I see what you mean, and to your point, there is a burden of proof required regarding say, teaching of evolution in schools. You note that "For people who are opposed to teaching creation in schools, proove that it didn't happen, and why only Darwinian evolution is the only thing that bears credibility."
You are missing the point. The burden of proof is not on the person denying the claim. The person who makes a claim for something (creation) needs to back it up. If that isn't possible, the new idea takes its place until another better one comes along.
Teaching evolution denies creation myths as necessary for explaining the complexity of life (not the universe's origins, make a note of that) and unless a better myth exists that can account for the complexity of life on this world, evolutionary biology becomes and remains the standard. If there is a better idea, it will be adopted, just like favourable genetic mutations get dispersed into a population of organisms over time. So far, ID isn't demonstrably better, though the political pressures and rhetoric surrounding the issue would make it appear otherwise to the uninformed observer.
Also, I am not bent on disproving the existence of god. That has been done many times and by minds far more capable and suited to such matters than mine. But we can and are functioning as a society without a controlling deity or proscriptive biblical morality (at least my friends, family, and myself are). For me, there is no need for a god or any extra faith over and above my own senses. In other words, I am sure of what I can perceive, and that is the minimum amount of faith required on my part to function in the world as a good and decent person (faith that my senses are generally reliable I mean).
But again, once better data comes along, I can interpret that and augment my sensory apparatus to accomodate it. For example, infrared or x-ray light aren't perceivable by our senses, but we can measure and work with it, and convert it between modalities or isometrically transform it into a form we can perceive.
That argument can lead down a slippery slope if we aren't careful. If you claim that you can perceive god but I can't, then either I lack a god organ and am defective, or I am more evolved because I have dispensed with a god organ. So the best option for both of us is to assume as little as possible about faith, that our senses are reliable, and nothing more.
I'll admit that adding in an external faith variable to an ontology is attractive as it gives a fixed point against which to measure and orient ourselves in the world (meaning). But it creates more epistemological problems than it solves, assuming of course that the whole purpose of the extra leap of faith variable is to "know" god and account for all his mysterious workings. But if it makes your life meaningful, I have no problem with that. But institutionally, there is need for such fancifulness.
Finally, you note that "here in the states OUR views came first, to use your argument. Aren't you forcing your views on us when you want to remove the Biblical, moral foundation for our entire way of life?"
Your views did not come first, there were Aboriginal people scattered across North America, and even their legitimacy as the first settlers of the continent is under dispute. Killing them was an imposition plain and simple. But Christian morality came to dominate (through force) and so the system remained. Now other faiths come along, and atheists too. The First Amendment was drafted to ensure that the balance of power didn't sway too far either way.
But we atheists and those of non-Christian faiths aren't trying to impose. The only intent is to question the relevance of an outdated bronze age desert mythology as the underpinning of society. It isn't needed any more is all, and when you mix in some fundamentalism that goes back to Old Testament prohibitions and morality based on killing or persecuting people for their differences, I'd say that mythology becomes downright dangerous to society.
Moreover, if a faith cannot stand up to questioning, then that faith is perhaps not so well suited to a central role within the legislative and social institutions within a society wouldn't you agree?
The real question I have, I've been saving it to the end here, is what morals are being or have been undermined? Think about it, the moral basis of most societies throughout history have pretty much always revolved around: not killing, stealing, and hurting people, or excessively desiring wealth.
It's easy, no bible needed, just some common sense and decency, a little sharing and all is well. I can do all those things without the bible and live a very meaningful life, so why bother with all that extra superstition/faith cruft at all?
To your point
I see what you mean, and to your point, there is a burden of proof required regarding say, teaching of evolution in schools. You note that "For people who are opposed to teaching creation in schools, proove that it didn't happen, and why only Darwinian evolution is the only thing that bears credibility."
You are missing the point. The burden of proof is not on the person denying the claim. The person who makes a claim for something (creation) needs to back it up. If that isn't possible, the new idea takes its place until another better one comes along.
Teaching evolution denies creation myths as necessary for explaining the complexity of life (not the universe's origins, make a note of that) and unless a better myth exists that can account for the complexity of life on this world, evolutionary biology becomes and remains the standard. If there is a better idea, it will be adopted, just like favourable genetic mutations get dispersed into a population of organisms over time. So far, ID isn't demonstrably better, though the political pressures and rhetoric surrounding the issue would make it appear otherwise to the uninformed observer.
Also, I am not bent on disproving the existence of god. That has been done many times and by minds far more capable and suited to such matters than mine. But we can and are functioning as a society without a controlling deity or proscriptive biblical morality (at least my friends, family, and myself are). For me, there is no need for a god or any extra faith over and above my own senses. In other words, I am sure of what I can perceive, and that is the minimum amount of faith required on my part to function in the world as a good and decent person (faith that my senses are generally reliable I mean).
But again, once better data comes along, I can interpret that and augment my sensory apparatus to accomodate it. For example, infrared or x-ray light aren't perceivable by our senses, but we can measure and work with it, and convert it between modalities or isometrically transform it into a form we can perceive.
That argument can lead down a slippery slope if we aren't careful. If you claim that you can perceive god but I can't, then either I lack a god organ and am defective, or I am more evolved because I have dispensed with a god organ. So the best option for both of us is to assume as little as possible about faith, that our senses are reliable, and nothing more.
I'll admit that adding in an external faith variable to an ontology is attractive as it gives a fixed point against which to measure and orient ourselves in the world (meaning). But it creates more epistemological problems than it solves, assuming of course that the whole purpose of the extra leap of faith variable is to "know" god and account for all his mysterious workings. But if it makes your life meaningful, I have no problem with that. But institutionally, there is need for such fancifulness.
Finally, you note that "here in the states OUR views came first, to use your argument. Aren't you forcing your views on us when you want to remove the Biblical, moral foundation for our entire way of life?"
Your views did not come first, there were Aboriginal people scattered across North America, and even their legitimacy as the first settlers of the continent is under dispute. Killing them was an imposition plain and simple. But Christian morality came to dominate (through force) and so the system remained. Now other faiths come along, and atheists too. The First Amendment was drafted to ensure that the balance of power didn't sway too far either way.
But we atheists and those of non-Christian faiths aren't trying to impose. The only intent is to question the relevance of an outdated bronze age desert mythology as the underpinning of society. It isn't needed any more is all, and when you mix in some fundamentalism that goes back to Old Testament prohibitions and morality based on killing or persecuting people for their differences, I'd say that mythology becomes downright dangerous to society.
Moreover, if a faith cannot stand up to questioning, then that faith is perhaps not so well suited to a central role within the legislative and social institutions within a society wouldn't you agree?
The real question I have, I've been saving it to the end here, is what morals are being or have been undermined? Think about it, the moral basis of most societies throughout history have pretty much always revolved around: not killing, stealing, and hurting people, or excessively desiring wealth.
It's easy, no bible needed, just some common sense and decency, a little sharing and all is well. I can do all those things without the bible and live a very meaningful life, so why bother with all that extra superstition/faith cruft at all?