Posted on 02/17/2005 5:30:03 PM PST by Happy2BMe
| News Alert: On January 13, a federal judge in Georgia ruled that stickers placed in textbooks of an Atlanta area school district saying “Evolution is a theory, not a fact” are unconstitutional! ( View sticker.) According to this judge, such criticisms of evolution are an endorsement of religion. The judge’s action is the latest example of the nationwide effort to ban any critical analysis of the theory of evolution and insist that evolution be taught as the only option! The Action:
|
And anyway what do banning prayer in schools and abortion have to do with teaching evolution anyway?
I never thought of laws like that. As far as that goes I guess you could say that. They are sort of a starting point for more advanced science, ie. theories. Theories can be proposed to explain why laws exist. However, the main difference between laws in science and axioms in geometry is pretty important. An axiom in geometry (or any other branch of mathematics) is simply assumed to be true. It need not have any relationship with the rest of the universe outside of mathematics. A law in science must be actually tested and found to be a good description of reality.
Sounds good to me. But we would not need a stick for all those if they just drove that home in the contents of the book.
A lot of this debate, I think, is just each side setting up and knocking down strawmen. I really can't state the ID position, since I have heard different positions from different ID proponents.
I can tell you precisely what evolution says, though, since it is a specific theory in science. It says that at some point life on earth began. In mathematical terms, that's evolution's axiom. It is assumed to be true (but of course also is borne out by reality.) Evolution makes no effort to explain how the first living thing came about. The term evolution itself is then defined to be variation over time of allele frequencies in populations of organisms. Given this as a starting point, the theory of evolution, in simple language, simply states that evolution is capable of explaining the wide diversity of different species that currently exist. In other words, there originally was only one type of living creature, but changes in the genome of that creature gave rise to a new, but similar creature. The first creature may continue to exist or may die off. Further changes in the genetic makeup of the new creature and possibly the original one then occur, leading to more new creatures. Given enough time, then, all the different types of living things came about via changes in the genome of older creatures.
Natural selection is the current candidate for the main mechanism by which most of this genetic change occurs. It states that features that cause an organism to be more likely to survive and reproduce will tend to become more common in the population of an organism. New traits for natural selection to work on can come from a variety of sources, but most notably from mutations.
Given enough of a difference between two groups of organisms, a new species may be formed. New species tend to arise in a variety of ways, but one of the main ones is as a result of genetic isolation. A subpopulation of some organism becomes isolated from the rest of the population. These two subpopulations no longer breed with each other. Therefore, new traits that arise in each population will cause the populations to become increasingly different from each other. Eventually they become different enough that even if brought together again, they will be unable to interbreed. At that point, they have become different species. It is important to realize that even though the evolution of all the different organisms has not been actually observed, both natural selection and speciation through the above mechanisms have been.
It is also worthy to note some of the things that evolution doesn't say. For example, it doesn't say that any one individual creature at any time turns into another type of creature. It also doesn't say that any creature will at any time give birth to a completely different type of creature. It also doesn't say that any currently existing creature is descended from any other currently existing creature, but rather that two currently existing creatures may have arisen from a common ancestor. It also doesn't say that the process occurs at random.
Finally, and perhaps, most surprisingly to some, it doesn't say that there is no design involved in the formation of the various species of life. It doesn't say that there is either. The question of design is outside the scope of science, unless there's a way to conclusively test an item to determine whehter or not it's designed. Thus, if ID proponents want to argue that a designer played or plays some role in determining the course of evolution, such as controlling which mutations happened, I have no argument with that other than the argument that it isn't science and should not be touted as such. If ID'ers want to argue that evolution didn't occur because life is designed, then I have a problem. I have actually heard both of these from ID'ers (as well as intermediate positions.)
Which section of the U.S. Constitution does it violate?
The First Amendment.
No you haven't.
s-"The sticker should not have been taken off because of the lame separation or establishment clause."
c-I completely disagree with you. I think it's a dangerous thing to alter school science curriculum for the purpose of someone's idea of religious truths.
