Carry on.
Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.
You do understand that remedies are whatever is legally available in our system. Our government is not perfect, but courts are part of it, just as school board are part of school systems.
There is no point whatsoever in a bunck of perjuring dimwits injecting their ignorance into the science curriculum. Perhaps there is no good argument for federal judges interfering, but it happened.
I have been a FReeper for over six years, and the only thing I can say with some assurance is that FReepers will applaud a court decision they approve of and whine about judicial activism when they disagree with a decision.
...prevents religion from being taught in public schools.
Please note that in a previous post, I mentioned that there is a difference between teaching the historical and social implications of religion, and teaching that a particular religion is the "right" interpretation.
BRAVO!
Religion should not be taught as science, and science should not be taught as religion.
Good judgment; things are as they should be.
Would you care to argue that "separation of church and state" is a legal doctrine found in the Constitution and supported byt the text and original intent?
Not really.
Maybe it's the lack of blue spew to indicate the whack-nut posts to ignore.
No, I don't understand the perversion of the English language at all, no matter which side does it. Remedies, while legally available in our system, does not preclude use of the word in other systems.
Our government is not perfect, but courts are part of it, just as school board are part of school systems.
Yeah, so?
There is no point whatsoever in a bunck of perjuring dimwits injecting their ignorance into the science curriculum. Perhaps there is no good argument for federal judges interfering, but it happened.
Which is a problem in our country. Article 3 judges have taken it upon themselves to "guide" America toward a goal they percieve as worthy. That's not their job and all it does is poison the public discourse. It is a profound problem in America, much more so than a disclaimer in Dover, Pa which was turned out by the voters in Dover, Pa absent 'divine' intervention from the judicial oligarchy.
I have been a FReeper for over six years, and the only thing I can say with some assurance is that FReepers will applaud a court decision they approve of and whine about judicial activism when they disagree with a decision.
Which simply demonstrates a failing on your part. Painting with a wide brush always results in getting paint outside the lines.
Carry on.
No, I wouldn't care to take this thread down THAT path...
Suffice it to say that the Constitution doesn't specifically say a LOT of things. There's no constitutional prohibition against stealing a car, either, but laws designed to prohibit that theft do exist, and have been found to be constitutional.
Elliptical reasoning. Where does the term "separation of church and state" originate?
Again -- don't trot out the party talking points if you don't actually know what's happening.
Oh, I know what I'm talking about but it is rather obvious that your grasp of establishment clause jurisprudence is limited.
I'm trying to find out how limited but you're not helping.
Again, where does the phrase Spearation of church and state" originate?
Odd, since that is what the thread is about.
Merry Christmas to you and yours Luis.
I have just spent a little bit of time, reading some articles about this 'notion' that Charles Darwin recanted his theory of evolution, as witnessed by this Lady Hope...
I have read several different articles, and they all seem to agree, that this story is just a made up fairy tale, but perhaps has a few little facts upon which the whole story was cooked up...
Lady Hope was a tent evangelist, known for her colorful stories of conversions that she had implemented, and her pure enjoyment of telling these stories, was a well known fact...a Dr. James Moore, who is a lecturer in the History of Science and Technology, is a biographer of Charles Darwin, and has spent 20yrs researching Darwin and this story about Darwin supposedly recanting his theory of evolution...
What follows, is what Dr. Moores 20yrs of research have shown...
According to Darwins daughter who was present when Darwin died, Lady Hope never, ever visited Darwin on his deathbed, and she, the daughter was unaware that Lady Hope had ever seen Darwin...
However, Moore goes on to say, that it is possible that Lady Hope did visit Darwin, but at a time, 6 months before he died...this would have been at a time, when Darwins daughter was not present in the Darwin household...but at this time, Darwin was not on his deathbed as described by Lady Hope..apparently 6 months before he died, Darwin was up and about, not malingering in bed...also the little meeting that Lady Hope claims that she held in the summer house, for Darwin, included some 30 people who were all in the summer house, which according to Moore, is impossible, because the summer house was very tiny, and Lady Hope did state that the 30 people gathered were all in the summer house...but more importantly than that, Darwins wife Emma, would have been present at this time...and Emma, often worried a little bit, about how Darwin and his theory were perceived as being anti-religious...it would have been to Emmas great advantage to claim that Darwin recanted his theory of evolution...but she did not...why?..because she knew it never happened...
So neither Darwins daughter who was present with Darwin when he was on his deathbed, nor his wife, who was with Darwin, when it is possible that a Lady Hope did visit, ever claimed that Darwin recanted, because they both knew that such a thing never happened...
So Dr. Moore believes that it is possible that Lady Hope might have visited Darwin, but certainly not when she claimed she did, nor was Darwin in the condition she claimed that he was...and it seems quite certain from Moores research, that Lady Hope, in an attempt to make her attempts at converting people seem very important, she embroidered a 'fairy tale',...the only real fact in her story seems to be that she 'may' have visited Charles Darwin...that seems to be the only real fact in her story...
But apparently it was to her great advantage to claim that her efforts did indeed make Darwin recant...thereby, she could draw even bigger crowds to her tent evangelizing projects, by having claimed that 'she'(important gal that she was), got that bad old Charles Darwin to recant...what better way to boost up the crowds, and the collection plate...
Sorry to have told this story, it was long one, but it was especially for 'Conservative Blonde'(and all those who might be interested in this story)I felt if I gave a link, CB would refuse to link onto it...thus I retold what my research has shown...
ConservativeBlonde...you have stated that you have known for so long that Darwin recanted his story...I think you were fed a 'fairy tale' and failed in researching what you were told...of course, you can always claim that this Dr. James Moore, a Darwin Biographer, and a researcher into the actual 'facts' of Darwins life for more than 20 years, is nothing but a fraud, or some such nonsense...Thats your choice...you can believe the Darwin recant story all you want...but you have been given links by others, as to the falsity of the Darwin recant, and you might want to do a little more research on your own, if you have the inquisitiveness to find out the 'truth' of the matter, ,rather than rely on something someone told to you long ago...
That may be what YOU are making it about.
For the majority of posters, it appears to me to be about the whether it is proper to inject religious belief into a high school science classroom.
Actually, you haven't really cited anything that supports your assertions, have you? Yes1. Is creationism testible and/or falsifiable? Yes
2. Do you believe that fish with scales/fins and birds with feathers/beaks/wings were created with all of their unique features intact or that they evolved these features over time? Yes
Would you care to elaborate? Is the first answer, "Yes", you've provided no supporting evidence or "Yes", you have?
You say that creationism is testible. How? What tests can I use to objectively prove the creationists' claims?
You also say that it's falsifiable. How? Under what conditions can creationism be objectively proven one way or the other?
Aieee!
Sorry, did I frighten you?
Scintillating rebuttal ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.