Taking Intelligent Design apart, in court

[46zilzal]

Nova had a great investigative show last evening reviewing a court session held to keep religious dogma (in following the Supreme Court ruling against it) out of the Dover Pennsylvania high school curriculum in the guise of intelligent design. In example after example, evidence was presented to back up evolution (the most amazing was the evidence that the extra chromosome lost to the great apes is exactly the same as the fusion in the 2nd chromosome of humans - shown here).

The Seattle Institute trying to pry open religious dogma to return to the curriculum of public education was so inept to have left several intermediate copies of their book Pandas to People where they actually just typed intelligent design over creationism in the drafts, then claimed otherwise. Did they look foolish getting caught there.

The Constitution states that the government can neither promote nor inhibit any specific religious points of view but these guys keep trying to sneak it back in.

[46zilzal]

They exposed this document and it's agenda as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[Tom]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

The Constitution states that the government can neither promote nor inhibit any specific religious points of view but these guys keep trying to sneak it back in.

No, the constitution garauntees freedom of religion. A huge difference.
More people on this planet believe in a higher power and intelligent design than global warming.

You yourself cannot reconcile that if evolution is the only truth that global warming is part of that and that the demise of humans is part of it.

[46zilzal]

May I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Not pro, nor con.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by Tom

You yourself cannot reconcile that if evolution is the only truth that global warming is part of that and that the demise of humans is part of it.

Comparing those two straight up is on par with the comparison of Betty Crocker to orange marmalade.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

May I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Not pro, nor con.

A school system teaching is hardy a government making a law. Schools do not pass legislation.

[46zilzal]

Read the judge's ruling. A judge appointed by none other than the rutabaga.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/judge.html

[46zilzal]

The I.D. text. Panda's and People.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by Tom

No, the constitution garauntees freedom of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establi...irst_Amendment
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, and 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or accommodationist" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

[Tom]

If the government cannot legislate religion, I hardly see where the Kourts get off defining it. The Kourts have enough real issues to deal with.

As for the schools, I would be happy if the outcome based liberal schools were able to tech reading, writting,and arithmetic. The rest should be taught at home. Just stopo pushin morons thorugh the ranks. Instead of awarding federal aid based on something as stupid as attendence, it shold be awarded on the basis of minimum skills tests. I realize this would dilute the democratic party, but hey......

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by Tom

If the government cannot legislate religion, I hardly see where the Kourts get off defining it. The Kourts have enough real issues to deal with.

How about the Supreme Court?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

also,The Supreme Court in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ruled that bans on teaching evolutionary biology are unconstitutional.

Seems fairly well defined at the highest level. Simple idea, right in the Constitution, of the separation of church and state.

[Indulto]

Originally Posted by Tom

No, the constitution garauntees freedom of religion. A huge difference.
More people on this planet believe in a higher power and intelligent design than global warming.

You yourself cannot reconcile that if evolution is the only truth that global warming is part of that and that the demise of humans is part of it.

I would think most people who believe in a higher power also believe in global warming, but attribute it to God's wrath rather than cow flattulence.

I personally think intelligent design and evolution should be debated in schools no later than 8th grade along with teaching comparative religion courses. God forbid people choose their own faith rather than remain hostage to that of their parents.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by Indulto

I personally think intelligent design and evolution should be debated in schools no later than 8th grade along with teaching comparative religion courses. God forbid people choose their own faith rather than remain hostage to that of their parents.

easy to debate: lots of evidence of the latter, none for the former. Even irreducible complexity has been debunked. There has to be a shred of credibility or you have a Rick's Natural Star situation. One does not belong on the same stage as the other.

From WIkipedia: Despite being discredited in the Dover trial where the court found in its ruling that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large", irreducible complexity has nevertheless remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design and other creationists.

One could say an infection was stopped by 1) God's will or the 2) the antibiotic I just started IV after the culture and sensitivity told me which drug to use. Lots of evidence for the latter, NONE for the former.

[Gibbon]

Curious a Canadian quoting American historical documents....

Our nation began with these stirring words in the Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation."

Now, 231 years later, they still ring true. We may envision the Founders as rash, rowdy rebels. Not so. Already accomplished in fields of endeavor, they were settled in character and reputation. They deemed their decision necessary, and their first thought was of "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." They were men of purpose and principle, who well understood the peril of choosing to declare independence from Great Britain.

Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote to John Adams, "Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the House when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe to what was believed by many at that time to be our death warrants?

The central passage of the Declaration’s opening is the document’s most famous, suggesting the form of government truly fit for a free people: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Founders sought liberty, not license, rather than a loosening of restraints, a freedom to pursue right. The objective was citizens’ safety and happiness, later called "the common defense," "the general welfare," and the "blessings of liberty." The motto of the American Revolution were -->
"No King but King Jesus!" and "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,
"....we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Do we citizens, inheritors of this Republic bequeathed us, still stand ready to hazard even half so much?

Don’t allow revisionist liberal historians to rewrite American history. Plan your vacation around visiting DC and witness all our monuments giving thanks to God.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by Gibbon

Curious a Canadian quoting American historical documents....

How many hundreds of times do I have to say it. I only live here.

All of that contributes nothing to this thread. People can believe in God, fine. That is a choice made in the home, not a school unless the parents choose that to be an option.

Wow where can I sign up to talk in tongues, or get drunk, as they seem to be the same thing...