Law Professor Crosses Evolution Battle Lines: Conservative leader sides with ACLU

The Fulton County Daily Report (via Law.com) ^ | 12-15-2005 | Greg Land

[Lurking Libertarian]

The fight over how public schools should teach the theory of evolution is usually expected to fall along familiar battle lines.

Thus, at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today, lawyers for the liberal American Civil Liberties Union will argue that school board members from conservative Cobb County violated the Constitution when they ordered that stickers questioning evolution's validity be placed in high school biology books.

But this case defies simple labels for Georgia State University law professor L. Lynn Hogue, who has led the conservative Southeastern Legal Foundation, worked for the disbarment of President Clinton and proposed a Georgia law that would allow the display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings.

Hogue signed on to an amicus brief filed on behalf of Georgia Citizens for Integrity in Science Education, which supports the ACLU side of the case.

"I'm sympathetic with their cause," said Hogue, who also has pushed for gay marriage bans, fought Atlanta's domestic partnership ordinance and battled the University of Georgia's affirmative action program.

"From my perspective as a conservative, I think science education is important," he added. "And I'm not religiously sympathetic to anti-evolutionists, who I think are lunatics."

[Oztrich Boy]

I can't imagine how a christian anti-evolutionist could possibly justify outright lying in order to try to prove a point.

It's not a matter of imagination, any more than a Creationst saying "I can't imagine how a monkey could turn into a man".

It's simply a matter of fact. Deal with it :^)

[PatrickHenry]

Nobody writes dialogue like Jack Chick. Which is a good thing, really.

Well, the creos certainly repeat the content of that dialogue. Almost all of them. It's more entertaining when Chick does it.

[js1138]

Are we there yet? (Where's the Dover verdict?)

[trisham]

The problem is that the "two sides" of this issue aren't whether one accepts evolution or theistic creationism, but whether one views the world through logic and evidence or through feelings and hope.

It is possible to join these two "sides", as the Catholic church has done, and declare basically that God created the science, and by definition science and God cannot contradict one another. This means they have to interpret Genesis rather loosely, which is a problem for many modern fundamentalists who have been taught that the Bible is literally true. But the advantage is that they only have to bend their reading of the Bible, vs. Biblical literalists which have to bend any rational view of reality itself.

**************

I believe that logic and evidence, feelings and hope can co-exist. It is my belief that one can be logical and believe in God. I believe there is evidence of God, but it may not be evidence that is acceptable to you.

As it happens, I am Catholic. I don't believe that God created the science, but I do believe he created man, and in that creation an intelligence that was capable of creating science.

Science is the invention of man. Man is the invention of God.

[trisham]

Actually, this entire thread may be an exercise in futility, as the Clintonoid judge who ordered the stickers removed may be about to be slapped down:

******************

Regardless of the outcome, I do not believe this thread has been an exercise in futility.

[puroresu]

####Regardless of the outcome, I do not believe this thread has been an exercise in futility.####


You're right. It's been an overall good thread. Your discussions with Dimensio & Narby were interesting, as were their views.

[trisham]

Yes. I found their posts to be very interesting as well.

[Dimensio]

Well, the creos certainly repeat the content of that dialogue. Almost all of them.

The problem is that they expect us to repeat the content of the dialogue of Chick's fictional "unbelievers", especially when addressing the subject of evolution. Then they become extremely angry when we tell them that their strawman version of evolution -- pulled wholesale from a Chick tract or from a Hovind book (which is where Chick got his information in the first place) -- is completely wrong.

I recall a discussion from over a year ago where a creationist literally seemed to be replying based upon a script rather than anything that I actually said. He admonished me for assuming that he was a creationist (though later he admitted being one), and I went through my postings to him and could not find a single post wherein I had stated such a belief. I'm convinced that more than one creationist posts based upon a script rather than actual statements put to them. That might explain why they often explode so violently: they're rather put-off that their replies no longer make sense because they have incorrectly predicted what those on the evolution side would say.

[dread78645]

JackChickDidit placemark

[longshadow]

.... or from a Hovind book (which is where Chick got his information in the first place)....

or vice versa.....

;-)

[Lurking Libertarian]

Jack Chick placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

That might explain why they often explode so violently: they're rather put-off that their replies no longer make sense because they have incorrectly predicted what those on the evolution side would say.

Seminar trolling. I guess it was inevitable. Next newbie that shows up, tell him "Merry Christmas" and watch his head explode.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Next newbie that shows up, tell him "Merry Christmas" and watch his head explode."

Better yet, tell him, "You know, I never thought of that before, good point!".

[narby]

Science is the invention of man.

But if you believe in a creator God, then God created the physical world that scientists study. That's basically my point that "God created the science". God created it, and scientists study it.

This is where many creationists get tripped up. They don't recognize that if the creator God and the God of the Bible isn't a liar, then the Bible and science must have the same answers. But while the Bible contains a few short chapters on the creation, science studies God's actual creation itself, all around us

The Creation *is* Gods word, written in His own hand, not that lousy communications system we call "language". People like Francis Collins of the Human Genome project are firm believers that when they study science, they're studying Gods handiwork.

But fundamentalists worship the written Bible, more than they worship God, I think.

Man is the invention of God.

As a Catholic, I assume you would say that men of the Amazon invented Gods of the forest. And that men of Scandinavia invented the Norse Gods. Men of Japan invented Shinto, Indians invented various deities, Chinese invented Buddha, Native Hawaiians invented Pele, on and on.

While Catholics believe opposite from all of those, that God invented man. Right...

Many of us believe that there are no unique religions of the world, that all of them were invented by Man. It's the one common denominator of humans. All civilizations have a faith, invented by their ancestors. No exceptions.

I do have much respect for your faith. I think most humans, and certainly all civilizations appear to *need* faiths, and western civilizations being very successful, I tend to think that western faiths are superior and should be promoted, whether I believe in them or not.

But this is where I run afoul of the fundamentalists. They repeatedly bring up this creationism argument, attempting to transform scientific understanding with transfusions of the Bible. Just about the first discussion after "it's only a theory", is a debate about whether God exists at all. Which makes this debate dangerous for fundamentalists to pursue.

Such faiths already have a lousy record of maintaining their intensity after the initial generation. It's the old "preachers kid" syndrome, where the greater the piety of the preacher, the more likely his kid will be to be a bull in a china shop. The discussion of evolution, and the immediate challenge to the creationist to prove the existence of God, is only more likely, I believe, to kill the faith of the generation after the fundamentalist, and leave those children lost and angry, with no anchor in their lives.

I think the more tolerant faiths, such as the Catholic and Jewish, and the pre-fundementalist Southern Baptist that I grew up in, are potentially longer lasting and healthier.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC INTREP

[curiosity]

Excellent. This is just the kind of thing we need to dissassociate the convservative movement from anti-science lunacy.

[RunningWolf]

Fiction concocted by dishonest trolls?

Well, within the cathedral of evo cultism... YES

But in the real world.. Uh NO

Wolf

[Virginia-American]

Parody of Chick comics. Copy it. It's being removed.

[PatrickHenry]

Too late! But if you Google for Jack Chick parady websites, others are still around.

[dread78645]

CthulhuDidit placemark