Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN: Teaching children the truth [Cal Thomas gets it]
Miami Herald ^ | 28 December 2005 | CAL THOMAS

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: calthomas; creationism; crevolist; intelligentdesign; schools; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 401-410 next last
To: JamesP81

" No sir, no more inquiry needed here. He's right, your wrong, now move along..."

I am sure you had a point but you just forgot to make it.


81 posted on 12/28/2005 6:56:13 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman (Merry Christmas!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
He doesn't complain about Jones, or mis-characterize his opinion by whining about its alleged (and non-existent) "errors." And he definitely doesn't defend ID as science -- although he never actually deals directly with that point. He accepts the Dover opinion. He's got integrity.

I'm really going to have to start keeping a list of evo BS quotes. Here, we have PatrickHenry associating belief in evolutionism with integrity and implying that studying ID in school is lack thereof. Almost as good as that guy who went for half a thread claiming ID'rs who are teachers and want to teach ID should be put in prison for child abuse.
82 posted on 12/28/2005 6:57:39 AM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Common descent is most certainly not a fact. There is no fossil record proving so. You can say we may eventually find it, and we very well may. But at the moment, it does not exist.

Seems like you have a belief system just as much as the IDers do.


83 posted on 12/28/2005 6:58:03 AM PST by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842

The militant atheism of some who promote evolution is no more significant to the scientific argument than the murders of Jim Jones are significant to the truth of Christianity.


84 posted on 12/28/2005 6:59:11 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: cinives
Biological research does not depend on evolution theory to come up with new medical advances

Wrong! Biological research depends 100% on evolution theory to come up with new medical advances.

85 posted on 12/28/2005 6:59:35 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: cinives
"Common descent is most certainly not a fact. There is no fossil record proving so."

Sure it is. Look up ERV's.

"You can say we may eventually find it, and we very well may. But at the moment, it does not exist."

Find what?

"Seems like you have a belief system just as much as the IDers do."

Seems like you are wrong. :)
86 posted on 12/28/2005 6:59:40 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman (Merry Christmas!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: cinives
Get a life, folks. ID, evolution or the First Mover are only theories about how life started and developed. All have their pros and cons. Evolution is not a slam-dunk, and nor is ID. They are simply theories or ways to describe what we think may have happened based on some types of observations.

Well said.
87 posted on 12/28/2005 7:00:03 AM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: cinives

Right!


88 posted on 12/28/2005 7:00:52 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
So what's your explaination for the number of Creationists who spread untruth?

I have met very few. When it seems to be that there are a great many of these, I'll think of an answer then.
89 posted on 12/28/2005 7:01:27 AM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: cinives

Really. Link please.


90 posted on 12/28/2005 7:02:14 AM PST by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy; SampleMan
I'm sure it is much better for kids to believe that they are merely the surviving, smarter animal. The notion that parents and churches teach that they are created by a God who loves them and has a purpose for their life. That is surely evil. How does kindness, love, self-sacrifice advance the survival of the fittest? If kids want to shoot their classsmates, why not? Doesn't it just show that they are more "fit." Yup, there is real evil in Intelligent Design.
91 posted on 12/28/2005 7:02:26 AM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

If the theory of evolution cannot be supported in its entirety by fact, then has as much validity as ID.

Do species adapt and change thru natural selection etc etc ? Yes, and IDers don't dispute this. They simply dispute how it all started, and how such complicated mechanisms came from nothing.

There is no fossil or other record to justify saying a human eye, for example, evolved over time from a simple amino acid to the complicated mechanism it is today. Perhaps it did, perhaps it didn't. The point is, there's no proof either way.

A theory is a theory - it remains so until proven, and is always in danger of being modified by the find of other facts.


92 posted on 12/28/2005 7:03:39 AM PST by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm
"If kids want to shoot their classsmates, why not? Doesn't it just show that they are more "fit.""

No.
93 posted on 12/28/2005 7:04:05 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman (Merry Christmas!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
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.

Or send them to public school and innoculate them.

94 posted on 12/28/2005 7:05:21 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Why, when whining about it is so much more easier?

Ding, ding, ding. Give that man an RG Dunn.

95 posted on 12/28/2005 7:06:03 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

There are tons of things I "pay" for but don't use. Opting out simply isn't the answer.


96 posted on 12/28/2005 7:06:55 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Evolution lied its way into the classroom. Why not ID? I remember why, two lies (wrongs) do not make it truth (right).

The whole debate just gets dumber and more stupid. Sign of the times.


97 posted on 12/28/2005 7:07:12 AM PST by mulligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
It corrupts Christians and leads them to lie.

Absolute silliness. Running with your premise, it leads people to be wrong. Being wrong is not evil, especially on a subject, which is substantially inconsequential to human existence. Are the Amish evil as well?

Bob lops off heads = Evil

Bob thinks world is flat = Not Evil

Try getting a grip.

98 posted on 12/28/2005 7:07:22 AM PST by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cinives
The prime mover is not taught in public schools. That is why most are not aware of this. Even 'atoms' were once metaphyics as taught by the greeks. Their existence was not 'provable' as was general relativity for several years, the periodic table and elements of string theory today.
99 posted on 12/28/2005 7:07:50 AM PST by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: cinives
"If the theory of evolution cannot be supported in its entirety by fact, then has as much validity as ID."

So, any theory that has any unanswered questions is just as good as any other claim? Sorry, I reject your postmodernist Whole Science approach.

"They simply dispute how it all started, and how such complicated mechanisms came from nothing."

Nobody studying the origins of life or the evolution of life believes that life came from *nothing*, or that species arise from *nothing*.

"There is no fossil or other record to justify saying a human eye, for example, evolved over time from a simple amino acid to the complicated mechanism it is today."

Amino acid? Please restrain from using ridiculous strawmen.

" The point is, there's no proof either way."

Proof, no. Evidence, yes.

"A theory is a theory - it remains so until proven, and is always in danger of being modified by the find of other facts."

Nope. Theories NEVER get proven. Theory is the endpoint of scientific inquiry.
100 posted on 12/28/2005 7:09:01 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman (Merry Christmas!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 401-410 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson