Posted on 12/26/2005 8:37:06 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Questioned about the national debate over ''intelligent design,'' [Florida] Gov. Jeb Bush last week said he's more interested in seeing some evolution of the science standards that Florida public school students must meet.
He wants those standards to become more rigorous -- and raising the standards should take priority over discussing whether intelligent design has a place in the public schools' curriculum, he said.
Nationally, the discussion over whether to teach intelligent design -- a concept that says life is too complex to have occurred without the involvement of a higher force -- in public school classes heated up after U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruled that it smacked of creationism and was a violation of church and state separation. (President Bush appointed Jones to the federal bench in 2004.)
Jones, in his decision, wrote that the concept of intelligent design ''cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,'' according to a Knight Ridder News Service report published Wednesday in The Miami Herald. [PH here: For a more reliable source than the Herald, here's the judge's opinion (big pdf file).]
In Florida, education officials and science teachers will be reviewing the state's science curriculum in 2007 or 2008, after the governor has left office, and ''it is possible that people would make an effort to include [intelligent design] in the debate,'' Gov. Bush told The Watchdog Report on Wednesday. ''My personal belief is we ought to look at whether our standards are high first,'' he said.
SCIENCE FIRST
``The more important point is science itself and how important it is, and we right now have adequate standards that may need to be raised. But worse: Students are not given the course work necessary to do well with those standards.''
Bush, after meeting with Coral Gables Mayor Don Slesnick and city commissioners concerning the community's widespread power outages after hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, also noted that the federal ruling came in a case that involves Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District.
''It is one school district in Pennsylvania,'' he said.
POINT OF VIEW
The Watchdog Report asked a follow-up question: Does the governor believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?
Bush said: ``Yeah, but I don't think it should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you. And people have different points of view and they can be discussed at school, but it does not need to be in the curriculum.''
You were misinformed. If you want to know the truth - you'll find it here in a nutshell
Now on to Frieler and Judge Jones. Judge Jones goes out of his way to misinterpret Freiler. Here is what the appeals court had to say about Frieler in denial of rehearing en banc:
"In denying rehearing, we emphasize that we do not decide that a state-mandated statement violates the Constitution simply because it disclaims any intent to communicate to students that the theory of evolution is the only accepted explanation of the origin of life, informs students of their right to follow their religious principles, and encourages students to evaluate all explanations of life's origins, including those taught outside the classroom. We decide only that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the statement of the Tangipahoa Parish School Board is not sufficiently neutral to prevent it from violating the Establishment Clause."
The simple fact of the matter is the decision was upheld because the Freiler disclaimer mentioned the Bible. So Jones was activist in expanding on the courts holding since the Dover disclaimer never mentioned the Bible and in adding his stifling language.
Now on to my assertion that anybody conservative supporting Freiler and Judge Jones holding that reminding school children that they can not maintain parental taught beliefs becuase they stifle critical thinking is a faux conservative.
Le's hear from the conservatives on the court on Freiler.
"Even assuming, however, that the Fifth Circuit correctly chose to apply the Lemon test, I believe the manner of its application so erroneous as independently to merit the granting of certiorari, if not summary reversal." Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist
And now a question for you Senator. Is Freiler constitutional law?
You claim more knowledge than God. You will see some science at the Second Coming of Christ that would make you burn your entire library of scientific texts, and fall on your knees and beg for mercy.
The jig is up. It's time to make the best deal you can.
If you perceive it to be "a maze" you suffer the same confusion as this guy used to -- and probably for the same reasons.
Believe what you want. Ignore any contradictions or factual mistakes. I don't care.
If you perceive it to be "a maze" you suffer the same confusion as this guy used to -- and probably for the same reasons.
Wrong guess. Care to answer the question?
That is what the dissenters said, in objecting to the denial of rehearing - as a matter of law, it is a nullity. It has no value as precedent - it merely reflects the opinions of those who would have reheard the case. Unfortunately for them, the rehearing was denied, and they were limited to this little legal spitball ;)
As for the actual holding in Freiler, there is this:
Against this jurisprudential backdrop, the School Board argues that the contested disclaimer's primary effect is "to communicate to students that they are free to form their own opinions or maintain beliefs taught by parents concerning the origin of life and matter." According to the School Board, the disclaimer advances freedom of thought, as well as sensitivity to, and tolerance for, diverse beliefs in a pluralistic society. We disagree....which is pretty much what Jones was on about.
In assessing the primary effect of the contested disclaimer, we focus on the message conveyed by the disclaimer to the students who are its intended audience. See County of Allegheny , 492 U.S. at 620, 109 S. Ct. at 3115. After careful consideration of the oral arguments, the briefs, the record on appeal, and the language of the disclaimer, we conclude that the primary effect of the disclaimer is to protect and maintain a particular religious viewpoint, namely belief in the Biblical version of creation.
Le's hear from the conservatives on the court on Freiler.
That and a buck will...well, you know ;)
As for whether I think it's constitutional or not, my opinion doesn't mean much, as a matter of law - I don't sit on any bench anywhere. For the moment, it is the law. Perhaps Cobb will provide a vehicle for SCOTUS to revisit the issue - but I tend to doubt that they have the stomach for it.
Less than 16 minutes later, at 5:53:38 PM EST Dog Gone responded: "I wasn't misinformed of anything. Dueteronomy 1:5 has Moses proclaiming things after his death in a place he never got to. And he's the author. Quite nifty. Believe what you want. Ignore any contradictions or factual mistakes. I don't care."
You have not only shown yourself to be a biblical illiterate, you have also shown an intent to stay that way. Be my guest.
I do care about facts, about provable assertions, about actual history.
You don't. Deal with it.