You don't disagree with me. We both think that science should be left alone by religious misinterpretations.
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.
It specifically says that the federal Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW. Congress didn't make a law establishing religion. A school board decided extralegally to put a false statement on a textbook. As a local judge, he had the right to decide that the sticker was untrue, but no authority to decide that it established religion, since the Constitution does not address local school board actions.
s"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."
cI'm not sure what your point is here. But I would suggest that with respect to religions other than Christianity (Islam for example) it is a darn good thing that we have an Establishment Clause to prevent their particular religious "truths" from being taught in our schools. And that is what I mean above by it being a dangerous thing. Once you open that particular Pandora's box, you can't really shut it.
My point is that Christian principles and Christian believers are necessary for the functioning of American society. The founders understood this and wanted it protected. That is not the establishment of religion, because it is only the principles of the religion involved not the doctrine. It doesn't say anything about baptism or communion.
You have seen what you get when you put the principles of Islam in place as a foundation to a country.
The Christian principles are not affected by the first ammendment, because Congress has never passed a law regarding them. Also, Congress is only restricted from making one particular Christian denomination the state religion. As long as Congress does not pass a law about that, Christians are free to worship anyway they damn well please, as Congress is restricted from making any law PROHIBITING the free exercise of religion.
It only says Congress, so I would assume local entities could pass laws establishing religion or prohibiting its exercise. But since all or most of the State Constitutions probably say a similar thing, the point is moot.
It clearly is unconstitutional for any court to decide that something is an establishment of religion if no law has been passed by Congress. It is clearly illegal for a court to prohibit the free exercise of religion by tearing down religious symbols etc. The courts have no right to pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Constitution does not envision the courts involved with legislation at all.
Teaching religion in public schools is not prohibted by the First Ammendment. The First Ammendment solely forbids Congress from making one sect of Christianity the state religion and it forbids Congress from passing a law inhibiting the free practice of religion.
What has happened to distort the system is that Congress has passed no such laws, but the courts have. The courts actions are clearly unconstitutional and each court that does such a thing should be disbanded and all their decisions reversed and stricken from the law.
Religion of any sort is clearly allowed to be taught in schools of any type. However, if the local entities want to prohibit religion being taught in their community, they probably have the right to do so, depending what the State Constitution says.
Wallace v Jaffree, Rehnquist's Dissent.
These difficulties arise because the Lemon test has no more grounding in the history of the First Amendment than does the wall theory upon which it rests. The three-part test represents a determined effort to craft a workable rule from a historically faulty doctrine; but the rule can only be as sound as the doctrine it attempts to service. The three-part test has simply not provided adequate standards for deciding Establishment Clause cases, as this Court has slowly come to realize. Even worse, the Lemon test has caused this Court to fracture into unworkable plurality opinions, see n. 6, supra, depending upon how each of the three factors applies to a certain state action. The results from our school services cases show the difficulty we have encountered in making the Lemon test yield principled results.
For example, a State may lend to parochial school children geography textbooks that contain maps of the United States, but the State may not lend maps of the United States for use in geography class. A State may lend textbooks on American colonial history, but it may not lend a film on George Washington, or a film projector to show it in history class. A State may lend classroom workbooks, but may not lend workbooks in which the parochial school children write, thus rendering them nonreusable. A State may pay for bus transportation to religious schools but may not pay for bus transportation from the parochial school to the public zoo or natural history museum for a field trip. A State may pay for diagnostic services conducted in the parochial school but therapeutic services must be given in a different building; speech and hearing "services" conducted by the State inside the sectarian school are forbidden, Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 367, 371, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 1764, 1766, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1975), but the State may conduct speech and hearing diagnostic testing inside the sectarian school. Wolman, 433 U.S., at 241, 97 S.Ct., at 2602. Exceptional parochial school students may receive counseling, but it must take place outside of the parochial school, such as in a trailer parked down the street. Id., at 245, 97 S.Ct., at 2604. A State may give cash to a parochial school to pay for the administration of state-written tests and state-ordered reporting services, but it may not provide funds for teacher-prepared tests on secular subjects. Religious instruction may not be given in public school, but the public school may release students during the day for religion classes elsewhere, and may enforce attendance at those classes with its truancy laws.
Which phrase of the 1st amendment suggests to you that freedom of religion is restricted to just christian religions?
And, as long as you're at it, how do you manage to pursuade yourself that teaching a religion in compulsory public schools, paid for with compulsory public taxes, doesn't make that religion a state religion?
Whether you are fond of them or not, the 3 post civil war amendments push some civil rights and privs. and immunities down on the state and local governments. What of such rights should be pushed down has been a rather disjointly answered question, but one would think that the rights enumerated in the 1st amendment should be, if any should be.
You are entitled to not like this, I'm not greatly pleased with it myself, but, the answer to your original question, as to where this right can be found in the constitution, is pretty obvious.
You can't have a conversation with people that refuse to accept simple definitions. It's a waste of time at best, and cruel at worst, like poking an animal in a cage with a sharp stick.
It's worse than that; much worse. In the history of the world, only a tiny fraction of all the people who ever lived have had the opportunity to ask highly qualified scientists direct questions, and learn from their wisdom. Happily, because of the internet and places like FR, it is now possible for people from all walks of life to converse directly with all sorts of scientific experts; we have physicists, microbiologists, mathematicians, astronomers, and chemists, to specify but a few, roaming these threads, and eager to explain what they know and how they know it to virtually anyone willing to ask an intelligent question.
But there is another segment of people on these threads who, instead of asking these learned folks intelligent questions and thus expanding their knowledge and understanding, insist instead upon bludgeoning them with their ignorance, and questioning the patriotism, honesty, and intellect of people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
I submit that such people are not here to learn anything, but are in fact interested in quite the opposite. I submit they are here to interfere with the dissemination of scientific knowledge that they find offensive. They don't want other people to ask the experts questions and learn from them; no, they are hear to attack the experts and cast doubt upon their wisdom, in the desperate hope that others will turn away and not listen to them.
IMHO that is why the same people show up over and over again parroting the same refuted diatribes and misinformation, and spewing the same bogus out-of-context quotes designed specifically to disrupt the dissemination of scientific knowledge. That why the same people show up over and over again misrepresenting what scientific theories and laws are, despite having had it explained to them 1720th time; they are here to instill confusion and spread their ignorance, not to disseminate knowledge.
The experts here on these threads ought to be revered and thanked for sharing with us their insights and explanations of the natural world around us; instead scorn is heaped upon them and their knowledge by the belligerently ignorant. I submit that these purveyors of unknowledge should be treated for the intellectual disruptors that they are. The stare the best opportunity any of us will ever have to gain more insight and understanding in the face, and spit in the eyes of those who offer and have the knowledge to help make that a reality.
Behold, I give you the belligerently ignorant, the intellectual Luddite's of our time. Know them for the anti-knowledge disruptors they are.
Boy, is the "science is a religion" crowd going to jump on you!
Good post anyway. The Luddites would screech, jabber, and throw dung anyway.
[Thunderous applause!]
What's your take on their motivations?
Here's a fairly decent encyclopeda article on the whole issue: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights by the 14th Amendment. If you click on the article's "First Amendment" link you'll get some info applicable to this issue.
WOW! I second the [Thunderous applause!]
There are so many folk here I learn from every single day. I am humbled to be in such company. :-)
All I can say (words fail me) is thank you so very much for your post.
Really... Humans EVOLVED from monkeys or some other mammal is not about origins.?
Actually since its a known fact the Third human came from the first two.. and that humans have been devolving ever since.. I'm outraged that "The fact" of devolution is not taught..
As I witness some of the posts on threads like this one.. I'm even more sure of it..
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.