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.
I don't know about a primordial sloop, but I did travel by primordial yawl once.
If a statement that evolution is a theory and that there are problems with that theory amounts to "an establishment of religion" then whatever process there was that led to that conclusion is deeply flawed and needs to be fixed.
The constitution does not state that the Supreme Court will have the final say on whether or not some action or law is unconstitutional. When I see decisions like this one I question the wisdom of Marbury v. Madison. There needs to be a check and balance against the courts.
That tracks with what I have always seen you post.
I understand your being upset -- the Courts are the Next Great Challenge. In this case, I agree with the outcome but so what?
We need to keep our principles about us. It can't be "Court agrees with us=Court Good" and "Court disagrees with us=Court Bad."
But that is the way a lot of FReepers operate.
This case had no business going to trial. I think the fact that the courts have politicized themselves by overreaching on issues of abortion and religion makes it clear to me that it is time for congress and the president to put their foot down.
Congress has the constitutional authority to control the appellate jurisdiction and the original jurisdiction of the lower courts. I believe they should simply pass a law that states that no federal court other than the Supreme Court shall have original or appellate jurisdiction to declare any law or action of the congress, the President or the states unconstitutional. They should also pass a law that any decision of the Supreme Court in regard to the constitutionality of any law passed by the congress or the states shall be overturned by a 2/3 majority in the house and senate with approval of the President.
I think that would end the flood of these silly lawsuits.
The Dover case is a civil suit, is it not? Do you think aggrieved parents should be blocked from suing school boards over questions of curriculum?
uh...aren't you pretty much describing the Amendment process already established by the Constitution?
The amendment process requires the approval of 3/4 of the states. Technically (and I believe constitutionally) you would not even need a 2/3 majority to overturn a decision of the Supreme Court, but I used the 2/3 majority as a benchmark to give a large measure of deference to the decisions of the Court. Nevertheless I believe congress has a right and an obligation to act as a check and balance against an overreaching judicial system.
It may be silent in regard to origin, as well as other factors like "who is responsible," but it is a function of a designed thing to retain its integrity and to perform consistently with purpose. From this it is hardly unreasonable to infer that particle matter retaining its integrity may be evidence of design.
Thanks for jumping into the fray.
If only you could have your prediction subject to direct observation. Go for it. There must be a scientific body that can etch your prediction into a substance that will last a million years. If only you could be alive to collect royalties!
Frankly I don't beieve there should be public schools. I also believe that parents should have the right to move their children out of a school or a district if they don't like the curriculum or the number of gang members. that would resolve most of these disputes over curriculum. I also believe that if the government is going to fund the education of children that there should be no discrimination against religion and that the money that would otherwise go to the public schools should be sent to the private school that the child attends.
This case was not even about a curriculum. It was about a statement that was required to be read by the teacher before the teaching of evolution which set forth the position of the school board.
The question is, which one of these religious is specifically intent on ruling the world through the notion that organized matter behaving according to predicatble laws may be an indication of intelligent design? As another has noted, it may be the Church of Organized Matter.
This claim is not supported by observation: there is no significant statistical evidence that the children of scientifically literate secular households are any more likely than those from creationist households to show signs of damaged lives.
At any rate, if by "primordal sloop", you are referring to the notion of the spontaneous generation of cellular life by lightning bolts in mud puddles--this has not been a scientific thesis for quite some time now.
Has your bird been subject to scientific study with regard to it's behavior? I would posit that it behaves in a manner generally in accord with its species.
Simply believing is good enough.
Yes indeed. When it comes right down to it, that is largely what science is all about.
"As an evolutionist, what is YOUR belief about the origins of life on Earth?"
Like all other folks, I don't know what the origins of life on Earth are. It's a fascinating field of study, but one which probably won't provide a hard answer.
What's more, I don't really care what the origins were. They're irrelevant to the theory of evolution, which only addresses speciation.
Still, there are a number of interesting hypotheses about the origins of the first life. I follow the research as it continues.
Said statement did more than represent the "position of the school board". The school board required the teachers to represent ID as a viable alternative scientific theory, and the defense chose to rely on the viability of that claim, which required the judge to assess it.
No, that alone is not the amendment process.
That also requires the agreement of 75% of the states.
A 2/3 majority is required in both houses to overturn a presidential veto...maybe that's what you were thinking of.
Let's assume that it did.
Now get out your copy of the CONSTITUTION and then explain to me and all the lurkers exactly how simply making a statement that ID as a viable scientific alternative to the TOE is "an establishment of religion" as referenced in the first amendment.
ID was not part of the curriculum, period. There is no argument here. Uttering the word ID or God in science class is not unconstitutional in America.
Argue the facts Luis, there was no curriculum involving the study of intelligent design. If there was, it would have been produced in court. It wasn't.
I suspect I will be waiting a long time for an answer to my question at 2117. :-)
But you missed my first post on the matter. If a teacher or student brings up the point that Darwin proves there is no God then a student has a right to bring up ID as a matter of opinion to fight back. Since a teacher or student bringing up an opinion that Darwin proves God doesn't exist is exactly that. An opinion.
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.