Dover decision

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Now that I've got a few days off from the mania of school, I figured I'd drop a post regarding the federal court decision regarding the cryptocreationism that the (former) Dover school board tried forcing on kids...

After reading chunks of the 139-page decision (it was one hell of a big download and printout), I'm frigging appalled (but not surprised) at the utter transparency of the motives of the former school board members, their stupidity in thinking that they'd get away with their idiocy, and the dishonesty of Behe.

The former school board members lied about using ID to get creationism into the school (that was 100% their motive) and got caught. The morons never thought that the discussions they held at meetings regarding bringing creationism into the classroom might come out in court.

And I love how Behe, who was brought in as a scientific "expert" to help the ID/creationist folks, couldn't impress lawyers and a judge who knew that his "irreducible complexity" argument was debunked years ago. The decision handed down even specifically cited how his "examples" had been shredded.

Oh, and you have to love how the "expert" finally admitted in court that DESPITE his assertions that ID is a purely scientific argument...that it's acceptance hinges in your acceptance of God.

The proven links between the Discovery Institute (ID's HQ) and the ICR pretty much shoot to crap the whole argument that ID has nothing to do with creationism...the "Wedge Strategy" apparently is what ID is about.

Oh, and for all that ID proponents try to argue that they're not creationists because the "designer" is never openly called the western Judeo-Christian God and could possibly be an alien, supercomputer, etc....they admitted in court that any reasonably intelligent child or adult could figure out that the God of Judeo-Christianity is who the "designer" is supposed to be. The fact that they couldn't show even a single document, pamplet, etc. that seriously posits anything OTHER than God as the designer proved them to be sneaky lying sacks of shit.

If you want your kids to learn that the Earth is only 5,000 years old and that God made people out of clay sans evolution, then send 'em to a private school. And good luck getting their poorly-scientifically-educated little asses into med school. I sure as hell don't want to be treated by a doctor who doesn't believe that bacteria and viruses evolve.

IMNSHO, if your entire moral/religious world crumbles at the prospect that Darwin was right, then your religious beliefs are whack. Most mainline churches don't have a problem with Darwin.

[poptart]

I sure as hell don't want to be treated by a doctor who doesn't believe that bacteria and viruses evolve.

Micro or macro evlolution is taking place...?

Most mainline churches don't have a problem with Darwin.

Most 'mainline' churches don't have a problem severely diminishing the Christ either.

[Diogenes]

And a Happy Xmas to you, too.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Micro or macro evlolution is taking place...?

False choice created by creationists. Scientists don't make a distinction between natural selection occurring at the "micro" or "macro" level.

Actually, another ad nauseum go-round on the entire topic wasn't what I was aiming for...the bottom line is that ID proponents and their "experts" were finally forced to admit in court that their arguments are just a repackaging of the discredited creationist arguments. ID and creationism may be an explanation for how life began, but it sure as heck isn't science and shouldn't be taught as science. I've got no problem with ID/creationism being discussed in a humanities class or elective (along with other creation myths). It just doesn't belong in a science class.

No other scientific theories (germ theory, atomic theory, heliocentric theory) are being asked to be given "alternative" views (e.g., astrology, flat earth, geocentrism, alchemy) or "discussion of the weaknesses." Why? Because natural selection offends the sensibilities of a very small, vocal, but scientifically ignorant group with a decidedly off-the-beaten-path interpretation of Christianity. Not a good enough reason to undermine science education.

Most mainline churches don't have a problem with Darwin.

Most 'mainline' churches don't have a problem severely diminishing the Christ either.

That statement smacks of arrogant sectarianism....and is utterly false.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

And a Happy Xmas to you, too.

A sincere Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year to you and pop's. We may disagree 'til we're geriatric Depends-wearing geezers, but that's what make life interesting...

[Diogenes]

And a Happy Xmas to you, too.

A sincere Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year to you and pop's. We may disagree 'til we're geriatric Depends-wearing geezers, but that's what make life interesting...

Agreed.

And I was just enjoying the irony of using a secular holiday with pagan roots that has nothing to do with the birth of Christ to celebrate a minor legal win by those who wish to represent anyone who disagrees with the forced indoctronination of children with dubious 'science' as being 'Fundamentalist Extremists'.

The decision for anyone else who is interested (pdf).

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Actually, my timing of the post had more to do with finally having some time (at school it was the end of the 3rd marking period necessitating piles o' work) and being online anyway to determine some computer tweaking stuff...

