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.
The Church of the Quadrennial Statement.
LOL, that would have made for an interesting science class!
(Seriously, there is a current search for a North American primate in the Cascades - Bigfoot?)
There is no abstract DNA-ness that can be converted to a silicon template in a manner I can imagine.
Yes, silicon is far out. DNA is clearly bound in the H-C complex.
DNA produces highly organized protoplasm that carries out processes of life. Science would have us believe that DNA self-assembled at some point in time, and the molecule accidentally acted as a factory to produce other molecules that just happened to work together to serve and protect the DNA. And as these other molecules went about their duties, they accidentally fashioned a wide variety of structures and mechanisms that gave these bags of protoplasm the ability to move around, interact, and eventually, think and discover facts about the universe. And further, the protoplasm organized the DNA (or the DNA organized the protoplasm) such that the blueprint for an individual could be passed on. Fantastic!
Now that you mentioned it, that reminds me of something I've been wondering about. Does anyone know if there is a copy of the game on video or DVD to be had anywhere? My son has been searching for it with no success and would really like to see the original game.
I don't want to read another thread. I'm spending more time than I had intended on this thread. If you have an argument, please go ahead. Comprehensive separation of church and state was clearly an original intent. Read the Federalist State Papers, and the correspondences between the 1st amendments framers: Jefferson and Madison, if you have doubts. In addition, the post-civil war amendments quite clearly restrict state and local governments to recognize rights established in the Bill of Rights. The argument that the states can, in fact, establish religions because some had done so when the constitution was written is fairly dopey logic, which could be used to justify slavery and anti-sufferage, to begin with, and at any rate, does not survive the 3 post-civil war amendments.
LOL. You also don't care much about freedom.
I always hated the kids who ruined the curve. What nerve, too; messing with the curve and not even bothering to show up for class.
No, science would not have us believe that. See the works of Woese for a more accurate picture of what science thinks. Instantaneous abiogensis is a creationist boogyman, not an actual holding of modern science.
I see, I oppose the thesis that states CAN, in fact, establish religious authority and preference for specific sects in individual states, and I am the opponent of freedom. Indeed.
Your chart list biology as required for freshman admission to a specific university. Not graduation from high school.
Indeed, you're just another in a long line of libertarians who would use the courts to spread your gospel. The type who gives more authority to nebulous 'motivations' than to actions. But why would you care what I think?
The real kicker is that he sat down and had lunch with me and wanted to talk about Philosophy after he quit Mathematics.
One of the times he showed up in Linear Algebra the professor was writing a complicated proof on the blackboard. This guy gets up and picks the prof's proof apart and cuts it down to five steps with a simple sub proof.
I felt like one of the apes in 2001: A Space Odyssey, reaching up and touching the Black Object with no clue what it meant.
After that class I felt like getting drunk but it was only 11:30 in the morning.
"Third, the ACLU erroneously–though perhaps intentionally–equates recognition with endorsement. To endorse is necessarily to recognize, but the converse does not follow. Cf. Mercer County, 219 F. Supp. 2d at 789 (“Endorsement of religion is a normative concept; whereas acknowledgment of religion is not necessarily a value-laden concept.”).
The Gospel of libertarianism is that the state has no right whatsoever to teach anyone anything at any time. I believe when they said "libertine" you heard "libertarian" and panic set in.
The type who gives more authority to nebulous 'motivations' than to actions. But why would you care what I think?
Libertarianism entails no position whatsoever on the place of motivation in court procedure. Libertarian doesn't mean "liberal" either.
Not that I am one, particularly, but I do know that libertarian doesn't mean "whatever I don't like", libertarianism has a specific, and severely limited notion of what the state may do. Substantially more limited than that of most strict constructionists, in fact.
Another fly in the honeytrap. Look closer.
LOL. That's how I felt with Math. As a matter of fact, I feel that way with my oldest daughter when she starts talking string theory and quantum physics and computer geek at me. I just stare at her. Can't figure out where she came from.
My son is having trouble with a high school geometry teacher right now because the way he learned math, using Saxon Math, is different than what she teaches. She actually told him that if he did the problems his way instead of hers, she would mark it wrong even if the answer is right. So one day it was his turn to do a problem at the board, does it his way, and she tries to show the class how this student did it wrong and can't get the right answer using this method....oops. I'm beginning to wonder how much this has to do with his 15 week grade...
There is nothing conservative about federal courts meedling in the affairs of local school boards. So you're not a conservative, you're not a libertarian and I guess you said you're phiosophy is not libertine.
No matter, whatever you're ideology is it includes using federal courts as a hammer to bludgeon your ideoligcal opponents based on your interpretation of their motivations.
Quite similar to the ACLU actually.
Really? I could not find that discussion anywhere in the Federalist Papers. Help me out here. Which Federalist Paper are you talking about?
Out for the night; check the discussion in the morning *placemarker*
If I don't connect, Merry Christmas.
It seems a little like a tough sell to claim I am using the courts to "spread my gospel", because I continue to insist that it is proper only to teach science in science classes.
There is nothing conservative about federal courts meedling in the affairs of local school boards. So you're not a conservative, you're not a libertarian and I guess you said you're phiosophy is not libertine.
If I am green slime from jupiter, it still doesn't affect the question of whether or not I have an argument, although it does make for a keen distraction.
No matter, whatever you're ideology is it includes using federal courts as a hammer to bludgeon your ideoligcal opponents based on your interpretation of their motivations.
Good grief. The Dover schoolboard lied about ID as a viable science to students, lied about their reason for lying, and lied about being aided and abetted by their local church in doing so.
I'd say this is a palpable demonstration of why we have a high wall of separation. You couldn't trust religious zealouts with even the most minor of public offices unchecked by that wall in 1400, and things haven't changed much. Motivation matters very much, because it is pretty easy to cover up religious predation on the public domain with miles of verbiage and mis-direction--like in the Dover case, for example, if the court is willing to play 3-monkeys, and ignore painfully obvious predations on the constitution, because of some quixotic reluctance to acknowledge motivation.
If the catholics take over the state of massachusatts, and require all residents to pay 10 percent of their income to the local "civic improvement society", which happens to have nuns and priests for officers, crosses and confessionals for lobby decorations, and symposiums that seem suspiciously like sermons, is the supreme court supposed to continue to insist that motivation means nothing?
Quite similar to the ACLU actually.
As opposed to the outstandingly fair, open, and judicious track record of religious bodies like the inquisition, or the church that provided the "Panda" book in the Dover case, for example.
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.