Posted on 12/28/2005 3:49:52 AM PST by PatrickHenry
US. District Judge John E. Jones III's decision to bar the teaching of ''intelligent design'' in the Dover, Pa., public school district on grounds that it is a thinly veiled effort to introduce a religious view of the world's origins is welcome for at least two reasons.
First, it exposes the sham attempt to take through the back door what proponents have no chance of getting through the front door. Jones rebuked advocates of ''intelligent design,'' saying they repeatedly lied about their true intentions. He noted that many of them had said publicly that their intent was to introduce into the schools a biblical account of creation. Jones properly wondered how people who claim to have such strong religious convictions could lie, thus violating prohibitions in the book that they proclaim as their source of truth and standard for living.
Culture has long passed by advocates of intelligent design, school prayer and numerous other beliefs and practices that were once tolerated, even promoted, in public education. People who think that they can reclaim the past have been watching too many repeats of Leave it to Beaver on cable television. Those days are not coming back anytime soon, if at all.
Culture, including the culture of education, now opposes what it once promoted or at least tolerated. The secular left, which resists censorship in all its forms when it comes to sex, library books and assigned materials that teach the ''evils'' of capitalism and ''evil America,'' is happy to censor any belief that can be tagged ``religious.''
Jones' ruling will be appealed and after it is eventually and predictably upheld by a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees (Jones was named to the federal bench by President Bush, who has advocated the teaching of creation), those who have tried to make the state do its job for them will have yet another opportunity to wise up.
This leads to the second reason for welcoming Jones' ruling. It should awaken religious conservatives to the futility of trying to make a secular state reflect their beliefs. Too many people have wasted too much time and money since the 1960s, when prayer and Bible reading were outlawed in public schools, trying to get these and a lot of other things restored. The modern secular state should not be expected to teach Genesis 1, or any other book of the Bible, or any other religious text.
That the state once did such things, or at least did not undermine what parents taught their children, is irrelevant. The culture in which we now live no longer reflects the beliefs of our grandparents' generation.
For better, or for worse (and a strong case can be made that things are much worse), people who cling to the beliefs of previous generations have been given another chance to do what they should have been doing all along.
Religious parents should exercise the opportunity that has always been theirs. They should remove their children from state schools with their ''instruction manuals'' for turning them into secular liberals and place them in private schools -- or home school them -- where they will be taught the truth, according to their parents' beliefs. Too many parents who would never send their children to a church on Sunday that taught doctrines they believed to be wrong have had no problem placing them in state schools five days a week where they are taught conflicting doctrines and ideas.
Private schools or home schooling costs extra money (another reason to favor school choice) and extra time, but what is a child worth? Surely, a child is more valuable than material possessions.
Our children are our letters to the future. It's up to parents to decide whether they want to send them ''first class'' or ``postage due.''
Rulings such as this should persuade parents who've been waffling to take their kids and join the growing exodus from state schools into educational environments more conducive to their beliefs.
JamesP81, I seem to recall some untruths being spread by evolutionists, don't you? Piltdown man, Java man, Haeckels drawings, etc.
And yes, these were later exposed as untruths by people seeking the truth. But the fact that the were accepted so readily is because they fit into their theoretical construct.
You might disagree with what some creationists are saying, and in some cases there might be error, but I don't think anyone is deliberately spreading what they know to be "untruths."
I'm reading the new book by Gerald Schroeder (one of the two scientists who persuaded Antony Flew to reconsider whether there is a diety) "the Hidden Face of God." It is a fascinating read and I would recommend it.
Yes, I do realize that. However, "accepted" does not constitute "fact", "proof", or anything else.
If you haven't realized, I'm not arguing exclusively for evolution, ID, or any other theory in full. I think they all have areas in which they shine a brighter light on understanding this world and the creatures in it. I simply reject that we should close our minds to other theories when the one we've been using still has a lot of holes.
The Bible teaches common descent from one woman and one man, just not Chimps.
Teaching a falsehood when the truth is at hand? I call that evil. It has nothing to do with deity or divinity or deviltry or anything spiritual, but it is evil nevertheless. A quotidian, human evil. A banal evil.
Oops, sorry! The ERV information is interesting, but may prove only that humans, apes and some monkes are susceptible to the same virus. I admit I don't know and it should prove to be a fascinating field of study. My point is that we should take care not to go beyond the evidence.
Theories are sometimes disproven, or changed when the facts become known.
You are far too self-important. What you hate is people not believing YOU. That's what it comes down to.
So if people don't believe you, and bow down to "your truth" then they're evil.
Here's a question for you. How is your knowledge of evolution in the least bit consequential to human existence?
Again and in little words. Chopping off heads is evil. Being wrong isn't evil.
You must think that the Amish are worse than the SS.
No one denies that researrch is needed, but only one side is doing it.
What is this talk of "good" and "evil"? Without a Creator these expressions of moral umbrage are nothing but meaningless, unintelligible emotive utterances of personal preference.
Cordially,
I don't know anyone teaching descent from chimps, but descent from a single pair of humans within the last few thousand years would imply an amazing rate of evolution to account for all the diversity among humans.
Only nonsense to those with a closed mind who care not to seek answers but rather to quash the questions.
Yup, these fakes or frauds were exposed and are not used TODAY to support the theory of evolution.
As I recall, there were some real irregularities behind the JAVA man - where bones were located (some distance from each other), what information was hidden, how they were handled etc. How were these hurdles overcome? What information is available now that has changed the view on Java Man?
When I was in school, Neanderthal and CroMagnum were pointed to as fossil evidence, but today it is recognized that they were as modern man as my Uncle Ollie (elderly German man who had hip problems.)
Too bad this has degenerated into another fruitless battle over evolution vs. creation. Cal Thomas' article is really about how Christians are going to survive in today's world, and some of his points are debatable. For example, did the Judge allow himself to be a "useful idiot" for the social Marxists of the ACLU? (Does anyone really think the ACLU cares about "quality science education?) Does the fact that the Judge attends some church mean he is a Christian? (Having visited a liberal mainstream church, I say it doesn't). Does the fact the judge was appointed by a Bush mean he is a conservative? (Judge Souter proves that's not valid either.)
you mean something similar to the diversity between liberals and conservatives ? Seems to me in the last 40 years we've diverged significantly from our predecessors. ;)
Actually, this is what I mean by closing minds. ID is not creationism.
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.