One thing to keep in mind regarding the Dover decision - the school board members who tried to force ID into the curriculum did so from PURELY religious motives AGAINST THE WISHES of the community that elected them. Testimony in court proved that the pro-ID members were actively discussing how to put prayer and creationism back into the classroom just prior to the switch to forcing ID in. One guy, Bonsell, was quite vocal and at one point, the guy's wife was freaking preaching out of a Bible and trying to convert those in attendance at a school board meeting to be "born again." The court decision showed quite convincingly (via the tons of letters in the newspapers and school board minutes) how the overwhelmingly large proportion of folks in that community opposed the introduction of creationist/ID pseudoscience in their kids' classrooms. This was reinforced by the ouster of the pro-ID/creationists in the subsequent school board election.

In Dover, it was a very small, fundamentalist cabal that tried to jam their twisted view of creation down the throats of teachers and kids against the overwhelming wishes of the community. To portray it as anything other than that is as dishonest as Bonsell et al., who got caught lying on the stand...

[Bizzarofelice]

And a Happy Xmas to you, too.

A sincere Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year to you and pop's. We may disagree 'til we're geriatric Depends-wearing geezers, but that's what make life interesting...

Agreed.

And I was just enjoying the irony of using a secular holiday with pagan roots that has nothing to do with the birth of Christ to celebrate a minor legal win by those who wish to represent anyone who disagrees with the forced indoctronination of children with dubious 'science' as being 'Fundamentalist Extremists'.

The decision for anyone else who is interested (pdf).

Sorry that we keep telling you there is no Santa Claus. I know. You've got your faith telling you that Santa exists, but these children's stories you seem to think so highly of as to worship them are bunk.

[poptart]

Hope you had a Merry Christmas and have yourself a swell New Year, Mike.

[Diogenes]

I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.

God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God's heavenly country club.

Santa Claus is another matter. He's cute. He's nonthreatening. He's always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who's been naughty and who's been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he's famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.

[Diogenes]

Actually, my timing of the post had more to do with finally having some time (at school it was the end of the 3rd marking period necessitating piles o' work) and being online anyway to determine some computer tweaking stuff...

One thing to keep in mind regarding the Dover decision - the school board members who tried to force ID into the curriculum did so from PURELY religious motives AGAINST THE WISHES of the community that elected them. Testimony in court proved that the pro-ID members were actively discussing how to put prayer and creationism back into the classroom just prior to the switch to forcing ID in. One guy, Bonsell, was quite vocal and at one point, the guy's wife was freaking preaching out of a Bible and trying to convert those in attendance at a school board meeting to be "born again." The court decision showed quite convincingly (via the tons of letters in the newspapers and school board minutes) how the overwhelmingly large proportion of folks in that community opposed the introduction of creationist/ID pseudoscience in their kids' classrooms. This was reinforced by the ouster of the pro-ID/creationists in the subsequent school board election.

In Dover, it was a very small, fundamentalist cabal that tried to jam their twisted view of creation down the throats of teachers and kids against the overwhelming wishes of the community. To portray it as anything other than that is as dishonest as Bonsell et al., who got caught lying on the stand...

Based on your own descriptions, this is a case of a bunch of creationists using ID for their own purposes, which does nothing to 'refute' ID per se.

And based on what I've read so far, neither they, nor their legal team nor the judge in question is terribly well informed.



Just one more example of the need for school choice.

[Diego in Seattle]

I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.

God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men accountable for their actions. Hehaslittleapparentconcernforthematerialwellbeingofthedisadvantaged.

Try reading Matthew 19:24, dumbfuck.

He is politically connected,

Yes, Jesus really loved to hobnob with the politically connected.

It is very hard to get into God's heavenly country club.

Only if one is a rich man. ;)

Santa Claus is another matter. He's cute. He's nonthreatening. He's always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who's been naughty and who's been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he's famously generous to the poor. SantaClausispreferabletoGodineverywaybutone:ThereisnosuchthingasSantaClaus.

And your scientific evidence that God exists?

Better re-read the Dover decision, dolt.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.

God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God's heavenly country club.

Santa Claus is another matter. He's cute. He's nonthreatening. He's always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who's been naughty and who's been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he's famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.

original source: P.J. O'Rourke, "Parliament of Whores", p. xx

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Based on your own descriptions, this is a case of a bunch of creationists using ID for their own purposes, which does nothing to 'refute' ID per se.

And based on what I've read so far, neither they, nor their legal team nor the judge in question is terribly well informed.

Actually, speaking as someone with two science degrees and after having read the decision itself, as well as the works of some of the witnesses (Behe, Dembski, Miller), I found the decision to be eminently logical and grounded in actual scientific backing. One of the main points made was that there is not a single scientific organization that backs ID, there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting ID (something that even ID's biggest scientific "hero," Behe admitted), and that ID's claim that "design" exists is completely subjective and without a shred of scientific logic or evidence.

