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.
Exactly! It is the lack of real life socialization that is missing in homeschooling. A kid will accept just about anything a parent tells him. My son once misunderstood me and thought I said his grandpa was a cardboard box!!! He would have believed anything I told him (for a short time anyway, LOL!).
Even though there are now groups of homeschooled kids who socialize together, there are still lessons in real life that homeschooled kids never get to experience. Such as learning to cope when they don't receive immediate attention from the teacher. Is it really helping kids to live a sheltered life without knowing the trials and tribulations that occur in the real world?
The real lessons are when a child falls down and is able to pick himself up again.
I would be interested in the number of homeschooled kids that graduate from a typical major university of over 100K students. I think many just have not developed the necessary social coping skills.
What has that to do with the discussion?
I believe the SOUL was inserted about the time James Brown released "Papa's Got A Brand New Bag".
You got Cal Thomas nailed. Have you seen his snarky little column on the "War On Christmas"? Basically, his position seems to be we should surrender in the culture war, well-to-do Christians should withdraw from the world, and let it and everyone else all go to hell.
His smug and pompous attitude has always bothered me. And guess what Cal - what about all the Religious people who can't afford private schools?
What about all the people who benefit from some sort of exposure to Christian ideas and teachings? And why should we give up everything the Christians in this country fought and died for in the last 200 years, without a fight?
LOL!!!
I'm glad other people have noticed his true character!!
You can now pridefully add a few columnists to your endorsement campaign - they have about the same amount of scientific knowledge as your cosmos guys!
Also, what do you mean by "random", and what do you mean to distinguish from "random" by "stocahstic"? So far, the argument you make seems to be that no selection predicts any other selection, which is as best I understand a perfect description of a random process. If not so -- and likely you'll find it not so, in what ways is it not so?
What you call dishonest I would call a disagreement on the interpretation of facts.
Pretty. What part that is blue is the hair or skin, btw?
In other words, this is one big "Who are you going to believe: Me, or your lying eyes?"
Natural selection may propagate the changes, but it does not induce or cause them, does it?
And are you saying that higher rate of reproduction is the purpose of the changes? Or that it is one example of a "natural selector"?
I am into genealogy. Several months ago, I received some material from a company in England who is doing DNA research. It was about the 7 female ancestors of all females. I have not done any more research on it but it was interesting to a genealogy researcher.
Wouldn't the affinity for pretty blue be a selection force? Why haven't the blue-skined mountian folks propagated more?
No hair. Skin (on the feet), scales (on the legs), and whatever the beak is made of (keratin, I would imagine).
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.