Posted on 01/22/2005 7:38:12 AM PST by PatrickHenry
A movement to drag the teaching of science in the United States back into the Dark Ages continues to gain momentum. So far, it's a handful of judges -- "activist judges" in the view of their critics -- who are preventing the spread of Saudi-style religious dogma into more and more of America's public-school classrooms.
The ruling this month in Georgia by Federal District Judge Clarence Cooper ordering the Cobb County School Board to remove stickers it had inserted in biology textbooks questioning Darwin's theory of evolution is being appealed by the suburban Atlanta district. Similar legal battles pitting evolution against biblical creationism are erupting across the country. Judges are conscientiously observing the constitutionally required separation of church and state, and specifically a 1987 Supreme Court ruling forbidding the teaching of creationism, a religious belief, in public schools. But seekers of scientific truth have to be unnerved by a November 2004 CBS News poll in which nearly two-thirds of Americans favored teaching creationism, the notion that God created heaven and earth in six days, alongside evolution in schools.
If this style of "science" ever took hold in U.S. schools, it is safe to say that as a nation we could well be headed for Third World status, along with everything that dire label implies. Much of the Arab world is stuck in a miasma of imam-enforced repression and non-thought. Could it happen here? Our Constitution protects creativity and dissent, but no civilization has lasted forever, and our current national leaders seem happy with the present trends.
It is the creationists, of course, who forecast doom if U.S. schools follow a secularist path. Science, however, by its nature, relies on evidence, and all the fossil and other evidence points toward an evolved human species over millions of years on a planet tens of millions of years old [ooops!] in a universe over two billion years in existence [ooops again!].
Some creationists are promoting an idea they call "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwinism, eliminating the randomness and survival-of-the-fittest of Darwinian thought. But, again, no evidence exists to support any theory of evolution except Charles Darwin's. Science classes can only teach the scientific method or they become meaningless.
Many creationists say that teaching Darwin is tantamount to teaching atheism, but most science teachers, believers as well as non-believers, scoff at that. The Rev. Warren Eschbach, a professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pa., believes that "science is figuring out what God has already done" and the book of Genesis was never "meant to be a science textbook for the 21st century." Rev. Eschbach is the father of Robert Eschbach, one of the science teachers in Dover, Pa., who refused to teach a school-board-mandated statement to biology students criticizing the theory of evolution and promoting intelligent design. Last week, the school district gathered students together and the statement was read to them by an assistant superintendent.
Similar pro-creationist initiatives are underway in Texas, Wisconsin and South Carolina. And a newly elected creationist majority on the state board of education in Kansas plans to rewrite the entire state's science curriculum this spring. This means the state's public-school science teachers will have to choose between being scientists or ayatollahs -- or perhaps abandoning their students and fleeing Kansas, like academic truth-seekers in China in the 1980s or Tehran today.
Is that what you would tell a kid in class?
I see. So you know how to create the "spark of life"?
So it is claimed.
That is belied by the statement of strategy published on the Discovery Institute web site, and since removed, that described what it called the "wedge" strategy. This wedge strategy was to get science to accept ID in order to make people comfortable with the idea that some kind of supernatural was an established scientific fact. Then they would spring Christianty out of that base (or whatever the Moonies are, the DI was founded by a moonie)
The texas ruling on this same sticker made the point that they could have written a sticker that said that all scientific processes were only "theories". But by singling out Evolution, it labeled itself as religious, because religious entities are famous for their opposition to Evolution.
There is no if about it, it is fact. The DOI states unequivocally that rights are granted by the Creator, thats theism not relgion. And it is eminently constitutional. So is prayer in public school. The state can not stop any student or teacher from praying. That would be an abridgement of the "free exercise clause". They have ruled that teachers can not lead prayer or that schools can not set aside time for organized prayer. Highly dubious jurisprudence.
I won't argue with you that the courts are way out of line with how they interpret the First Amendment. The 14th amendment, if I remember correct, a reaction to some southern states who were attempting to say the BOR only applied to the federal government.
The BOR obviously applied to whoever the indivdual amendments referred. Originally, several of the states had established religions and at the time that was eminently constitutional because Congress had not established them. 20th Century jurisprudence icorporated the 1A and late 20th Century jurisprudence found penumbras. Such is the state of 1A jurisprudence.
But the argument is moot because the First Amendment was specifically a restriction on what laws the Federal Congress could write. The First Amendment is not a "right" per-se. Yes it says we have a right of free speech, but that right had to be cloned by the states in order to insure that the state could not abridge speech either.
The 1A enumerates more than one right. Speech, religion, association, petitioning power and the press are all enumerated. The words Congress shall no longer have meaning and should more properly read, Government entities shall....
In reading the BOR, it appears as if the amendments were extensions of the First amendment, as if the First was some kind of preamble to the rest. As if the words "Congress shall make no law" were extended to the other amendments.
Not at all. he founders meant what they said and said what they meant. 2A is specifically crafted to inure an individual right to KABA no matter what the looney left says.
But what we call the "First Amendment", I believe was not the first actual amendment passed out of the Congress. It was merely the first Amendment RATIFIED by the states, that considered the amendments separately
Yup.
I could go on and on. Basically, I agree with your actual litteral interpretation of the Constitution. But let's be real, the courts have ruled entirely differently, and this ruling will stand. Easily.
Wanna bet? :-}
I see. So you know how to create the "spark of life"?I haven't a clue how to achieve such a thing. Scientists are trying to figure it out, but they're not there yet (if ever).
So your real problem is with religion and not science?
