Darwin's Pyrrhic victory

It's inevitable that SCOTUS will get to Dover and Cobb County.

Someone (I can't remember who) was saying on one of these threads that the Dover defendants were not going to appeal. Is that false?

The school board that caused the problem don't work there no more. They were all booted out in the last election.

The current school board is going to have to pay the legal fees for the mistakes of the old board as it is. Why would they take this case to an appeal which is an almost certain loser when they were just elected to make this problem go away?

"Don't the people who work on a theory, and in a particular field, have the right to limit their study to that field? "

These words do not even begin to describe what evolution is and has become. Evolution has become settle law in the minds of the promoters and is sits supreme above all else.

"You don't gripe about a football player who doesn't want to play rugby, do you?"

Not even a comparable analogy.

"It seems like you are upset because you (the broad you, not necessarily you in particular) got all geared up to do heated battle with "evilution" over the origin of life, and now you feel snookered when you finally learn that evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life."

Upset, not hardly, as "evilution" is not a NEW doctrine, and was established and rooted right there in the Garden of Eden. Some are predestined to never be "snookered" by the deception, while others waver in the great unwashed middle and some know darn well where the roots come from.

"I can hear it now..."

"Too bad, we came to fight, we'll make 'em deal with it anyway. Then we'll get 'em for sure!"

The battle has already been won, the Victor has already been established and the TIME was long ago appointed.

Really, the question that should be asked is why Religion *cant* be taught in schools - not as dogma, but at least as philosophy and theology. The ignorance of some students in secularized schools to basic Christianity is sadly very real.

This thread alone has brought in Aristotle, Descartes, Einstein, Gandhi, Jesus ... just a few of the top 50 men of the history of ideas.

Rather than an "ID" trojan horse, how about 'a history of ideas', where the Christian philosophers get a crack at some exposure...

Is it *really* "unconstitutional" to tell students that Aristotle believed in a 'First Mover'? Is it really unconstitutional to have them read Aquinas or Saint Augustine? Why?

There's the problem. To you religion is "basic Christianity," but to countless others is may be something different. Do they get a voice also? How about this story? Would you have it taught as well?

Cherokee Creation Story

Long ago, before there were any people, the world was young and water covered everything. The earth was a great island floating above the seas, suspended by four rawhide ropes representing the four sacred directions. It hung down from the crystal sky. There were no people, but the animals lived in a home above the rainbow. Needing space, they sent Water Beetle to search for room under the seas. Water Beetle dove deep and brought up mud that spread quickly, turning into land that was flat and too soft and wet for the animals to live on.
Grandfather Buzzard was sent to see if the land had hardened. When he flew over the earth, he found the mud had become solid; he flapped in for a closer look. The wind from his wings created valleys and mountains, and that is why the Cherokee territory has so many mountains today.
As the earth stiffened, the animals came down from the rainbow. It was still dark. They needed light, so they pulled the sun out from behind the rainbow, but it was too bright and hot. A solution was urgently needed. The shamans were told to place the sun higher in the sky. A path was made for it to travel--from east to west--so that all inhabitants could share in the light.
The plants were placed upon the earth. The Creator told the plants and animals to stay awake for seven days and seven nights. Only a few animals managed to do so, including the owls and mountain lions, and they were rewarded with the power to see in the dark. Among the plants, only the cedars, spruces, and pines remained awake. The Creator told these plants that they would keep their hair during the winter, while the other plants would lose theirs.
People were created last. The women were able to have babies every seven days. They reproduced so quickly that the Creator feared the world would soon become too crowded. So after that the women could have only one child per year, and it has been that way ever since.

Where is the "circular argument" in deducing intelligent design from the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws?

A good question. For me, at least, it lies in your assumption that because intelligent designers make things that are organized, things that are organized come from an intelligent designer. Besides - you use the word deduced - I thought deduction was a process whereby alternate explanations are falsified. Have you falsified ToE? No, you skipped it entirely (see above). Anyway, happy new year. Hope you have a great one!

"The poster that I originally responded to was indeed suggesting just that. And schools are not required to "censor curricula", just to maintiain neutrality on the subject of religion."

Er, this judgment censored curricula, and is a blatant example. mandating neutrality on religion DOES censor any curricula about religion that may appear unbalanced. It's a silly rule to insist on 'balance' as opposed to recognizing that the real issue is one of voluntary participation to being with. Besides, since most of this country is Christian, a 'balanced' curricula overemphasizes the obsure other religions that we mostly dont belong to...