And the main reason that the creationists used ID is that they are the SAME thing, just slightly repackaged, using the same faulty logic, same misrepresentation of scientific facts and scientific method, and same lack of evidence.

I'm all for school choice. If someone wants to send their kids to a school that teaches creationism, astrology, phrenology, alchemy, more power to 'em. If someone wants to homeschool their kids so that they can "learn" that the KKK was established to defend white folks, or that the Nazi's were misunderstood, that's their right. Just don't expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab on any of that utter bullshit.

[Diogenes]

I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.

God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God's heavenly country club.

Santa Claus is another matter. He's cute. He's nonthreatening. He's always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who's been naughty and who's been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he's famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.

original source: P.J. O'Rourke, "Parliament of Whores", p. xx

I thought everyone knew that.




Diego-still not too swift on the uptake.

[Dr_Phibes]

Where does the court decision leave the ID arguement, then? If it's a federal decision, is that the final word on the subject in terms of ID in schools?

[Diogenes]

I'm all for school choice.... Just don't expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab on any of that utter bullshit.

So school choice for the well off financially, government propaganda for the rest.

Got it.

[Diogenes]

Where does the court decision leave the ID arguement, then? If it's a federal decision, is that the final word on the subject in terms of ID in schools?

No.

It is a limited prescedent for the limited issue of manadatory disclaimers (as opposed to allowing teachers to voluntaraly present evidence questioning the neo-Darwinist dogma) and would only apply in the (3rd?) district anyway.

[Diego in Seattle]

Needless to say, the notion that it is "unconstitutional" to teach ID in schools is every bit as ignorant and far more pernicious than ID itself.

Teaching ID is ignorant not unconstitutional.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Try again, slappy.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Where does the court decision leave the ID arguement, then? If it's a federal decision, is that the final word on the subject in terms of ID in schools?

Probably not, since the creationist folk will try to repackage their dogma as something else and try to slide it again, despite decades of doing nothing but losing. And they'll continue to publish tracts full of lies (e.g. "Icons of Evolution," "Darwin's Black Box," and "Of Panda and People") and misrepresent the nature of science, scientific terms (e.g., "theory," "law"), and deliberate misquote scientists like Gould. The Dover case showed the disgusting lengths that some of these folks will go to force their narrow form of Christianity down people's throats.

ID proponents couldn't be more transparent if their heads were made of glass.

For all their talk of the supposed religious neutrality of their proposed designer, they have NEVER seriously posited even in their own propaganda that the designer could be anything OTHER than the Judeo-Christian God of Western culture. Even their own "scientific experts" have now admitted as much in court. But I suppose, to these folks, it's OK to violate their own ethics and moral laws, so long as they get what they want. That's their "proud" history to this point.

ID has absolutely no merit or support in the scientific community in America or the world...and yet a few diehard freaks insist that there's some sort of conspiracy to protect Darwin. Science does a damned good job of outing frauds (look at the South Korean doc's stem cell fraud, e.g.) and there's nothing scientists love more than the fame of overturning old ideas - hell, it's not like scientists get rewarded with $$$, so if there were any serious major flaws in natural selection, it'd be out there by now, with some scientist grabbing credit and headlines. But there aren't any, b/c natural selection works as a scientific theory.

The fact that some folks feel that their religious house of cards will topple if Darwin was right says more about the weakness of the foundations of their faith than it does about science.

[poptart]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Teaching ID in schools would = Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion...?

1. Congress wouldn't be doing dick

2. No religion would be established

3. WHICH religion do you fear would be established by it...?


I know, I know......the Supreme Court has ruled in many cases....blah, blah....


The Supreme Court screwed the pooch on this one a LONG time ago.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I agree that "Congress" wouldn't be doing crap. But it's been established for years that states and municipalities aren't allowed to 'establish religion' either.

In Dover, you had a bunch of VERY fundamentalist folks who admitted that they were going to use ID as a "wedge" to get CHRISTIAN creationism and CHRISTIAN prayer into the classroom.

What also undermines ID is that the Discovery Institute has laid out in official documents the strategy of attempting to do what Dover's school board tried (albiet in a more ham-fisted manner). The Discovery Institute has admitted that one of its goals is to rewrite definitions of science and how science is done.....to serve a Christian end.

The whole "ID is secular" line of utter bullshit would be easier to swallow for triple-digit IQ folks if the bulk of its proponents weren't fundamentalist Christians.

