Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
I fully understood your contention that your idea of religion should be taught in public schools. I contend you can get that indoctrination in church. Your obtuseness does not make me stupid. In fact your reply serves to prove my point that the entire point of pushing ID is to force your religion into the classroom. Go to church. Listen to your pastor and take solace in the knowledge that blackguards like me will go to hell and you will go to heaven. Don't, however, presume you can force your religious ideas into the science classroom.
The whole decision is lengthy but detailed and cites a boatload of prior cases. Might be useful to someone trying to get his legal legs under him on this issue.
ID contains the only current scientific hypothesis for the origin of life.
So now you say there is no theory of the origin of life EXCEPT ID? Interesting.
"Where would I get one, and how do I know that's what Jesus actually looked like?"
You can find several sources on the web for plastic Jesus figures, suitable for dashboards.
As for what Jesus looked like, the preponderance of depictions of Jesus have him looking like a thin European man, with light brown hair and brown eyes. That image is doubtful
A search for "Real Jesus" will bring up some other ideas of how the Joshua of the time might have looked. It doesn't much resemble the Jesus on most crucifixes, though. Way too semitic.
Snakehandlers lose - party time!
Ok, God created all the physical laws. That's great philosophy, but where's your evidence, other than philosophy?
Like the judge said, ID is not science. And since the proponents of it in this particular case were Christians, and believed they were promoting Christianity by promoting ID, then it's religion. And religion just isn't science.
Don't you get that?
LOL!
Why, "The Christian Church of Intelligent Organized Matter," of course!
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
"As an atheist I wouldn't expect any other answers from you, which we have heard over and over and over....
"
You're an atheist? I had no idea.
The nefarious, unscientific notion that organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is best explained by intelligent design is a religious idea espoused by one of the following religious bodies, whose aim is to establish a theocracy by stealth through introducing said notion into scientific debate. Guess which one:
African Methodist Episcopal
African Methodist Episcopal Zion
African Orthodox Church
American Baptist Churches USA
Amish
Anabaptist
Anglican Catholic Church
Antiochian Orthodox
Armenian Evangelical Church
Armenian Orthodox
Assemblies of God
Associated Gospel Churches of Canada
Association of Vineyard Churches
Baptist
Baptist Bible Fellowship
Branch Davidian
Brethren in Christ
Bruderhof Communities
Byzantine Catholic Church
Calvary Chapel
Calvinist
Catholic
Cell Church
Celtic Orthodox
Charismatic Episcopal Church
Children of God (COG)
Christadelphian
Christian Churches of God
Christian Identity
Christian Reformed Church
Christian Science
Church of God (Anderson)
Church of God (Cleveland)
Church of God (Seventh Day)
Church of God in Christ
Church of God of Prophecy
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Church of Scotland
Church of South India
Church of the Brethren
Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America
Church of the Nazarene
Church of the New Jerusalem
Church of the United Brethren in Christ
Church Universal and Triumphant
Churches of Christ
Churches of God General Conference
Congregational Christian Churches
Coptic Orthodox
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
Disciples of Christ
Episcopal
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Evangelical Congregational Church
Evangelical Covenant Church
Evangelical Formosan Church
Evangelical Free Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church
Evangelical Methodist Church
Evangelical Presbyterian
Fellowship of Christian Assemblies
Fellowship of Grace Brethren
Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches
Free Church of Scotland
Free Methodist
Free Presbyterian
Free Will Baptist
Gnostic
Great Commission Association of Churches
Greek Orthodox
Hutterian Brethren
Independent Fundamental Churches of America
Indian Orthodox
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
International Churches of Christ
Jehovah's Witnesses
Living Church of God
Local Church
Lutheran
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
Mar Thoma Syrian Church
Mennonite
Messianic Judaism
Methodist
Moravian Church
Nation of Yahweh
New Frontiers International
Old Catholic Church
Orthodox
Orthodox Church in America
Orthodox Presbyterian
Pentecostal
Plymouth Brethren
Presbyterian
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Presbyterian Church in America
Primitive Baptist
Protestant Reformed Church
Reformed
Reformed Baptist
Reformed Church in America
Reformed Church in the United States
Reformed Churches of Australia
Reformed Episcopal
Reformed Presbyterian Church
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Revival Centres International
Romanian Orthodox
Rosicrucian
Russian Orthodox
Serbian Orthodox
Seventh Day Baptist
Seventh-Day Adventist
Shaker
Society of Friends
Southern Baptist Convention
Spiritist
Syrian Orthodox
True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days
Two-by-Twos
Unification Church
Unitarian-Universalism
United Church of Canada
United Church of Christ
United Church of God
United Free Church of Scotland
United Methodist Church
United Reformed Church
Uniting Church in Australia
Unity Church
Unity Fellowship Church
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
Virtual Churches
Waldensian Church
The Way International
Web Directories
Wesleyan
Wesleyan Methodist
Worldwide Church of God
"Dumb, but not dumb enough."