Much better options would be avialable if interfering judges would get out of the way and we understood that the constitution demands "free excercise" and non-establishment:
1. Religion can be taught but made voluntary. Parents could decide if their children need to attend.
Local churches, synagogues, etc. could teach RE by coming to schools. This could easily be done as an 'after school' club-type activity. (such
2. School choice and school vouchers, which has been proven to improve educational quality while keeping costs in line.

"The Constitution and Congress mandate equality, "
NO THEY DONT.
BTW - Why is "equality" in education more important than "QUALITY" in education?

"When I started school in 1985 there were only white kids in my class, by the time I graduated high school in 1997 a good 15% of my class were minorites."

Ahem, another point: Most of the minorities you see are also Christian. Many Koreans are Presbytarian, many middle-easterners are Christian minorities coming to Americans, hispanics are mostly catholic, and many immigrants from other lands are christians, such as nigerians. We even know a Christian indian couple. America is a land of many Christian refugees fleeing lands that persecute Christianity or give it short shrift. It would be ironic to 'cater' to them by denying them opportunities of Christian exposure in schools.

"To you religion is "basic Christianity," but to countless others is may be something different. Do they get a voice also? How about this story? Would you have it taught as well?"

Um, its not countless ... it's an asterisk in the polling data. Either you are Christian (near 80%, part nominal, part faithful), Jewish (4%), Muslim (near 1%), or you are some obsure new-age type (*%) or a self declared atheist (15%).
Yes, it is 'countless' the number who believe in the Cherokee creation story. You cant count past zero.
Its archeology, not philosophy, where that belongs.

Nevertheless, your question was answered by me already in another comment. The answer is simple: PARENTAL CHOICE. Just make the RE voluntary.

It's a silly rule to insist on 'balance' as opposed to recognizing that the real issue is one of voluntary participation to being with. Besides, since most of this country is Christian, a 'balanced' curricula overemphasizes the obsure other religions that we mostly dont belong to...

Much better options would be avialable if interfering judges would get out of the way and we understood that the constitution demands "free excercise" and non-establishment:
1. Religion can be taught but made voluntary. Parents could decide if their children need to attend.
Local churches, synagogues, etc. could teach RE by coming to schools. This could easily be done as an 'after school' club-type activity. (such
2. School choice and school vouchers, which has been proven to improve educational quality while keeping costs in line.

So, if some parents wants story X taught, whether it is Baptists or the cult of the Wiccan MJ medicine man, let the parents have the choice for their child. I trust in freedom.

What I object to is the silliness of insisting on some lame Cherokee Creation story as 'balance' and as important to a child's education when Cherokee thinking didnt give rise to Western civilization, but Christian and Greek philosophy did. I dont see any reason that one could or should object to philosophy of Christian orientation being taught. One would have to be quite narrow-minded to be offended by Thomas Aquinas. Quality is more important than equality.

"There is no such thing as neutrality when it comes to the matter of religion."

Correct.

" Everyone has a world view or belief system and removing any mention of God from it is imposing someone's belief system on another."

Correct.

" Christianity, Judiaism and Islam all have their foundation in the OT and theoretically, the same God."

Arguable, but basically true.

" Why should the vast majority bow to the wishes of a few? Maintaining neutrality is not done by removing all references to God because that is an action in favor of one point of view; it is not neutral when action is taken."

Indeed, the Christian view of the schools is that it is hostile to

Those who disagree with that claim fail to note that the NEUTRAL VIEW IS TO PRESENT BOTH SIDES. How can we talk about being 'neutral' with respect to religion if we cant talk about it at all? That is not 'neutral' but from an education perspective is hostile.

Again, the problem arises from the claim by The only 'problem' is that you are not to force one belief system on kids. So either (a) teach all viewpoints, (b) teach no viewpoints or (c) make the teaching itself voluntary and customized to each child.

The secularists that only secularism can 'cure' the problem of diverse religious backgrounds in a classroom. Poppycock. "b" is not the best answer! It is the answer that leaves the students most ignorant since it fails to teach in the area at all.

Neither is "a" the best answer, of force-feeding multiculturalism to kids as the way of giving them everything. It undermines *our* culture.

THE BEST SOLUTION IS SCHOOL CHOICE - (c). There is no other solution that gives parents and student the education they need and deserve.

You can see why multiculturalists and secularists are adamantly opposed to school choice, now. For right now, 90% of American schoolchildren are a captive audience to their pedagogy.

"Now it is NOT my fault that theory called TOE is void of a beginning that you call "theories of abiogenesis" and is somehow walled outside of evolution."

No it's not. It is your fault that you are attacking the ToE on the basis that you say it says something that it doesn't however.

"What a load of donkey dung, just like the liberals excused old bjclinton's saying he could compartmentalized his public behavior from his private so have you in walling off the origins of life."

