When Real Judicial Conservatives Attack [Dover ID opinion]

The UCSD Guardian ^ | 09 January 2005 | Hanna Camp

[bobdsmith]

What is the likelihood that a male and female of some 'new' species would be born at approximately the same time, in the same general location and with the exact same mutation; survive to adulthood; find each other; successfully breed and raise young to adulthood?

For pete's sake how many times has this argument come up??

[donh]

So, now we have judges proclaiming from their judicial thrones that Darwin must be taught in all the public schools,

Could you cite the judicial ruling that Darwin must be taught in all public schools?

but that no other theory, no argument that questions Darwin, no competing hypotheses, will be permitted. Our children must be protected from hearing anything at all but all Darwin all the time.

And what about those gravity bigots? That's all we ever hear all the time in physics classes, "gravity this" and "gravity that". I say equal time for the Earth-Sucks theory. Teach the controversy.

[donh]

So, now we have judges proclaiming from their judicial thrones that Darwin must be taught in all the public schools,

Could you cite the judicial ruling that Darwin must be taught in all public schools?

but that no other theory, no argument that questions Darwin, no competing hypotheses, will be permitted. Our children must be protected from hearing anything at all but all Darwin all the time.

And what about those gravity bigots? That's all we ever hear all the time in physics classes, "gravity this" and "gravity that". I say equal time for the Earth-Sucks theory. Teach the controversy.

[mlc9852]

"the evidence does not permit of an interpretation tht the common ancestor could actually have been the common forerunner."

Why not?

[Coyoteman]

What makes him wrong is the extreme scientific improbability of his general theory.

Its only "improbable" if you already have your mind made up in a different direction.

Otherwise, there is a heap of evidence supporting the theory. There is far more evidence now than when Darwin published it. DNA was unknown, and so far the genome projects are all supporting the theory of evolution, making it more probable, not less probable.

[puroresu]

#####The ambiguous 'privileges or immunities' did nothing to ensure any statute.#####

That's true. It's called leaving things to the legislative branch, which we used to do before the judicial oligarchy arose.


#####Implanting the verbiage of 1866 Civil Rights Act into the 14th Amendment would have.#####

It would have implanted that particular verbiage, but Congress obviously wanted the latitude for itself to make adjustments as needed.

#####Further, are you saying that they intended the 14th to be a 'back door' through which they could jam any old statue they pleased without requiring it to go through the amendment process? And you support this idea? And question my conservative nature?#####

Not just any old statute they pleased. It would have to be germane to the provisions of the 14th Amendment we've been discussing. Read the 14th. It says:

>>>>>The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.<<<<<

You may notice that Congress passed a lot of such legislation in that era to protect the privileges & immunities of, and to guarantee due process to, the freed slaves. They didn't pass a single piece of legislation to, for example, ban Bible readings in state schools, or remove crosses from city seals, etc. Obviously such legislation never crossed their mind under the 14th Amendment.


#####You are saying that announcing that the proposed amendment would explicitly extend enforcement of the Bill of Rights to include the states during the actual consideration of the amendment wouldn't have clued them in that it might cover the 1st Amendment?#####

Context, man, context! :-)

Bingham's statement needs to be considered in context. Read the section on the Doctrine of Incorporation in the link I provided to get an understanding of what Bingham meant.

[connectthedots]

For pete's sake how many times has this argument come up??

Don't know, but i can tell you haow many times is has been answered with anything resembling a rational response; zero!!

Maybe you can be the first.

[mlc9852]

Well, see, the OT is the rule of law. After Jesus came, he did away with the OT law.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Not only not improbably, tampoco. However any system undergoing inexact replication will be subject to Darwinian evolution.

[b_sharp]

We are a different species than the other apes. It may or may not be possible to successfully interbreed, but that uncertainty is part of the definition of speciation.

"In other words, the suggestion that man descended from apes is nothing more than speculation; isn't it.