Darn! I'll have to try harder.
If only you guys could change the scientific method to read something like -
1) Observe nothing
2) Reproduce insults aimed at anyone who dares to criticise your "theory"
3) Reproduce faulty experimentation, illogical conclusions, and general nonsense.
I'd have to admit that evolution would be solid science under such a theory.
"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."
The only thing tortured is the decision of a federal judge who either cannot or will not tell the difference between motive and purpose. A judge denouncing the motives of only one side in such a lawsuit and calling them liars based on nothing more than his divination of same, is unseemly in numerous ways, not the least of which is that motive is irrelevant to establishment of a secular purpose. If motive were relevant to justice in this case, then the motives of both sides in the controversy would have been called into question, and they were not. Notice that the judge takes into account the 'motives' of the ID proponents. Does he take into consideration any atheistic motivations of school board opponents? No. Further, does he take into consideration the motive of religious evolutionists? There is no reason that an atheist should not be able to advance a legal purpose based on motives of atheism, and no reason a religious person should not be able to do likewise base on religion motivation. In order to reach his decision he had to implicitly define religion, and in doing so betrays his bias.
The judgment also entails an assumption of power to define science and evolution, something scientists and philosphers of science have so far been unable to agree upon. I wonder which brand of evolution the judge prefers? Is he a Lamarckian, a Darwinist, or a neo-Darwinist, or a believer in some non-Darwian, law-like evolution?
You will say that it doesn't matter, but I think once a government decides it has jurisdiction over some subject matter, and gets its foot in the door it tends to never to go away. IMO that we should have a healthy fear of the federal government by fiat deciding what science is, and is not, and what religion is and is not, particularly for localities. Grant of such a power was never contemplated by the writers of the U.S. Constitution, and in fact I think the Constituion expressly forbids them from it.
Cordially,
I'm not sure that I completely agree with your assessment of what the founders would and would not approved of.
My guess would be that they would not be of one mind on this topic, much as they were not of one mind on almost everything that they discussed.
Says who?
Says me!
Oh, yeah!
Yeah.
Well, your mother wears army boots.
....
I think we've come to the end of rational discussion here.
Coyoteman, do you have a link to that list somewhere? It should be required reading before anyone can post on these threads - at least then we'd know we're weeding out the genuinely ignorant.
I'm impressed. Most atheists have no sense of humor!
Hmmm, you are postulating an architect who designs everything in a nested hierarchy that changes over time, and looks just like evolution. Tell me, what is the difference between an infinitely powerful Designer who makes it look as if evolution is true, and evolution being true? A difference which makes no difference, is no difference.
I think you misread the ruling.
It says nothing of anyone reading, writing, or discussing ID outside of school.
I doubt my purchase of Behe's Darwin's Black Box put me in on a "list". Methinks you are being a tad melodramatic.
Only a fool would deny the Author of all science His rightful place and disregard the fact that He created all we see and don't see in 7 literal 24 hour days. He doesn't have limits on His power and ability.
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.