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.
It's inconceivable that an intelligent designer could create the earth in a six-day time period, but the complex universe could assemble itself given enough time?
If the universe were created by an intelligent designer, might that designer have attributes outside our experience? The Bible suggests God is outside time - how would that impact His ability to create within a seemingly (to us) short period of time.
There's a lot of talk about homeschooling producing students that are superior in achievement to those who attend public or even private schools; average test scores and college achievement of homeschooled vs. group schooled children are often given as criteria for this comparison.
I've always thought these 'studies' were flawed due to the fact that parents play such an essential role in education in the first place - children that are homeschooled are inevitably going to come from homes where the parents give a great deal of attention and help to their children - these same kids would hence probably be above the level of average if they stayed in public/private schools, anyway.
Anyone care to comment or know of a study of the matter that tries to avoid this bias; i.e., that compares the periodic achievement levels of kids that have been through both systems?
(Personally, my opinion of homeschooling is pretty neutral - I've seen it both work miracles and fail outright, depending on the kid; it's certainly a parent's right to do so, IMO.)
"Present science and religious belief do not together exhaust the realm of possibilities."
I believe in Christ so I guess you can call me Christian or at least I try to follow the teachings of Christ. An example of what you just mentioned is about when modern man first appeared on the earth. According to the bible, this was 6,000 years ago. According to science, this was 40,000 years ago. Where the bible and science meet are say where modern man appeared (such as cities being built, writing etc.). Both science and the bible show that as being Babylonian area or what is modern day Iraq.
Because the Big Lie has won in the public schools. I agree everyone should pull their kids from government schools. Unfortunately, there are many who don't realize the objective of those schools is to indoctrinate their children to become a secular slave of the state.
What did they say were their true intentions?
Did you and I read the same article? Cal is basically saying that the schools have gone so far south it is time for a mass exodus from the schools.
It's inconceivable that God could have the patience to work 12 billion years to get where we are?
If God exists, then we're watching Him work all around us. What we see is an old universe, populated with evidence for things like evolution.
Believing in a God that operated one way in the past, and another way now, is equivalent to me in believing in Santa Claus. That God is a fairy tale.
OK, let me try again.
I believe, if you reread the statement of mine you quoted, you'll see I said exactly what was defined - read it again. A theory is a theory until proven. I didn't say when it would be proven, if it would be proven or if it could be proven. It would then become a Law, right ? At least until disproven ... :)
In the terms of these definitions, ID would be considered a hypothesis or speculation, not a belief. Creationism is definately a belief.
Theories are not endpoints. If you believe that then you lose the will to test the theory in light of new observations, facts, evidence, whatever you find that contradicts the theory.
That's where many evolutionists go wrong - they are so wrapped up in sticking to their theory that some will falsify or skew facts that simply cannot fit otherwise. Think about all the hoaxes around natural selection, for example, or falsified fossils, and you'll know what I mean.
If evolution theory was a "well-substantiated explanation", to take only a part of it, there should be masses of transitional evidence- partly-formed organisms/animals/reptiles/etc that did not evolve far enough to "make it" and therefore reproduce. Our museums should contain more half- or partially formed fossils than fully formed ones. No such transitional fossils have been found. We have lots of fossils of fully-formed creatures, of creatures who evolved variations, but non where any creature changed from one type to another over time. The fossil record contradicts evolution.
OK, I've said it. I'm sure the flaming will begin very soon now.
Science requires an open mind. You must be willing to conduct experiments and look at observations without distorting the outcome. Or, when trying to study something and your study "proves" something else, you must accept that which is true. I'm having a hard time phrasing this very eloquently but perhaps you'll understand what I mean to say.
Very simple questions. I'll make it simpler, to give you a chance. What is one "natural selector"?
Patrick Henry. Isn't he the one who said, "Give me liberty or give me death"?
Apparently that liberty in your view doesn't include the freedom to discuss opposing theories in the classroom.
The real Patrick Henry would be rolling in his grave.
The issue for most families is the funding. Let parents keep the taxes confiscated from them by the government so that they can put it towards educating their children in their own way -- without the NEA's screaming faces objecting to alternative education -- and you'll see lots of families yanking their children from this social experiment gone awry we call public education.
Okay then, what is the environment selecting for? If we take an entirety of the enironment, why then ... how is that not the same as random selection -- or rather "selection for whatever"?
Were he a true Libertarian he would only suggest such an alternative if the citizen could take his tax money with him. Why should a citizen have to pay through taxes for the failed education system being meted out to others like a weak poison?
I talked to some of the public this weekend. Ninth graders, to be specific. They, representing the public, don't want Algebra II crammed down their throats because they feel as world-wise ninth graders that there is no possible way they'll ever have to use it.
Many Christian denominations disagree with you about the incompatibility with reality and the Bible. The Catholic church in particular has now decided to call a truce with science after the Galileo debacle, and specifically accepts that there can be no contradiction between science and their dogma.
Evolution is not a stumbling block to believing in God. Your particular denominations interpretation of Genesis is the stumbling block to reconciling reality and belief.
As for the school system, my children will not be indoctrinated by this idea of evolution being indisputable.
Then you'd best hope they don't study science. It will be awfully difficult convincing them to believe that old book their parents believe in vs. their own eyes. Children have a natural instinct to rebel anyway, and you're providing an easy target for that rejection.
I've seen studies that a majority of children of fundimentalist families reject their faith. It's easy to see why.
natural selection and heritable differences
It's the parents of many children that will not tolerate religion in schools. And it's the parents that want Algebra. Ninth graders are not "the public". Yet.
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.