Posted on 02/17/2005 5:30:03 PM PST by Happy2BMe
A theory never becomes a law.
Lemon v. Kurtzman
And a straight line is defined as the shortest distance between two points.
Ain't it wonderful how the universe balances?
Half right. Government can "neither advance nor inhibit religion", and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." (see Lemon v. Kurtzman)
Parochial schools can teach what ever religion they wish; government schools cannot.
Did you read it?
Why do you say that?<>
fact
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact.
That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
See post 234
What I was questioning is why collected observations (within reasonable certainty) should not be called "facts".
Here is an example of what you are asking: :-)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
I had the exact same page open in another tab getting ready to qoute Gould:
"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."and Lewontin:
"It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans."I contend that undisputed observations are "facts". ;->
Half right. Government can "neither advance nor inhibit religion", and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." (see Lemon v. Kurtzman)
Parochial schools can teach what ever religion they wish; government schools cannot.
More clarification...part of the Establishment Clause test from Lemon is whether the government sponsored activity has the tendency to endorse religion, as the sticker clearly seems to do. I think that the "entanglement" prong of the test is inapplicable to the sticker situation, since it doesn't require that the government become involved in any inner church workings.
The sticker should not have been taken off because of the lame separation or establishment clause. The courts got confused by the term religion. Christianity is not one religion. It is a bunch of them.
Our government was founded on Christian principles and the founding fathers never envisioned them being challeged by so called religions that are nothing but idolatries and cults.
If the purpose behind this drive is to make sure students don't confuse theory with fact then why stop at Biology? Why isn't such a sticker proposed for physics text books? Quantum mechanics is almost all theory, as is relativity. What about Astronomy? The Bible teaches that the sun revolves around the Earth, and much of Astronomy remains to be definitively proven so why aren't Astronomy texts clearly identified as theory? And don't forget Aeronautics. The process which gets a multi-ton airplane into the air is called the Theory of Flight, but I'd bet that most people accept it as proven fact. So shouldn't textbooks and airline tickets be clearly labeled with something stating that, in theory, your airplane will fly?
"I contend that undisputed observations are "facts". ;->"
Then nothing is a fact. You still have loonies who think the Earth is flat.
I know that is the current take on the Constitution, but that is not what the Constitution really says.
First Ammendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress is prohibited from making a law establishing religion. No law is involved in teaching religion in school on a local level. The federal government shouldn't be involved in our schools at all. It does not have authority to do so.
What they neglect to consider is the clause that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Courts do not have the authority to do any of this. It is all up to Congress.
Because in the sciences what appears to be a fact sometimes isn't.
I have to laugh that creationists are unclear on what a "fact" is. No wonder they can't offer a coherent argument for their "position".
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the right is intrinsically and forever more moral than the left. It depends on the situation. Within the Muslim world, the right is reactionary, controlling, and violent. Morality is morality and is something permanent regardless of who on the political spectrum may be advocating it at any certain time.
But I share your view as to evolution. There are two types of knowledge, that of faith and reason. They are seperate and compliment each other. Both are necessary, just as if we need two legs to walk. If humanity becomes overly dependent on either one, there is danger. Too much faith, especially literalist interpretations of holy texts, whether the Bible of the Koran, will lead to close-mindedness and oppression. Too much reason runs the risk of mankind elevating himself to a secular godhood, wherein lie many dangers. Go to Patrick Henry's page, where he has links to Pope John Paul II explainign this idea of two spheres of knowledge.
Those who oppose evolution would be better off learning about it and coming to terms with it. Because it is not going to go away. They waste their time with such verbal gymanstic mind games about design, transitional species (every species is a transitional species, by the way), and trying to find holes in scientific ideas that are accepted by scientists.
By opposing evolution, conservatives are allowing the left to set the terms of the debate in regards to the philosophical consequences of evolution. If they would master the subject, they would neutralize those who want to use evolution as a means of reordering the world.
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.