[Diogenes]

What also undermines ID is that the Discovery Institute has laid out in official documents the strategy of attempting to do what Dover's school board tried (albiet in a more ham-fisted manner). The Discovery Institute has admitted that one of its goals is to rewrite definitions of science and how science is done.....to serve a Christian end.

You forgot something here

The whole "ID is secular" line of utter bullshit would be easier to swallow for triple-digit IQ folks if the bulk of its proponents weren't fundamentalist Christians.

Well as one of the 'non-triple-digit' folks in question (and it speaks to the state of education in America how many room temperature IQ individuals can get advanced degrees) there is nothing in the insidious 'wedge document' I find partuculary offensive. And your equating of the philosophy of scientific materialism with 'science' kind of shows your bias and agenda, as if it wasn't appearant.

Of course the constant ad hominems are definetly showing not a bit of hysteria.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Well as one of the 'non-triple-digit' folks in question (and it speaks to the state of education in America how many room temperature IQ individuals can get advanced degrees)

Link? Find me one.

there is nothing in the insidious 'wedge document' I find partuculary offensive.

Of course YOU don't....the Wedge Document and ID aren't trying to completely undermine the integrity of YOUR discipline.

And your equating of the philosophy of scientific materialism with 'science' kind of shows your bias and agenda, as if it wasn't appearant.

Actually, it's the DISCOVERY INSTITUTE that has conflated 'scientific materialism" with "science," and your willingness to swallow their pap shows your bias.

Of course the constant ad hominems are definetly showing not a bit of hysteria.

A hominems are appropriate when describing a set of people proven -time and again- in court, in debates, and in writing to be inveterate and unapologetic liars willing to twist the truth to get their ends. Why should I be civil regarding individuals who are so steeped in willingness to subvert law and science because the "current way things are' offends them?

I have no malice for devout Christians of sincere faith who unknowingly swallowed the deliberate lies of the ID crowd (including Dembski and Behe). The Discovery Institute and their cronies deliberately play upon the sincere and deep faith of scientifically ignorant (which is a far cry from "stupid) folks and lie to them regarding what Darwin said, what natural selection means, how science is done, what scientific terms mean, and the religious and political orientations of scientists and science teachers.

Once I've sat down with Baptist/Elim Gospel parents and ministers, show them my lessons, curriculum, texts, and explain what I teach, how, and why, I've NEVER had a single problem...and this in a district in which our "Blue Devil" mascot was removed due to these folks' objections. They usually wind up pissed off at the people who lied to them about natural selection.

[Diogenes]

Well as one of the 'non-triple-digit' folks in question (and it speaks to the state of education in America how many room temperature IQ individuals can get advanced degrees)

Link? Find me one.

Meyer, Dembski, Behe, Johnson....

Okay that's four.

there is nothing in the insidious 'wedge document' I find partuculary offensive.

Of course YOU don't....the Wedge Document and ID aren't trying to completely undermine the integrity of YOUR discipline.

Or showing the lack of integrity among its proponents.

SorRy if our Karma ran over your Dogma.

And your equating of the philosophy of scientific materialism with 'science' kind of shows your bias and agenda, as if it wasn't appearant

Actually, it's the DISCOVERY INSTITUTE that has conflated 'scientific materialism" with "science," and your willingness to swallow their pap shows your bias.

Imust have missed that.

Unless you mean freeing science from a kneejerk dogmatic embrace of materialism, of course.

Of course the constant ad hominems are definetly showing not a bit of hysteria

A hominems are appropriate when describing a set of people proven -time and again- in court, in debates, and in writing to be inveterate and unapologetic liars willing to twist the truth to get their ends. Why should I be civil regarding individuals who are so steeped in willingness to subvert law and science because the "current way things are' offends them?

Of course non of that has ever been proven, except to true-believers like you.

I have no malice for devout Christians of sincere faith who unknowingly swallowed the deliberate lies of the ID crowd (including Dembski and Behe). The Discovery Institute and their cronies deliberately play upon the sincere and deep faith of scientifically ignorant (which is a far cry from "stupid) folks and lie to them regarding what Darwin said, what natural selection means, how science is done, what scientific terms mean, and the religious and political orientations of scientists and science teachers.

So those 'scientificly ignorant (far from stupid)' folk are the room temperature IQ fundamentalists you refered to earlier?

And it's interesting how ID proponents Christian faith is used as an automatic disqualifier of not only their ideas but their intent and integrity.

Once I've sat down with Baptist/Elim Gospel parents and ministers, show them my lessons, curriculum, texts, and explain what I teach, how, and why, I've NEVER had a single problem...and this in a district in which our "Blue Devil" mascot was removed due to these folks' objections. They usually wind up pissed off at the people who lied to them about natural selection

Well props to your evangalistic skills.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Well as one of the 'non-triple-digit' folks in question (and it speaks to the state of education in America how many room temperature IQ individuals can get advanced degrees)

Link? Find me one.

Meyer, Dembski, Behe, Johnson....

Okay that's four.

I may vehemently disagree with those individuals, but I'd never accuse them of having sub-three-digit IQ's. A lower-than-average quotient for integrity on the other hand...

Unless you mean freeing science from a kneejerk dogmatic embrace of materialism, of course.

The whole "modern science = materialism" canard is a red herring thrown up in an attempt to legitimize fringe ideas like homeopathy and intelligent design.

Of course the constant ad hominems are definetly showing not a bit of hysteria

A hominems are appropriate when describing a set of people proven -time and again- in court, in debates, and in writing to be inveterate and unapologetic liars willing to twist the truth to get their ends. Why should I be civil regarding individuals who are so steeped in willingness to subvert law and science because the "current way things are' offends them?

Of course non of that has ever been proven, except to true-believers like you.

Actually, it HAS been proven. Dembski and Behe know that their arguments hold no scientific water (and admitted as such under questioning) but still push their discredited drivel. The former school board members in Dover deliberately brought ID in (with the aid of the Discovery Institute) as a way to sneak creationism and school prayer into the district and then lied about what they said at school board meetings and their motives.

Time and again I've debated folks on this board who repeatedly (and thus, I would claim deliberately) misstate scientific definitions of "theory," set up straw men by inaccurately representing pro-natural selection data or overstating weaknesses in them, misstate scientific methodology, etc. Once in awhile is understandable, but I'm having to repeat myself every year in order to rebut for the umpteenth time the same misstatements, misrepresentations, and misquotes. The ID/creationist tactic of repeating lies in hopes that the tired/gullible swallow them instead of following up on them is one of their favorites.

And it's interesting how ID proponents Christian faith is used as an automatic disqualifier of not only their ideas but their intent and integrity.

Nice try, but no dice. In the case of Dover, the former school board members' faith was an issue because they DELIBERATELY brought in ID as a way to get their Christian agenda into the school. That much is a matter of legal/public record.

The issue of their integrity comes into play because those same individuals lied in court and got caught. They betrayed the very tenets of their own purported faith in order to achieve their ends. They were poor examples of Christians in how they behaved.

Once I've sat down with Baptist/Elim Gospel parents and ministers, show them my lessons, curriculum, texts, and explain what I teach, how, and why, I've NEVER had a single problem...and this in a district in which our "Blue Devil" mascot was removed due to these folks' objections. They usually wind up pissed off at the people who lied to them about natural selection

Well props to your evangalistic skills.

Well, you know what they say..."The truth shall set you free." :wink:

[Diogenes]

Link? Find me one.

Meyer, Dembski, Behe, Johnson....

Okay that's four.

I may vehemently disagree with those individuals, but I'd never accuse them of having sub-three-digit IQ's.

And yet in one sentance....

The whole "ID is secular" line of utter bullshit would be easier to swallow for triple-digit IQ folks if the bulk of its proponents weren't fundamentalist Christians.

....You slur the intelligence of not only ID proponents but Christians in general.

AS far as your 'I've already explained all this before' line...


You first used that on me in the NFL forum at SCIII.

In case you are wondering why I don't bother going into detail on substantive points, I've already got your ultimate (but in no way original) punch line memorized.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

The whole "ID is secular" line of utter bullshit would be easier to swallow for triple-digit IQ folks if the bulk of its proponents weren't fundamentalist Christians.

....You slur the intelligence of not only ID proponents but Christians in general.

Apparently reading for comprehension is not your strong suit.

The statement, as written, says that the argument that ID is a secular would be more acceptable to folks of normal or above intelligence if most of those pushing for it weren't fundamentalist Christians.

The same folks who try to argue that they only want "discussion" and "fairness" don't seem to realize the transparency of their motives when they fail to address any OTHER theories in science in general or biology in particular. By selectively targetting natural selection and ignoring all the other theories, they show themselves to be lying regarding their motives.

Your contention that fundamentalist Christians are "Christians in general" is a pretty lame attempt to spin my arguments into an anti-Christian attack. Christian fundamentalism is not, by any definition "mainstream" Christianity. Neither the Roman Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians have a problem with evolution, nor are they pushing for ID. I'm a Christian and my younger brother is a Carmelite monk who teaches science at a Catholic school and he ...[gasp]...teaches evolution.

