Dover, PA
yay for John Jones III for protecting our constitutional rights!
Intelligent Design Derailed
i do miss the ny times for their more intellectual news. they highlighted some of the judge's reasons for his decision and this statement was particularly lucid:
"The judge found that intelligent design violated the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation and by making assertions that cannot be tested or proved wrong. Moreover, intelligent design has not gained acceptance in the scientific community, has not been supported by peer-reviewed research, and has not generated a research and testing program of its own."
posted by Sharkmeat at 12/22/2005 11:35:00 AM
15 Comments:
I think this whole argument is funny. Evolution itself is a theory, as is ID theory. Its funny how people who claim to be "open" about all things shut down any theory that has the slightest bit of a religious tone to it. Open my arse.
22/12/05 11:45
but it is a theory based on fact, whereas intelligent design lacks hard fact, as such making it a supernatural theory that does not belong in a science class.
22/12/05 11:52
Not everything in this world can be tested or proven wrong. That's where you and I differ on our beliefs. Evolution may be a theory with some evidence to back it up, but it is far from being indisputably proven. Until then, either teach all possible theories, or don't teach any.
This is why I send my child to Catholic school.
22/12/05 11:52
Pi learns about God and evolution.
22/12/05 11:53
there is a distinct difference between what you can see growing in a beeker and what you believe grows under a god's hands. debating between lemarckian and darwinian evolution was perfectly fine. there was evidence for both (well until lemarckian was disproven). say here is evolution but such and such things are not explained is fine. but attempting to introduce explanations with hypotheticals based on supernatural forces is not okay. using hypotheticals with a scientific basis is.
the whole point is you cannot say the hand of a god did this, but you can say, this is what happened. and the rest of it the kids can go home and ask their parents, why is it that this happened, beyond say, elements colliding to form our breathable gases.
if you are going to step into the supernatural realm anyway, intelligent design is just one of many possible theories. how is it fair to introduce that one and exclude others.
22/12/05 11:53
well catholic school curriculum is also a different topic. she learns about evolution and god's role in evolution. whereas here, we're debating on whether or not there was simply evolution, god and evolution, just god, or some other explanation. the only scientific one out of those is evolution.
22/12/05 11:57
How many kids will actually go home and question their parents on what they've learned? Most kids won't. Most kids take what they learn in lessons as fact, not just theory. Most kids are too darn lazy to look into it themselves.
Again, not everything in this world is scientific. To believe so is funny to me because it limits lots of possibilities.
22/12/05 12:00
and most parents are too damn lazy to ask about what they've learned.
no, not everything is scientific. but there is science class and also theology class, philosophy class. i would relegate each subject to its appropriate realm and not call intelligent design science but theology. intelligent design is meant to explain scientific phenomena.
22/12/05 12:04
Agreed. Most parents are too lazy to take an active role in their children's education. Its a damn shame.
Ahh, but in public school, there is no theology class or philospohy class until you get to college. I have no problem with ID being taught in theology. That's fine. But what public school that is not post-hs do you know that actually offers those classes? I don't know of any. A bit one sided, no?
22/12/05 12:06
then i think a better cause would be to lobby the government for requiring philosophy and/or theology to be taught in the lower grades. the dover school board is going to make a new elective theology course which will cover intelligent design.
but keep in mind, unfortunate or not, the primary focus of grade school is advanced literacy and solving tangible problems. it is not focused on spiritual education. history class only briefly touches upon each religion and its main tenets and is more concerned with the fact that a history exists.
22/12/05 12:14
Teaching ID has nothing to do with God, per se, or spiritual growth. Its just leaving the idea of an intelligent being that created the earth. That is not necessarily religious or spiritual. Some people may take that as aliens. Therefore, my concern is not with spiritual growth in public schools, it is with allowing the opportunity for children to learn many different viable theories. And I have no use for lobbying for spiritual growth in public schools anyway. That's what I have Catholic school for. I'm sending my child to a place where I can choose what kind of education she gets. The public school parents can lobby for it if they want.
22/12/05 14:02
but they don't teach you about the possibility that aliens created the earth either. which they would have to, among countless other theories, if they taught intelligent design. teaching intelligent design has everything to do with introducing the idea that a god exists. and therefore relegated to theology class.
this ruling basically shows that that part of why the earth came about should remain open. that is not limiting options.
