posted November 22, 2005 11:17 AM         

LAWRENCE, Kan. - Creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas, but not in the way advocated by opponents of the theory of evolution.

A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies."

"The KU faculty has had enough," said Paul Mirecki, department chairman.

"Creationism is mythology," Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not."

Earlier this month, the state Board of Education adopted new science teaching standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory, defying the view of science groups.

Although local school boards still decide how science is taught in the classrooms, the vote was seen as a major victory for proponents of intelligent design, which says that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation as the handiwork of God — camouflaged in scientific language as a way to get around court rulings that creationism injects religion into public schools.

John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County, said Mirecki will go down in history as a laughingstock.

"To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it's just another example of labeling anybody who proposes (intelligent design) to be simply a religious nut," Calvert said. "That's the reason for this little charade."

Mirecki said his course, limited to 120 students, would explore intelligent design as a modern American mythology. Several faculty members have volunteered to be guest lecturers, he said.

University Chancellor Robert Hemenway said Monday said he didn't know all the details about the new course.

"If it's a course that's being offered in a serious and intellectually honest way, those are the kind of courses a university frequently offers," he said.

___

On the Net:

University of Kansas: http://www.ku.edu/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_course;_ylt=Ast0rQPCiVFwdn.2Eyf5Fb6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

******

What do you think?
Personally, I don't know what to think either way.

posted November 26, 2005 05:51 AM         

Separation of church and state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
The separation of church and state is a concept and philosophy in modern thought and practice, whereby the structures of state or national government are proposed as needing to be separate from those of religious institutions. The concept has long been a topic of political debate throughout history. The term "church" is taken from the various Christian churches predominant in Western civilization, but the phrase as a whole refers to religion and religious institutions in general and its/their relationship to government. In countries where other religions are dominant, the words mosque, temple, or synagogue are often substituted.

In the United States, separation of church and state is governed by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents, some quite controversial, interpreting that clause. Many other democratic governments around the world have similar clauses in their respective constitutions. The actual term, "separation of church and state", does not appear in the constitution, but rather comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."

The view that religious and state institutions should be separate is a wide spectrum, ranging between, but not including, the extremes which secularize or destroy the church, and theocracy which absorbs the state into the function of the church. A government that does not make direct appeal to a specific institution of religion for the justification of its powers is a secular government. Some secularists assert that the state should be kept entirely separate from religion, and that the institutions of religion should be entirely free from state interference. Some secular governments establish quasi-religious justifications for their powers, constructed for ceremonial and rhetorical purposes, but designed for the general welfare and the benefit of the state, without necessarily favoring any specific religious group, or conforming to any doctrine other than its own - an arrangement called civil religion. Other secularists assert that the state ought to encourage religion (such as by providing exemptions from taxation, or providing funds for education and charities, including those that are "faith based"), but ought not establish one religion as the state religion, require religious observance, or legislate dogma. Churches that exercise their authority completely apart from government endorsement, whose foundations are not in the state, are conventionally called "Free" churches.

The long-debated middle, between secular and religious government, is when the state directly supports a specific religious institution, founding the state's religion, or established church, on the powers of the government. Turkey, for example, is a secular government which recognizes Islam as the established religion, but does not permit the interference of religious courts in civil affairs, and actively represses certain religious practices in public ( “The State religion of Turkey is the Muslim religion” — Articles 2 and 26 of the Turkish constitution). If every religious court were to be wiped away, or the endorsement of religion were to be purged from its constitution, the secular government would be unaffected, in a direct sense, by the demise of the religious institution.

A case in which the state is founded upon the religious institution, or especially where the courts of the religion officially direct policies of the civil government, is not secular but religious. A government which is an establishment of religion, where religious law is applied to state policy with the direct authority of the religious institution, is a theocracy.

The separation of church and state is related to freedom of religion, but the two concepts are different and one should not infer hastily that countries with a state church do not necessarily have freedom of religion, nor should one infer that a country without a state church necessarily enjoys freedom of religion.

While there are many states that permit freedom of religious belief, none allow completely unrestricted freedom of religious practice. Usually state law takes precedence over the free exercise of religious belief, which means that laws against actions such as bigamy, sex with children, human sacrifice, or any crime can be enforced even if such practices are part of a group's religious beliefs.
********************************************

Very enlightening! that old Encyclopedia...

I tend to believe that what is meant by separation of Church and state is political!
The church of England a prime example.
I don't believe in organized prayer at Public schools, I do believe that a person attending school has a RIGHT to wear a cross or say a prayer. I see Kid's wearing other religious attire. I have seen many wearing Pentagrams- Not originally meant as a fashion statement, some kids wear crosses as a fashion statement also. I believe that we may be going over the edge as far as some of this is concerned.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
From: By Martin Penner
November 07, 2005

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

Very interesting to see Cardinal Poupard defending Darwin...

posted November 26, 2005 03:21 PM         

Do you all think it is correct to say that Creationism is mythology?

Here are some definitions of the words 'mythology' and 'myth' so that we can all be assured that we are using the words in their correct context. (I hope that doesn't sound as if I think anyone here is uneducated or stupid because I absolutely do not. I like to make sure I have the actual definition of words in cases like this because sometimes my own idea of what is meant by something someone said does not actually reflect what they meant when they used certain words.
I sound like a nut. Okay. Sorry. )

my·thol·o·gy [ mi thólləjee ] (plural my·thol·o·gies)

noun

Definitions:

1. body of myths: a group of myths that belong to a particular people or culture and tell about their ancestors, heroes, gods and other supernatural beings, and history

2. myths collectively: myths considered as a group

3. study of myths: the study of myths, or the branch of knowledge that deals with myths

4. body of stories: a body of stories, ideas, or beliefs that are not necessarily true about a particular place or person

[15th century. Directly or via French < late Latin mythologia < Greek muthologia "science of myths" < muthos ("speech, myth")]

myth [ mith ] (plural myths)

noun

Definitions:

1. ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior

2. myths collectively: myths considered as a group or as a genre

3. idealized conception: a set of often idealized or glamorized ideas and stories surrounding a particular phenomenon, concept, or famous person
the myth of the new man

4. false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief
exploding some of the myths about dieting

5. fictitious person or thing: somebody who or something that is fictitious or nonexistent, but whose existence is widely believed in
The loving wife turned out to be a myth.

[Mid-19th century. Directly or via French mythe < modern Latin mythus < Greek muthos "speech, myth"]

http://www.onelook.com/