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers' Association, and the National Association of Biology Teachers have all agreed and made official statements that ID is not science and should not be taught as such. It's a real hoot to read the rants of someone who gets the entirety of his scientific "knowledge" from ID websites try to argue against the overwhelming evidence and organizational support that natural selection has.

[Diogenes]

The whole "ID is secular" line of utter bullshit would be easier to swallow for triple-digit IQ folks if the bulk of its proponents weren't fundamentalist Christians.

....You slur the intelligence of not only ID proponents but Christians in general

Apparently reading for comprehension is not your strong suit.

The statement, as written, says that the argument that ID is a secular would be more acceptable to folks of normal or above intelligence if most of those pushing for it weren't fundamentalist Christians.

So if one sceptical of neo-Darwinism is Christian he is labeled 'fundamentalist' (as opposed to what, secular?) and thereby automaticly discounted.

Neat trick. And since ID doesn't speak to anything but the physical universe and it's origins, it IS secular on its face, no matter how you disparage the motives of its proponents.

The same folks who try to argue that they only want "discussion" and "fairness" don't seem to realize the transparency of their motives when they fail to address any OTHER theories in science in general or biology in particular. By selectively targetting natural selection and ignoring all the other theories, they show themselves to be lying regarding their motives.

Who exactly is talking about natural selection again? Did you have Red Herring for dinner? The question is spontaneous undirected biogenesis descent with modification. And is Superstring theory discredited if its proponents don't discuss the photoelectric effect? If you wish to discuss reletivity and the age of the universe, I'll play along BTW.

Christian fundamentalism is not, by any definition "mainstream" Christianity

No, it is a label used to disparage Christians who actually believe in the Resurection, and the Bible as divinly inspired.

As opposed to modern secular churches who seem to feel the same way about Origin of Species.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

So if one sceptical of neo-Darwinism is Christian he is labeled 'fundamentalist' (as opposed to what, secular?) and thereby automaticly discounted.

No, what makes a particular Christian fundamentalist is his or her insistance on a literal interpretation of the Bible and applying that to everything whether or not doing so is appropriate. Fundamentalists that oppose natural selection (which, btw, is the correct term for Darwin's theory..."Darwinism" is a term invented by Darwin's detractors in creationist/ID circles) do so largely because it contradicts their literal reading of Genesis.

Neat trick. And since ID doesn't speak to anything but the physical universe and it's origins, it IS secular on its face, no matter how you disparage the motives of its proponents.

It is NOT secular, since one of its central arguments is that there is an other-than-natural (and don't even try to argue this one since even the Discovery institute agrees) "designer." The second you posit a supernatural cause for events, you've stepped outside the secular, scientific realm. ID proponents know this, and that's one of the reasons why part of their "Wedge Strategy" is to rewrite the definition of "science" to include supernatural explanations (once again - the Discovery Institute and their rep's admitted this, so don't try to deny it).

ID's designer may be non-denominational as presented, but non-denominational does not equal "natural."

Science deals ONLY with natural explanations. Period. A supernatural "designer," regardless of whether or not you name "him/her/it" cannot, by definition, be part of a natural explanation.

Who exactly is talking about natural selection again?

The Dover school board, the parents in Dover, Judge Jones, Behe, Dembski, myself, and you. Apparently you refuse to realize (or are ignorant of the fact) that Darwin's theory is called "natural selection." As I mentioned before, no one within science calls it "Darwinism."

The question is spontaneous undirected biogenesis descent with modification.

Really? Since when? That phrase doesn't show up in the court decision and hasn't even been in this thread 'til now. Heck, even Darwin doesn't get into the origins of life. (I've read Origin of Species. I'll wager you haven't.) Neither does the theory of natural selection.
Sounds like you're the one chewin' on some red herring.

And is Superstring theory discredited if its proponents don't discuss the photoelectric effect? If you wish to discuss reletivity and the age of the universe, I'll play along BTW.

Tell you what - you want to prove you point, then find me even ONE example of a single school district that has even tried to put disclaimer stickers on physics texts regarding the theory of relativity. Or on earth science books regarding the heliocentric theory or the theory of plate tectonics. Or on biology texts to address germ theory or immune theory.

You can't, because there aren't any. Every single individual who has ever claimed that the stickers, etc. are just their way of making sure kids know that theories in science are very tentative and hypothetical (which, in science, they're not) is lying through their teeth. Only ONE specific scientific theory is being attacked by these folks. Their intellectual dishonesty is obvious to anyone with eyes, including judges.

Christian fundamentalism is not, by any definition "mainstream" Christianity

No, it is a label used to disparage Christians who actually believe in the Resurection, and the Bible as divinly inspired.

