Posted on 09/28/2005 4:11:22 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Projection.
And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man.
That does seem like a rookie mistake for a lawyer. Smart of him to avoid the trial.
My point is that parents who believe that made evolved from primates/monkeys have no basis to complain when other kids say to their daughter that she came from monkeys.
Is it cruel? Yes, because it isn't true.
I suppose it would have been more accurate for other kids to tell her daughter that her parents believed she came from monkeys.
That's right, the 'Santorum Amendment'. It was in the preamble of the bill though, so it had no effect. I charitably assume he was showboating for his base.
I doubt he recommended a judge based on his beliefs on evolution. As you say, the guy looks like a party hack. He won't want to stick his neck out, and in PA, that's would be by ignoring precedent and finding for the religious right. I hope I'm right.
Really? Doesn't surprise me. The school board wasn't acting in a vacuum. The environment and ecology of ID is very relevant.
So if a kid is teased for having a cleft palate, and the kid really has a cleft palate, then it isn't cruel to tease the kid about it? Likewise if the kid's Mom is a lesbian, or the dad gets sent to prison?
That's cold.
Will he also point out what one of his own colleagues said?
Zoology professor, and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse stunned his listeners at an annual AAAS meeting in Boston by announcing that he had recently come to view evolution as ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions.
He justified his change of heart by tracing a succession of leading Darwinist thinkers, including T. H. and Julian Huxley, who had viewed evolution as "something akin to a secular religion." At the end of his talk, Ruse opened the meeting for questions. Greeted by a moment of stunned silence, he leaned toward the microphone and asked, "State of shock?"
So how much damage has been done to the teaching of evolution as undisputed scientific fact since Ruse's concession? Dr. Arthur Shapiro, a zoologist at the University of California at Davis and a fellow symposium participant, published an account of the meeting in the anti-creationist NCSE Reports titled "Did Michael Ruse Give Away the Store?" Many Darwinists fear he did. .."
Ruse Gives Away the Store - says Darwinian doctrines are ultimately based as much on "philosophical assumptions" as on scientific evidence.
It is part of the defendants answer to the complaint.
Michael Ruse, the author of Keep Intelligent Design Out of Science Classes?
You need to take your dubiousness up with Michael T Ghiselin LOL
In fact, although some ID supporters are literalists, most are not. The leaders of the movement--the retired lawyer Phillip Johnson, the biochemist Michael Behe, and the philosopher and mathematician William Dembski--all believe in a very old earth, and they all embrace some measure (for Behe, particularly, a large measure) of evolution. The point is that none of these people think that natural selection alone--or any natural-law-driven mechanism--can explain everything.Having made this distinction, however, I do think that ID and creationism have more than a few links. Supposedly, the ID people do not specify what kind of intelligence is involved in getting over the hump of irreducible complexity, but it is pretty clear in their writings that this intelligence is the Christian God. No one thinks that a super-bright grad student on Andromeda is running an experiment here on planet Earth, and that every now and then he or she jiggles things about a bit to see what will happen. Dembski, for one, has been explicit that he sees the designing intelligence as the Logos talked of at the beginning of Saint Johns Gospel.
And this, facts be what they are, is the stumbling stone. I suppose, if it was Oprahsis, moongoddess of the corn, black madonna, then a compromise could be made?
I wouldn't tolerate a child telling another that she came from monkeys, because I don't believe it is true
Of course it's not true.
Monkeys and apes and humans share a common ancestor. Humans, monkeys and apes are all primates, but we did not "evolve from monkeys."
The childish teasing you suppose comes from a position of ignorance as to what evolution really means. That type of ignorance may well be expected of children.
The only real cure for this type of teasing is education, a subject which the Dover school board apparently has very little interest.
Why do I say this? Why should my beliefs--my evolutionary beliefs--be given unique status in biology classes? First, because teaching an essentially religious theory like ID--outside of the "comparative religions" scenario I've described--is illegal. ID is religion carefully disguised as science to get around the Constitution--that is why ID supporters rarely talk explicitly of God--but it is religion nevertheless. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise, then that will not be the first time that the Supreme Court has been wrong.
100
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.