Not at all. We determine that chimps and humans are in (or should be in) the same genus using the same criteria used to determine the relationship of Jaguars (Panthera onca), Leopards (Panthera pardus) and Lions(Panthera leo).

As far a human descent from apes; if we are cousins to chimps, as our morphology and genotype say we are, and chimps are apes, then we *are* apes. If we are apes then our near ancestors are also apes.

"BTW, why do evolutionists assume that man descended from apes? If evolution is true, isn't it possible that apes descended from man?

Our genome tells us how long ago we diverged from the common ancestor of chimps and us. The fossils found that go back close to that time show a change from chimp-like to human, therefore we evolved from chimp-like ancestors, not the other way around. Chimps also evolved from that chimp-like ancestor. If chimps evolved from us we would find fossils showing a change from human to chimp.

[jennyp]

However, the one note you keep hearing on these threads is that Darwin is science and anything opposed to Darwin is religion or superstition. I called that kind of attitude "religious," because although it pretends otherwise it really doesn't permit anyone to examine the evidence. Perhaps a better name for it would be superstition, since Darwinism strikes me as a particularly credulous and irrational sort of religion.

But what other conclusion is possible when all the prominent ID'ers have praised ID multiple times for its utility in sweeping away the curse of godless materialism from society so that society might be saved?

Sheesh! It makes no sense to argue the point with us. You need to take it up with the leading lights of the ID movement. If only they'd just clam up about their real motives. But nooooo. They had to go and proclaim their religious agendas for ID for all to see.

[puroresu]

####It's the Civil Rights Act of 1871, not 1866.####


It's both. One before, one after! :-)

[shuckmaster]

Their primordial soup creation story is bull.

So, why do lying creationists keep repeating it?

[Antonello]

You do understand the ramifications of "interpreting" the Equal Protection Clause to give women the vote, don't you? Once upon a time, in a less judicially aggressive era, people did so understand. That's why it took a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT some fifty years after the 14th was ratified to establish a constitutional guarantee of female suffrage.

Please lay out what ramifications you are talking about.

[donh]

My question is very reasonable. As one can readily see, the likelihood of such a sequence is so remote as to be virtually impossible? If it wasn't, you would have offered up a rational response. "Surely you are kidding?" does not cut it.

ok, you really weren't kidding: that's not how it works.

Only one mutational event in one individual is needed for a population to capture a useful mutation, and one successful mutational event does not create a new species which can't interbreed with the old species.

Speciation is an extremely gradual separation of two related populations, with accompanying extremely gradual attenuation of their capacity to interbreed. The picture you are operating on as to how speciation occurs is oversimplified to the point of distortion.

[bobdsmith]

Don't know, but i can tell you haow many times is has been answered with anything resembling a rational response; zero!!

I've seen it answered many times. Your argument assumes new species can only appear suddenly in one generation.

An analogy:

What is the likelihood that a male and female of some 'new' dog breed would be born at approximately the same time, in the same general location and with the exact same mutation; survive to adulthood; find each other; successfully breed and raise young to adulthood?

For example one day a wolf gave birth to a male poodle and by sheer coincidence another wolf nearby gave birth to a female poodle, and by even more sheer coincidence both those male and female poodles managed to find each other and mate. What's the chance of that? Well near zero of course, but then again this is nothing like how it happened - gradual steps, not sudden steps.

[jennyp]

Their eschatology, their vision of heaven on earth--free sex, live forever, no disease, no work--is as unattainable as it is undesirable.

Just, wow. Some of us love sex, life, health, & prosperity. Some people apparently don't.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Of course one cannot walk from New York to Chicago; any step leaves you within a fathom of your last position.

[shuckmaster]

And what about those gravity bigots? That's all we ever hear all the time in physics classes, "gravity this" and "gravity that". I say equal time for the Earth-Sucks theory. Teach the controversy.

You've got to admit that things were a lot better before they passed the law of gravity and we could all just float around freely.

[furball4paws]

The heart of the Puritans is still alive in Creationism.