No.....it's not. Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians etc. all believe in the literal Resurrection and the divine inspiration of the Bible. The difference is that the aforementioned denominations don't believe that the Bible is a science textbook or that each jot and tittle is to be read and understood literally.

Heck, there's an op-ed in today's Rochester Democrat and Chronicle by a Baptist minister in which HE states that he has no problem reconciling Darwin and the Bible and that, furthermore, the Bible is not a science text and treating it as such is a gross misuse. I -and most mainstream denominations- agree.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Teaching ID doesn't establish religion in any way shape or form not to mention the fact that your opinion is completely incorrect.

Intelligent design, by the very fact that its cornerstone is placing a supernatural "designer" in the mix cause IS promoting religion. It may be ostensibly non-denominational, but any thorough reading of their "literature" and knowing the backgrounds of ID's promoters and target audience makes it clear to anyone who the "designer" is (wink-wink) supposed to be. To claim otherwise shows a cursory understanding of ID.

And how is my opinion "completely incorrect?" As someone who has had to educate himself thoroughly on ID (because of my science background and current position as biology teacher), I'm quite aware of the Discovery Institute's arguments and aims in ID. If you're referring to my reference to states and municipalities not being allowed to 'establish religion,' then explain why the states gradually got forced into dropping religious requirements for office-holding, why public school districts time and time again have been smacked down any time they've tried to mix religious values (prayer, creationism) into classrooms? Public school districts and curriculum are run by states and municipalities and they have to adhere to religious neutrality. You may not agree with that, but you're not in any position to change what the courts have decided.

ID is bad science and bad theology.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Intelligent design, by the very fact that its cornerstone is placing a supernatural "designer" in the mix cause IS promoting religion.

So?

You contended that ID didn't promote religion.

The establishment clause has been bent out of all recognizable shape by a series of activist rulings which have no basis in fact or law.

In your opinion.

The purpose of the establisment clause is to prevent the establisment of a state religion not censor all mention of religion in public forums.

And I would argue that using a classroom teacher to promote a particular religious perspective or argument as a scientific explanation IS 'establishing a state religion.'

ID is flimsy enough on its own lack of merit.

Agreed, the problem is that Americans are abysmally ignorant with regards to science in general, and many folks -including those on school boards- don't have the educational background to understand the sham that cryptocreationism (ID) is.

Oh BTW, go ahead and link me up to any state which had a religious requirement for office holding.

TIA

Well, after a two-second Google search, there's this:

(note: added emphasis was mine)

"In the flurry of constitution-making that accompanied the Revolutionary War, eleven of the original thirteen states maintained restrictions on political officeholding. With the notable exceptions of Virginia and Rhode Island, all of the states limited such positions to either Christians or Protestants. Even Isaac Backus, that strident proponent of equal privileges for Baptists, was opposed to the mere possibility of Catholics holding public office.(5) But exclusive establishments of religion were indeed abolished in most of the states where they had once prevailed. All the Southern states disestablished the Anglican church. In New England, change occurred much more gradually. Connecticut's Congregationalists clung stubbornly to their establishment. The other New England states would continue to provide financial support for churches, though they did make it easier for religious minorities to make use of their own tax money.(6) To support religion in general, but not to prescribe particular religious tenets was the resolution to which many of the new states first tended.(7) Such a position permitted Americans to persist in the series of elisions to which their public culture was committed, so that Religious meant Christian, Christian meant Protestant, and Protestant (for many) meant Calvinist."

[Mike the Lab Rat]

In your opinion.

It's plain English.

Subject to interpretation, in which you disagree with legal precedent. That's your right, but it doesn't change a thing.

And I would argue that using a classroom teacher to promote a particular religious perspective or argument as a scientific explanation IS 'establishing a state religion.'

Guess again. If students were required to embrace a certain faith, then you might have an argument.

Wrong. Putting forth a supernatural explanation as a possibility is in and of itself an endorsement of religion. You can argue this all day, but the courts, science teachers. clergy, and scientists agree with me.

As it stands, the notion that simply studying ID establishes religion is, quite frankly, idiotic.

In your uninformed opinion, perhaps. "Simply studying" a supernatural explanation in a science class and placing it on equal footing to actual scientific explanations IS endorsing religion by endorsing the supernatural.

Try spending a little more time than two seconds next time. You do realise that the Constitution wasn't adopted until 1789 and the 1st Amendment was not adopted until 1791....don't you? This was well after and in response to the debates referenced in that essay.

