to crawl even lower...the one who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He's prolife but wants to keep abortion legal, that's the worse type of proabort of all.
I thought you were ignoring me.
just "mis-spoke" a little. The planned parenthood conection is undeniable. Not all were presidents. they held other positions. Margaret Sanger (founder of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1957 Albert Ellis (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1971 Alan Guttmacher (president of PP) - Signer of Humanist Manifesto II 1973 Mary Calderone (medical director of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1974 Betty Friedan (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1975 Isaac Asimov (member PP leadership committee) - Humanist of the Year 1984 Faye Wattleton (president of PP) - Humanist of the Year 1986 Lloyd Morain (member Board of Directors of PPFA) - Humanist of the Year 1994 Besides, I think 3 qualifies as several. SSSSOOOO my original post was acurate.
I am ignoring you, crack...but sometimes you show up in someone else's post...can't be helped.

reply from: faithman

No no, still here. Had to do some work. I'm 6 hours ahead of this forum remember.
The fact that various members of the Planned Parenthood hierarchy were humanists doesn't make PP part of a humanist plot to destroy all that is good.
Your president calls himself a Born Again Christian. Given his spectacularly ill-advised 'humanitarian' intervention in Iraq, does that mean Christianity is a conspiracy to destroy functioning states and snuff out what little hope those people had?
Gosh!!! I guess one foot wasn't enough. Nice try at changing the subject though. We did not destroy a functioning state but cast out a brutal dictator, and replaced it with a free state where the peoples vote counts. The war was won over 4 years ago. All we are doing now is helping an allied country secure their country from foriegn invaders. You got it wrong about PP, ssssssoooosososoooo it does not suprise me that you got this one wrong as well.

reply from: cracrat

Define functioning free state for me would you faithman.

reply from: sander

No no, still here. Had to do some work. I'm 6 hours ahead of this forum remember.
The fact that various members of the Planned Parenthood hierarchy were humanists doesn't make PP part of a humanist plot to destroy all that is good.
Your president calls himself a Born Again Christian. Given his spectacularly ill-advised 'humanitarian' intervention in Iraq, does that mean Christianity is a conspiracy to destroy functioning states and snuff out what little hope those people had?
Gosh!!! I guess one foot wasn't enough. Nice try at changing the subject though. We did not destroy a functioning state but cast out a brutal dictator, and replaced it with a free state where the peoples vote counts. The war was won over 4 years ago. All we are doing now is helping an allied country secure their country from foriegn invaders. You got it wrong about PP, ssssssoooosososoooo it does not suprise me that you got this one wrong as well.
That's something else the proaborts have in common...they all seem to adore dictators, the more brutal the better.
Makes sense though, think about how they love the brutal deaths of the unborn, so why would they not adore rape rooms, torture rooms and all sanctioned by the power in place?
It's right up their allies.

reply from: nancyu

MC3 you are one smart apple!


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics