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.
From a astronomist's website:
FactsThe word fact can be used several ways, but in general in science, "facts" refer to the observations. They are best when they are repeatable observations under controlled conditions, such as "It is a fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum." This is the part of science which will be the same a century from now, unless more precise measurements show otherwise.
Theories
The theories are the explanations proposed in step two of the scientific method. [Note to CG: That is "Step Two", not your smoke-blowing "endpoint".] Usually the word "theory" is reserved for more than a first attempt, which might be called a "hypothesis." A theory usually has already survived several falsification attempts, and is pretty well accepted. However, I'll use the word theory to mean any explanation of observations.
Thus, by separating facts from theories, I mean distinguishing between observations and explanations. When you hear the news, "The Dow Jones took a plunge today because of fears about the Asian crisis," is that fact or theory? It was half and half. The fact is that the market went down: that is an observation which was measured. But who knows what drives the market? The matter-of-fact statement that it was caused by such fears could be anything from one reporter's speculation to a general consensus of market analysts. In any case, it remains only a theory. No one will separate the facts from theories for you; the trend is to present everything as truth.
(see http://www.johnpratt.com/items/astronomy/science.html)
Smoke blowing ping.
I agree - and the diversity in the animal kingdom would suggest an amazing rate of evolution too.
" For example, did the Judge allow himself to be a "useful idiot" for the social Marxists of the ACLU?"
No.
"Does the fact that the Judge attends some church mean he is a Christian?"
No true Scotsman....
"Does the fact the judge was appointed by a Bush mean he is a conservative?"
Do you have anything to say or do you just like to ask meaningless questions? :)
"Smoke blowing ping."
Time for you to put down the pipe then. :)
" The word fact can be used several ways, but in general in science, "facts" refer to the observations. They are best when they are repeatable observations under controlled conditions, such as "It is a fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum." This is the part of science which will be the same a century from now, unless more precise measurements show otherwise."
No conflict with anything I said.
" The theories are the explanations proposed in step two of the scientific method. [Note to CG: That is "Step Two", not your smoke-blowing "endpoint".]"
Theories are the endpoint. There is no *higher* level to ascend to.
My post went to you by default, not by my intention (I failed to change the address box). I don't think my statements are meaningless at all. I'll put them as assertions. In terms of the broader picture, the Judge was a "useful idiot," yes. The other parts of my post challenge the idea that just because the Judge is a churchgoing Republican appointee, conservatives and Christians should applaud his actions.
Evolutionists and creationists are never going to convert the other side, so most of this thread is pointless.
Here again is the astronomer, Professor Pratt, from the cite above:
It is extremely important to distinguish between facts and theories in science, and in every other subject also, because facts usually remain the same and theories often change. They are not always easy to differentiate, and even scientists forget to do it. And the people who write science textbooks nearly always forget to do it. So I'll try to give you some guidelines so you can do it yourself, because twenty years from now the facts will be the same, but the theories may have changed a lot. I know because I've had to relearn some theories since I taught this class 25 years ago, but the facts are the same. For example, the universe has doubled in age since I was a boy, which gives you an idea of just how old I am. In this class, we will try to spend about 2/3 of the time on facts, so that you won't need to relearn the entire class when the theories change. Of course, we can't ignore the theories altogether, because they are our best explanations of the facts; it's just that we shouldn't consider them to be absolute truth. When some people see a scientific theory disproven and replaced by another, they lose confidence in all of science, which is a big mistake. That is how science progresses, and it is a wonderful way to learn about our world.
Evolution out of randomness is a theory.
Evolution out of some "natural selection" is a theory.
Intelligent Design is a theory.
At some point it becomes a question of just how much evidence do you really need? Your ability to ask one more question about the distant past doesn't negate all the evidence already provided to you.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
-- 1984, George Orwell
Cal Thomas wrote this? Dare I say it: the tide has turned? Dover may well turn out to be be ID's Waterloo.
Taxes for schools, police, fire, etc., begin at the LOCAL level. Abolishing the federal tax system and establishing a retail sales tax is not going to eliminate childless couples from funding the goverment school system.
All public schools should be totally locally controlled AND locally funded. With voters in said location deciding how. A couple of key words: TRIM, TRIM, TRIM.
And if people whine that some areas have more money that others?
My answer: Too bad. Everything isn't always equal and uni-. But with the tax money saved more people can send their children to private school or one parent can stay home and homeschool.
I've always known that Cal Thomas was much smarter than O'Reilley.
He also apparently thinks that "ID" is correct, which is too bad. Genesis need not conflict with science.
Hopefully the main beneficiary of the move away from government schools will be Catholic schools, which have no problem with science like the Christian Fundamentalists do.
Wrong. A theory is never proved. Here are some definitions (from a google search) and at the bottom a note on the role of theory in science:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Model:a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
From an NSF abstract:
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
I think Cal Thomas says what he thinks. While O'Reilly is a philosophical whore, and will take any position he thinks will bring ratings, or bring him hot interviews. I like to watch O'Reilly, his bloviating is funny, but I wouldn't take him seriously.
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.