It's only 'compartmentalised' in the same way as any scientific or academic pursuit that doesn't deal in the origin of life. Theories of gravity don't reference the origin of life. Theories of plate tectonics don't reference the origin of life. Teaching of english literature typically doesn't feel the need to explore first where the human race that provided the authors came from. Your argument is absurd.

"Actually, I looked up the definition in Wikipedia (the reference source of choice on these threads) and didn't have a problem with it."

That's good.

"So that, anything that is measured or observed is automatically assumed to not have God as it's origin; thus making it impossible to *prove* God."

It is impossible to *prove* God (if we're having a scientific discussion I probably should add some rider about 'at this time, with our current capabilities, may change in the future, yadda yadda'). I don't see why this is a contraversial idea. This is not only a scientific standpoint, it is also a religious standpoint (or at least it was when I was at Catholic school, guess there miht be different interpretations) - that the existence of God cannot be proved from a human standpoint, hence the importance of faith.

Given that, I don't really see how there would be a difference in practice between 'not assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural' and what you say is considering the natural world godless. If we neither assume the existence nor non-existence of God, then our discussion will be 'Godless' (in the sense that God does not enter into it). Asserting that this then makes us 'automatically assume that God is not the origin' contradicts the earlier statement that you accepted.

Do you have evidence that the ones who do aren't liberal when it comes to nearly all other issues besides religion in schools?

I know when I talk to a couple of more liberal Jewish friends about politics the one issue above all else that they raise is separation of Church and State, and the influence of the religious right in the GOP. I used to claim their fears were greatly exaggerated, and the majority in the GOP, if not secular, were at least not overt theocrats. I can't plausibly claim that any more.

"It's only 'compartmentalised' in the same way as any scientific or academic pursuit that doesn't deal in the origin of life. Theories of gravity don't reference the origin of life. Theories of plate tectonics don't reference the origin of life. Teaching of english literature typically doesn't feel the need to explore first where the human race that provided the authors came from. Your argument is absurd."

Yes to the evolutionists it is considered "absurd" to argue against the TOE it is their security blanket. Yet the theory is not allowed scrutiny it has become supreme even over the Heavenly Father that created all souls.

Some will even run out on a limb and try and whitewash that TOE and put a Christian dress on it. Well as the Solomon said about we in the flesh under the sun.

"Vanity of vanities," saith the Preacher,

What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, 'See, this is new?' it hath been already of OLD TIME, which was before us.

There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after."

So the TOE is not a new belief system it has been around a very long time which was before us in this flesh age.

For me, at least, [the circular argument] lies in your assumption that because intelligent designers make things that are organized, things that are organized come from an intelligent designer.

That's called a tautology, which is another way of saying something that is self-evident. What is not self-evident are the personal qualities of the one who organizes matter and the origin of the laws that govern it. As for the extent of intelligent design - whether it applies to biological or geological features - this may be reasonably inferred, but not proven, from intelligibility and process.

I am of the opinion that one may begin with the overarching assumption that a generic "God" is both the subject and object of science, whose handiwork is accessible to human reason and senses because it is intelligently designed. Much good science has taken place under this assumption, or underpinning.

Besides - you use the word deduced - I thought deduction was a process whereby alternate explanations are falsified.

Deduction entails building a single case from many cases (note how not even deductive reasoning cannot occur without intelligent design). Since science continues to find examples of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, the case for intelligent design is further established. It will never be absolutely proven from either a logical or scientific standpoint, just like the theory of evolution. But then that's not all science is about.

Lastly, it seems logically appropriate to me that intelligent design works both deductively and inductively. As mentioned previously, these two types of reasoning give the appearance of being a circular argument, and maybe that is all they are. If the premise is correct, and the individual cases also support the premise, it should stand to reason that, after finding numerous cases, the premise would become at least recognizeable.

Anyway, happy new year. Hope you have a great one!

Thank you most kindly.

Dover is neither here nor there. Like CM says, the locals changed the school board and the present school board has no inclination to appeal. Imagine that, a constitutional republic actually works without the federal courts sticking their ample noses in where they don't belong.

However, if the 11th Circuit overturns the trial judge in Cobb, the 11th and 6th circuits will be in tension because the 6th upheld the ruling against a similar disclaimer in Freiler. Since Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist are on record recommending summary judgement overturning the 6th circuit in a dissent in denial of cert, it would appear almost certain that SCOTUS will have to give some guidance here.

And then the game is on.

Presumably the liberal Jewish communities wont to embrace each and every gun control law also originates from their fear of Christian theocrats. After all being weaponless worked so well in Europe in the late 30's and early 40's.

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.