Actually it was a styrofoam cup.
Posted on 12/31/2005 12:41:23 PM PST by streetpreacher
| Darwin's Pyrrhic victory Posted: December 28, 2005
By Patrick J. Buchanan © 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.
"Intelligent Design Derailed," exulted the headline. "By now, the Christian conservatives who once dominated the school board in Dover, Pa., ought to rue their recklessness in forcing biology classes to hear about 'intelligent design' as an alternative to the theory of evolution," declared the New York Times, which added its own caning to the Christians who dared challenge the revealed truths of Darwinian scripture. Noting that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III is a Bush appointee, the Washington Post called his decision "a scathing opinion that criticized local school board members for lying under oath and for their 'breathtaking inanity' in trying to inject religion into science classes." But is it really game, set, match, Darwin? Have these fellows forgotten that John Scopes, the teacher in that 1925 "Monkey Trial," lost in court, and was convicted of violating Tennessee law against the teaching of evolution and fined $100? Yet Darwin went on to conquer public education, and American Civil Liberties Union atheists went on to purge Christianity and the Bible from our public schools.
The Dover defeat notwithstanding, the pendulum is clearly swinging back. Darwinism is on the defensive. For, as Tom Bethell, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science," reminds us, there is no better way to make kids curious about "intelligent design" than to have some Neanderthal forbid its being mentioned in biology class. In ideological politics, winning by losing is textbook stuff. The Goldwater defeat of 1964, which a triumphant left said would bury the right forever, turned out to be liberalism's last hurrah. Like Marxism and Freudianism, Darwinism appears destined for the graveyard of discredited ideas, no matter the breathtaking inanity of the trial judge. In his opinion, Judge Jones the Third declared:
But if intelligent design is creationism or fundamentalism in drag, how does Judge Jones explain how that greatest of ancient thinkers, Aristotle, who died 300 years before Christ, concluded that the physical universe points directly to an unmoved First Mover? As Aristotle wrote in his "Physics": "Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. But this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some First Mover." A man of science and reason, Aristotle used his observations of the physical universe to reach conclusions about how it came about. Where is the evidence he channeled the Torah and creation story of Genesis before positing his theory about a prime mover? Darwinism is in trouble today for the reason creationism was in trouble 80 years ago. It makes claims that are beyond the capacity of science to prove. Darwinism claims, for example, that matter evolved from non-matter – i.e., something from nothing – that life evolved from non-life; that, through natural selection, rudimentary forms evolved into more complex forms; and that men are descended from animals or apes. Now, all of this is unproven theory. And as the Darwinists have never been able to create matter out of non-matter or life out of non-life, or extract from the fossil record the "missing links" between species, what they are asking is that we accept it all on faith. And the response they are getting in the classroom and public forum is: "Prove it," and, "Where is your evidence?" And while Darwinism suggests our physical universe and its operations happened by chance and accident, intelligent design seems to comport more with what men can observe and reason to.
If, for example, we are all atop the Grand Canyon being told by a tour guide that nature, in the form of a surging river over eons of time, carved out the canyon, we might all nod in agreement. But if we ask how "Kilroy was here!" got painted on the opposite wall of the canyon, and the tour guide says the river did it, we would all howl. A retreating glacier may have created the mountain, but the glacier didn't build the cabin on top of it. Reason tells us the cabin came about through intelligent design. Darwinism is headed for the compost pile of discarded ideas because it cannot back up its claims. It must be taken on faith. It contains dogmas men may believe, but cannot stand the burden of proof, the acid of attack or the demands of science. Where science says, "No miracles allowed," Darwinism asks us to believe in miracles.
|
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?
I've run into the same argument - the notion that the ToE does not deal with the origin of life, yet common descent accounts for all of life. Okay, where did those first cells come from to descend into all of us?
Apparently we shouldn't ask.
I nominate as the most original comment of the thread!
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?
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.
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.
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.
Actually it was a styrofoam cup.
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.
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.
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.