Then try this page in which more specific references are listed, including two states which STILL have religious tests in their constitutions. BTW, just because a state constitution was written and adopted prior to 1791 doesn't mean that once the federal Bill of Rights was adopted that the states rewrote their constitutions to remove the religious tests in them. The quote from Delaware's constitution is dated 1792.

Maybe YOU should do a little more research regarding ID, school law, and state religious tests instead of making unsupported dribe-by's that indicate a less-than-cursory knowledge of anything in this thread...

[Terry in Crapchester]

There is no such thing as Santa Claus.

^^^ Proves that Santa Claus is not a Democrat, but rather, a "compassionate Conservative."

[RadioFan]

Needless to say, the notion that it is "unconstitutional" to teach ID in schools is every bit as ignorant and far more pernicious than ID itself.

The argument isn't that it's "unconstitutional" to teach ID in schools, especially in comparative religion or social studies classes. The argument is whether ID could be construed as establishment of religion, which the court, it seems, has said that's exactly what its proponents are trying to do.

Putting forth a supernatural explanation as a possibility is in and of itself an endorsement of religion.

Utter nonsense.

Merriam-Webster's first definition says otherwise:

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil



Rack this thread, btw, good arguments. (Though I completely agree with MtLR)

This may be the first SZ thread to be archived.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Well, after a two-second Google search, there's

Try spending a little more time than two seconds next time. You do realise that the Constitution wasn't adopted until 1789 and the 1st Amendment was not adopted until 1791....don't you? This was well after and in response to the debates referenced in that essay.

True, however . . .

You do realize that the Supreme Court originally held the First Amendment to apply only to the federal government, and not to the states, don't you? It wasn't until after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified that the argument that the protections of the First Amendment applied to the states began to take hold (and it wasn't until quite some time after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified that the idea that the Fourteenth incorporated most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights became the majority opinion). As it is today, Scalia and the so-called "strict constructionists" argue that the Establishment Clause applies only to the Federal government. If that argument ever takes hold, it probably won't be long before the protections of the First Amendment are held not to apply to the states.

Mike's point might not apply today (not yet, anyway), but it certainly is relevant to the period after the Constitution was ratified.

[Mikey]

This may be the first SZ thread to be archived.

Why do you hate DrDetroit?

[Terry in Crapchester]

MtLR is spot on on this thread, although I feel compelled to point out that . . .

If you want your kids to learn that the Earth is only 5,000 years old and that God made people out of clay sans evolution, then send 'em to a private school.

. . . is a bit of an overgeneralization. I went to a Catholic high school and they taught evolution in biology class as well. Moreover, that entire point is reinforced (and MtLR's point in the quote above is somewhat contradicted) by the following . . .

IMNSHO, if your entire moral/religious world crumbles at the prospect that Darwin was right, then your religious beliefs are whack. Most mainline churches don't have a problem with Darwin.

[poptart]

The purpose of the establisment clause is to prevent the establisment of a state religion.

Rat, and others, ....... agree with this..?

[Diogenes]

Christian faith has no place in science.

Neither does materialist Dogma.

No, what makes a particular Christian fundamentalist is his or her insistance on a literal interpretation of the Bible and applying that to everything whether or not doing so is appropriate.

Which would be an argument against Creationism, not ID.

Fundamentalists that oppose natural selection (which, btw, is the correct term for Darwin's theory..."Darwinism" is a term invented by Darwin's detractors in creationist/ID circles) do so largely because it contradicts their literal reading of Genesis.

Natural selection and descent with modification are the basis of Darwins theory, and it is only the later which is called into question with ID..

It is NOT secular, since one of its central arguments is that there is an other-than-natural (and don't even try to argue this one since even the Discovery institute agrees) "designer."

Actually it is a designer of unknown and possibly unknowable origin. It is the materialist insistance on spontaneous undirected biogenisis as well as the dubious nature of Darwin's descent with modification that ID challanges. And if it wasn't a valid challange there probably wouldn't be so much distortion, ad hominem attacks and bile coming from the defenders ofmaterialist indoctrination.

Tell you what - you want to prove you point, then find me even ONE example of a single school district that has even tried to put disclaimer stickers on physics texts regarding the theory of relativity. Or on earth science books regarding the heliocentric theory or the theory of plate tectonics. Or on biology texts to address germ theory or immune theory.

You can't, because there aren't any. Every single individual who has ever claimed that the stickers, etc. are just their way of making sure kids know that theories in science are very tentative and hypothetical (which, in science, they're not) is lying through their teeth. Only ONE specific scientific theory is being attacked by these folks.

That's because it's the only one which is in dispute and being taught as fact.

If you decide to start teaching Aristotelian/Ptolemaic cosmology, I'd have a problem with that too.