You should change your handle to Fire and Brimstone Baptist. Your Nostrodamus like knowledge of future events is silly. Faith does not require science and vice versa.
Creationists apparently are of weak faith and cannot adapt to scientific evidence contradicting a creation myth written 2500 years ago. Believe what you wish but ignoring scientific reality is not a good path to enlightment.
Patrick, did you read Jeb saying he DID NOT THINK EVOLUTION SHOULD BE IN THE CURRICULUM.
Geez, that is more radical than even GW, and you think he somehow is closer to your position?
I don't get that....
Here is what Jeb said:
"I don't think it [EVOLUTION] should actually be part of the curriculum."
Even GW doesn't go as far as to suggest evolution be taken out of the curriculum.
Jeb is actually more anti-evolution, not the other way around...
did you read Jeb saying he DID NOT THINK EVOLUTION SHOULD BE IN THE CURRICULUM.
Excuse me for butting in but....this is called a concession to the 'base'.
Think for a moment what telling high school students that it's 'forbidden' they be taught about that 'evil' evolution theory would have on said high school students.
Jones expanded on a divided courts holding and ignored SCOTUS precedent, to wit, "there is "no realistic danger that the community would think that the [School Board] was endorsing religion or any particular creed, and any benefit to religion or to the Church would have been no more than incidental". Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 395 (1993).
And we haven't even started on his activism in setting himself up as a peer reviewer absent any qualification whatsoever.
I would say this however, SCOTUS establishment and free exercise clause jurisprudence is a disgrace. With Alito joining the court their may be a nice little majority available to clean it all up.
:)
How does this suggest design? Design is not the default fall back hypothesis.
Fair. It is NOT the default but is it that you simply dismiss the use of “transcendent creation event?” After all, transcendent does imply that the meaning or definition of the event lies beyond the ordinary range of perception, does it not? Further, do we know everything about the beginning? Scientifically speaking we most assuredly do not.
3. fine-tuning of Earth's, the Solar System's and the Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
That is irrelevant already. The only way this claim has any meaning is if this particular planet, in this particular solar system, in this particular galaxy was the 'target'. There are billions of galaxies which contain billions of stars, a high percentage of which, could possibly support life. If only one planet of the billions possible supported life, that is where we would be.
How is this irrelevant already? The fine tuning is specific to our planet and we have heard many times the specificity involved in its precision related to its distance from the Sun, the rotation speed, and other like facts. Its too precise to be relegated to mere chance, a chance which to be achieved would be on an order we could not possibly calculate. That is fine tuning, is it not?
4. rapidity of life's origin
The beginning of life is only considered rapid when held to the contrived probability calculations that completely ignore initial conditions. This is again not an indication of intelligent design. Many of the necessary chemicals necessary for life are found in space.
How do you know this? We have a thing called the Cambrian Explosion where much appeared in a small space of time relatively speaking…why is it that rapidity of life can not be considered in the same way? I am curious to this and I may be understanding it wrong.
5. lack of inorganic kerogen
What does this mean? Oil forms from organics.
You’re willing to say that all oil has formed from this? Or am I missing your question here? I confess I don’t fully know what the lack of inorganic kerogen would mean completely.
6. extreme biomolecular complexity
It has not been shown that complexity only derives from intelligence, in fact complexity has not been consistently defined in this area.
It at least does suggest that chance evolution would be all that much harder or are you going to say that it does not?
7. Cambrian explosion (sudden appearance of most species during same time period)br> This one isn't even close. The Cambrian explosion was hardly an explosion, it was ~50 million years long. …The explosion was not an explosion.
It was formerly less that 14 million years long and only recently has come into contention of being 40 million years in length beginning at 570 mil yrs ago to 530 mil yrs ago. In the great scheme of things relative to the period of time evolution claims to have proceeded, from one form to another, this is still a very rapid developing period. Moreover, why did it not continue on the same pace? Is it not a fair question?
8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
Horizontal branches?
The fossil record is vast, is it not? Does not the record have layer upon layer and in each layer we have many things? Yet some exist in places there is conflicting evidence asto what should and should not be there. In fairness we do not know it in total yet. In so much as we are still looking at what the record contains with a degree of certainty does it not have areas where some fossils should be but are not? Is this, perhaps, what he refers to?
9. placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
The frequency and placement of cetartiodactyl fossil transitionals is as close to perfect as we can expect. In some cases the fossils are of sister species rather than parent/daughter species, but the lineage is still indicative of a well defined transition between an atiodactyl and a cetacean. The claim that there are no transitional fossils is a typical creationist 'faint hope' defense.
But…not perfect…right? So, Possible, could be a term used here? Take a look at the following and let me know what you thing Click here
11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions
The designer caused massive volcanic eruptions and collisions with large chunks of extraterrestrial rocks and ice?
A designed nature that runs its course can possibly have volcanoes…or can it not? Are you saying on this instance that you then believe in a creator and that He or she was wrong to have done this? Or maybe HAD to do this?
13. duration of time windows for different species
What does this even mean?
I took it to mean the period of time species existed and disappeared.
14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
What does this mean?
1. Well, here is the definition of symbiosys: Biology. A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member. 2. A relationship of mutual benefit or dependence.
15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
Explained very well in Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene'. Think 'kin selection'.
I will see if I can find this and read it.
17. recent origin of humanity (as opposed to common descent)
Recent origin? 200,000 years for Homo sapien sapien is recent? A line of fossils showing a stepwise change in morphology going back 6 million years is recent?
Of course I would have to accept that the evolutionist version of creation of the species is the measure here. This is your presumption.
18. huge biodeposits (needed to sustain humanity)
How is this evidence of a designer?
Would they not have to be Present for a designer to use?
200
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.