22/12/05 14:39
the thing is, science *is* about what we perceive with our five senses, and perceptions that we can measure with tools. we cannot measure religious perception with tools. if we could, then debates will significantly change.
22/12/05 15:10
our emails on this subject got very long :) here is a record of some of it
----------------
chris: Sure it does. It only allows for the teaching of one theory, which just happens to exclude God.
sharkmeat: no, it never excludes god. it says these are the mechanics that created the earth. that is where it ends. what they don't say, and what they allow kids to implicitly imply for themselves, is that god would be behind those mechanics. see, it never says no god. it simply does not mention god. that does not mean no god
chris: Evolutionists see no role for God in the theory of evolution. C'mon, playing semantic games isn't gonna work. Many liberals want to exclude the word God in everything because they don't believe. And since they don't believe, they can't tolerate that others believe and have to exclude God from everything. For example, the man who sued to have "one nation under God" taken out of the pledge. Or the person who wanted "God" taken off money. Its all laughable.
sharkmeat: okay let me split your argument into two
one is, we're not playing semantic gods here. i'm saying evolution and god are not mutually exclusive. if one is true, it doesn't mean the other isn't.
the second thing is, yes, there is a problem with having god be labelled on official things. it is declaring the presence of a god. many of us would choose to believe that there is no such presence. you can't claim mutual exclusiveness for this though. when you say "one nation under god" where is the room for "one nation, without god". being a secular country, are constitution requires the latter to be available. simply saying "one nation", however, is perfectly fair.
i agree that there are probably petty, capricious suits. the dover one turned out to be such a one, although the issue at hand was not
capricious. the board members who pushed through the ID agenda could
not prove that their interests were secular. it would be a much more intelligent and compelling suit if such were the case. it would also garner more respect for the religious christian community. but even with capricious suits, you can't ignore the concept that they are actually fighting over. having "god" labelled on everything is declaring a religious bearing. that in itself is not laughable. we don't laugh at you for believing in a god, nor do you laugh at us for not believing in one.
chris: "i'm saying evolution and god are not mutually exclusive. if one is true, it doesn't mean the other isn't."
Agreed. This is what Catholic teaching says as well. Evolution and God are both true. :)
When I say I find it laughable, I mean that I'm amused by the fights
and court rulings and wastes of time because some people are so
offended by the concept of God that the word must be removed from
everything.
sharkmeat: mm how about we put it this way. what if instead of god, the devil were labelled on everything. these are official documents we're talking about, identifying our nation. that is what is offensive. our nation should not be associated with the existence or not of god. i think the issue has just been made laughable because the people who bring the suits about have not done appropriate research, and prefer to complain rather than reason. it doesn't make the topic any less important to those of us who, for instance, don't believe in any god
chris: But those of you who don't believe in any God are the minority in this country. The majority are Christian. Majority rules. That is why we can vote the way we do, etc. Do you honestly think that the pledge and money is going to be changed for a minority of people who are offended by the concept of God?
If the devil were labeled on everything, sure, I wouldn't like it. But if the majority believed in that, then I have a few choices: 1. ignore it because it has no bearing on my beliefs or 2. if I can't stand it so much, I can always move. :)
sharkmeat: several responses to that
1. protect the minority. there are many things in place to do so,
affirmative action is one of the many. 2. the majority of the country however, i would not call christian. at least not true christians the way you like to put it.
for a while, black slaves were a minority. the constitution was
amended to make sure they were protected. the constitution is to make sure that no single person is oppressed.
because of this the constitution supercedes "the majority rules"
mentality in certain circumstances. the secularity of the constitution protects people who are not affiliated with any religion from being affiliated with one
chris: Response to point 1: having God in the pledge or money does not cause harm to the minority. 2: yes there are all different kinds of Christian, but all those Christian denominations are all still Christian. We all share the same basic belief: Jesus is our Lord and Savior. Though our theology may differ, we have the same goal in mind.
You are not being oppressed by having God in the pledge or money. If someone came and dragged you to mass every Sunday, then you might be able to make this argument. The blacks were actually oppressed! No comparison.
Again, you don't need to be protected from the pledge or money. Its not oppressing or hurting you in any way.
sharkmeat: okay, so you agree with me that the minority should be protected in their religious beliefs then? (and this is not considering the debate about god being on dollar bills, this is theoretically speaking).
now for the next, it is oppressive in that it is a visible official
recognition of one religious bearing. it is oppressive in that there is no recognition of other ways of spiritual thought. this is an official document we're discussing here, not a company letterhead.
chris: Sure, they should be protected. No one should be persecuted, tortured, or killed for their beliefs. Everyone has a right to a decent life regardless of religious belief/disbelief.
I don't agree with you saying that having God on an official document
is oppressive. When you say other spiritual thought is not being
represented, don't you mean lack of spiritual thought?
sharkmeat: other spiritual thought includes lack of spiritual thought yes. we are entitled to that.
with the issue of it being oppressive, it is on par with, for
instance, you telling us that there is a god watching over us and that we just don't accept that. we have talked about that before. that is how you could see it
chris: Again, I don't see that as oppressive. If you don't like the thought of that, then ignore it, dismiss it, laugh at it, whatever you want.
But in no way does that oppress you. In no way are your rights being violated or taken away.
sharkmeat: maybe this is an issue of semantics, that's why i want nikki to get into this. i'm not sure how far constitutional law actually extends.
but, consider the fact that the constitution protects the right of
free speech. free speech would be, handing a foreign person a dollar
bill that does not have god on it because as an american you are one
of many possibilities: believing in god, not believing in god, etc. when you declare yourself as an american, you are not declaring any spiritual bearing. having god on the dollar declares a spiritual bearing and since you cannot hand them any other type of american dollar, your right to free speech is limited. you can say, here is a dollar but i am an atheist, but someone who is monotheistic just has to say here is a dollar, because the theistic statement is on the dollar
perhaps that is a better approach to the argument
chris: I think that takes the argument way too far. Who on earth looks at a dollar bill and says "this country must be this religion." God can imply many of the 10,000+ religions out there, so its not representing anyone exclusively.
I would dare to say that atheism is its own religion as well.
sharkmeat: i disagree, the question is not who looks at a dollar bill but that someone *can* look at a dollar bill and attribute a country to a religion.
you say that atheism is its own religion as well, i completely agree. as is believing in more than one god.
chris: But you can't contribute this country to any one religion because God represents many many religions.
Many atheists will fight tooth and nail when you tell them atheism is
a religion. Or believing in multiple Gods.
sharkmeat: no, we can't that's why we want mention of god off the dollar. because of the very fact that it isn't just god that is associated with this country
chris: There are other associations on the dollar as well. You make it sound as if God is the only thing on the dollar, representing this country. There is Washington (or whatever other presidents are on the other bills), the eagle, the pyramid, the eye, and the white house.
sharkmeat: they are the literati!!! just kidding :)
i believe those are historic symbols, rather than religious, with a historical basis. you could make a strong argument for god having history in the country, but i would say that the makers intended to keep god out. i don't remember how the constitution is worded though.
also, i would contend that god no longer necessarily has a place on
the dollar bill. the selections of presidents has changed on the bill, as must the logo once people realize how pervasive religion was, and work harder to exclude it from government.
washington, white house, we can't contest those - certainly symbols of our country the eagle is a symbol of freedom the eye is for
clairvoyance? the pyramid for balance?
none of these seem religious
arte: For the most part: tldr.
However, I have a sticking point here. This country is not a pure
majority rule. That's why we have the SCOTUS -- to protect the
minority from a tyranny of the majority. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks or believes. Our government should be religiously neutral -- and those phrases shouldn't be there. The SCOTUS knows this and I guarantee they breathed a collective sigh of relief that they could dispose of the case without having to rule on the issue.
Chris: A tyranny of the majority? I'd hardly call the word God on money or on the pledge a tyranny.
Arte: When it's representative of the religious oppression, yeah.
chris: Religious oppression = hurting, punishing, jailing you, or generally disallowing you to believe what you want. You are free to believe what you want, therefore, you're not being religiously oppressed.
arte: Religious oppression = government sanction of religion. I'm too lazy to look up the case law, etc. But this is true as per the SCOTUS. So this argument might make logical sense, but legal sense is not always logical.
22/12/05 16:22
Again, the government is not sanctioning any particular religion, therefore, no religious oppression.
23/12/05 15:14
Kommentar veröffentlichen
<< Home