Origin of Life Public Education and Religious Neutrality


@Rumraket this seems like the stuff you really like to go after

That seems like a good article. its good you ring publicity to it and the discovery folks
i say eucation is not neutral but picks sides, the anti christian, anti God side, aND THEN tells that side it can’r defend or presume its Christian/God/etc conclusions.
This should be a issue for the republican party. to bring back freedom of speech/conclusions, in education and stop government interference with the public in public education.

Oh man there’s so much misinformation I hardly have the patience.

Take this fatuous gem from Brian Miller:

For example, the common statement that an experiment mimics “plausible” conditions on the early Earth actually means that the experiment employs conditions completely unlike anything that could have ever occurred outside an advanced laboratory setting.

Uhm, no, it doesn’t mean that. Ever.

Meanwhile, people are often referred to as “antiscientific” if they judge the viability of OOL scenarios based upon hard evidence and well established physical processes.

By whom? Where? This is nonsense.

In contrast, people are applauded as “scientific” if they uncritically accept OOL theories based on little more than wild speculation.

Are they now? By whom? Where? This is completely ridiculous on face value.

It’s difficult to take anything Brian writes seriously with hysterical claptrap of this magnitude.


From the EN piece:

Perhaps the greatest violation of trust is how such content infringes on the principle of religious neutrality. Public education is expected to neither advance one religious or philosophical faith nor inhibit another. Yet the belief that life arose through undirected natural processes is the number one hindrance among atheists and agnostics to considering the existence of a Creator…

The offending “content” here is that life arose naturally. Since all of current biology is similarly “naturalistic”, @bjmiller seems to be suggesting (or admitting) that science and Christianity are incompatible. That’s quite a confession, coming from a mouthpiece of the DI.


Yeah that is certainly a strange thing he says. In particular this sentence:

Public education is expected to neither advance one religious or philosophical faith nor inhibit another.

Public education is expected to not deliberately advance or inhibit particular religious or philosophical positions. The goal of public education is to inform and educate, but it is unavoidable that certain real-world facts will inadvertently conflict with some philosophical and religious positions. Staying with science education, the idea that water is actually made of H2O conflicts with the philosophical position of the four fundamental elements. It is not intended to deliberately conflict and hinder that belief, but it nevertheless unavoidably does so.

The kind of science Brian Miller seems to be advocating could have no content. Science education would have to completely stop, because there’d always be a risk of someone’s toes being stepped on.

Perhaps Brian is an advocate of the deceptive “equal time” method, in which case I can’t wait for him to sit through the astrology, ancient aliens, crystal healing, and Flat Earth classes.


No it’s not. Speaking from my experience with many atheists, that’s only one “hindrance” out of many. Encountering a real biology class might have initially shaken the faith of some, but the realization they had been lied to is (about biology, geology, or any number of things) the real kicker.

I would not attempt a full list. :slight_smile:


Yeah it’s definitely pain and suffering and the evil in the world. Not abiogenesis

1 Like