Once someone convinces themselves the earth was zapped into existence in 6 days, then they aren't changing their minds.
I'm just amazed that Christians can accept all kinds of scientific theory, all apparently created by God, and that's just fine. But just because Genesis has a few hundred words that are not really very clear on their exact historical meaning, then somehow Evolution can't have been created by God like that other stuff.
No two denominations believe the same thing. They all interpret the same Bible in different ways. And they're not changing their minds.
Your comparison to a college thesis notwithstanding (do one outlining your faith someday, and see how many people of other faiths you convert)
Someone said that evolution was NOT about the "origins" of life, I don't know if it was you or not. To me, evolution is all about the origins of life since there had to be the first living organism in order to evolve. I can accept the PROCESS of evolution just as I accept the fact that when I go out on a cold day, I put on a coat. What I have a hard time getting my brain around is what animated that first living entity and what form it assumed.
Well I see a lot of "faith" on both sides of this debate.
I only have a problem with people bringing faith into a science class and presenting it as something else.
Creationism is a peculiar interpretation of Genesis that is not even shared by all Christian denominations. Why should it be presented as "science"?
One of my primary reasons for opposing ID is that I think it will damage some individuals faith. The backlash among the academic class has already begun, and they will retaliate with a vengance. I guarantee you that some young people will have their faith challenged and decide that God is a fairy tale, simply because this ID discussion will be elevated into a fight to "prove God exists". If that happens to any young person, it is a tragedy.
Science isn't bothering religion. So religion should not disturb science. I truly believe there is no conflict between Genesis and science. I think you should let sleeping dogs lie.
Someone said that evolution was NOT about the "origins" of life, I don't know if it was you or not. To me, evolution is all about the origins of life since there had to be the first living organism in order to evolve.Yes, I said evolution is not about where first life came from. A lot of people seem to think abiogenisis is part of the theory of evolution, but that's not true.
Creationists say that a lot. The Evolution folks never do. Evolution is fact. There is hard evidence all around. And science does not contradict Genesis.
What's the problem here?
Why do creationists wish to challenge and change science from the outside in? Let them become scientists, find their evidence and convince scientists of it's validity.
Believe it or not, science actually thrives on controversy. It gives them something to study and ask for grants over. If someone can actually bring up genuine evidence (and it wouldn't take much, although its provenance would have to be impecable) to challenge Evolution, then they will win Nobel prizes.
Until then, they should study hard, and not make waves in the political arena (as this is). Otherwise they will be shouted down loudly.
That is the eternal question none of us can answer.
"What was it, around post 408 that I proclaimed you ignorant on the subject of Evolution. This gets funnier by the minute."
Laughing at yourself is often good medicine; doctor, take such a pill!
What I said above is correct. Evolution is a combination of *two* things, natural selection and mutation.
One without the other is not Evolution. The process in question, bacteria under antibiotic attack, displays only one trait: natural selection.
No, and no.
No, the bacteria didn't acquire a new property, and no, mere natural selection (without mutation) is not Evolution.
Consider, if you applied an antibiotic to which no member of a colony was immune, the entire colony would *either* have to die or else instantaneously mutate.
Instantaneous mutation never happens in real life. Instead, some existing members of said bacteria colony will already have a trait that makes them resistant to the applied antibiotic. They will then thrive and multiply (no more competition from their now-dead peers, for instance).
Thus, a colony that isn't wiped out soon returns with a widespread resistance to the original antibiotic.
But that effect is due only to Natural Selection, not instantaneous mutation.
No, and no.Yes, and yes. I've done this myself.
if you applied an antibiotic to which no member of a colony was immune, the entire colony would *either* have to die or else instantaneously mutate.Oh please! "incrementally add the antibiotic to the colony" - you don't drown the colony in antibiotics from start. If one is in a real hurry (as you seem to be) add a mutagen.
You miss the point. I'm not referring to your technique in your experiment (sad that I even have to explain that fact). I'm referring to evidence that the resistant trait *already* existed in the population.
Your experiment merely culls an existing population.
Anguish has it right - I'm actually pretty impressed that a Swede would know more about constitutional law than 99% of Americans. Most Americans have no idea that the Bill of Rights, as written, only applies to the federal government and rights that we see as fundamental such as the freedom of speech or religion could have been negated by state or local governments prior to the 14th Amendment and subsequent SCOTUS rulings.
jwalsh, you may not agree with the SCOTUS rulings but Anguish and Narby did provide you with the judicial realities of the situation.
As I noted in my previous post, what you posted was mostly accurate and based in reality - its better than almost any American could actually do.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment is controversial but the SCOTUS in several incremental decisions have used it to "incorporate" certain constitution freedoms to cover state and local governments as well as just the federal government.
These decisions have been very narrow and focused as in some cases only parts of certain amendments have been "incorporated". The court considers certain rights to be fundamental and only these are incorporated under the 14th Amendment. For example, the fifth amendment protection of double jeopardy is considered fundamental but right of a grand jury indictment currently is not.
The 2nd amendment guarantee of "keep and bear arms" is not currently considered "fundamental" and is not covered by the 14th amendment. This is unfortunate, but is mitigated somewhat by the fact that 44 (I think) states have this freedom in their constitutions. While the SCOTUS rulings may have been overstepping, they are nonetheless current judicial and constitutional reality. They also reflect political reality as any attempt by the GOP to overturn any of the incorporation rulings would probably put the party out of power for generations. This is not a problem, however, for some in the party don't mind falling on their sword. Most in the party do realize, though, that there are bigger battles to fight.
It's in His creation.
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.