WorldWatch - Creation and Evolution in the Schools

World Watch and The Rhinoceros Times ^ | January 8, 2006 | Orson Scott Card

[WildHorseCrash]

The Dover decision was an error of judgment and will eventually be overturned, at least if we ever get jurists who know what the Constitution means.

The decision was correct, and in accordance with the law.

And, in addition, the time to appeal the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision expired yesterday, by my estimation. Since no appeal was taken, the decision by Judge Jones is now final and unappealable. (PH: I thought you'd find it noteworthy.)

[Fester Chugabrew]

This particular case mat not be overtuned, but cases like it will. The free excercise of religion extends to the secular realm. There is no constitional prerogative to make legal rulings against the teaching that organized matter may be best explained in theory by a higher intelligence. The only reason you think the Dover ruling is "proper" is because it agrees with your opinion. It does not agree with the Constitution.

[WildHorseCrash]

This particular case mat not be overtuned, but cases like it will.

We'll see. Anything's possible. Before the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, Iran wasn't a theocracy; so a country transforming itself into one isn't without precedent. I have bigger hopes for the USA, though...

The free excercise of religion extends to the secular realm.

This isn't a free exercise case; it's an establishment case.

There is no constitional prerogative to make legal rulings against the teaching that organized matter may be best explained in theory by a higher intelligence.

Still sticking with the "gay jeans" argument, eh?

The only reason you think the Dover ruling is "proper" is because it agrees with your opinion. It does not agree with the Constitution.

No. I know it's proper because I have legal training and experience, have studied Constitutional law, understand the issue, and understand the place and effect of precedent.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is both a free exercise and an establishment case. Judge Jones acted as a government agent establishing and favoring only nontheistic principles in a public, academic setting. At the same time, he acted to prohibit the free exercise of those who, in the same setting, would like to present the reasonable view that organized matter may best be explained by the presence of an intelligent agent. According to the words of the Constitution federal judges do not have the prerogative of establishing nonthesistic principles on the one hand, and prohibiting the expression of theistic principles on the other, especially where public funding is concerned.

Now, if you want to start your own private school where only non-thesistic science is taught, and only non-theistic principles shape your theories, data, and the application of them, you are free to do so. But the minute you involve the tax money of those who espouse other shaping principles and theories, you forfeit the right for your own opinion and point of view to be presented.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You have legal training and experience? So does Laurence Tribe. What's your point?

[WildHorseCrash]

Well, you've shown that your legal analytical skills are on par with the vocabulary skills you displayed when you defined everything in life but actual prayer to be "atheistic."

[WildHorseCrash]

You have legal training and experience? So does Laurence Tribe. What's your point?

My point is that I have reasons other than the result for believing that the Dover decision was proper, as you stated. My training and experience being paramount among them. Are you unable to keep up with the conversation, or what?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Actually, in deference to you, I adopted the word "nontheistic" as opposed to "atheistic" since the distinction is supposedly so important. I hardly use the word to define "everything in life but actual prayer," but I do use it to define the type of science that adheres to the shaping principle that God is beyond its purview.

I don't care how legally attuned or well-practiced you are. The Constitution does not prohibit the expression - either in public, in private, in science, or in horsehoes - that organized matter may be the result of a higher intelligence. Nor does it allow for nontheistic principles to be established as the only viable science, either in public or in private.

If you think non-theistic science is so fine, then fund your own private schools so as to keep out the superstitious riff raff and keep your children pure from what you believe to be academically inferior teaching.

[wintertime]

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. ( Senator Bedfellow)

By law, school science classes must serve a secular purpose. WildHorseCrash

To Senator Bedfellow and WildHorseCrash,

It is impossible for the curriculum and policies of any government school to be neutral politically, culturally, or religiously either in content or in consequences. So....why is government in the business of promoting and establishing the worldview ( with religious consequences) of some citizens and trashing and undermining the traditions of other citizens?

Having a curriculum that is secular in purpose is NOT religiously neutral in content or consequences. As Senator Bedfellow points out materialism ( secularism) does have consequences.

Government schools are a price-fixed monopoly that is giving a service away for free. Given the hostile business climate, private schools become scarce and exclusive. Parents are then under the threat of armed police, court, and social worker action if they do not send their child to government school.

Once in the government school the child can NOT speak freely, publish freely, or freely assemble with those of his choosing. He is herded about like sheep. If the child is resistant armed police stand ready to force the will of the government school officials. Children as young as five have been hauled off in handcuffs.

So....the child is at the mercy of teachers teaching a curriculum and enforcing school policies that WILL greatly influence the child's political, cultural, and religious worldview. Those NON-neutral influences have consequences and some of those consequences ARE religious!

Then to fund this tyrannical monstrosity of the government-educational-industrial complex, the government can and WILL auction at sheriff's sale the home or business of any citizen who objects to the government school political, cultural, and religious agenda.

Solution: Get government OUT of the education business. Begin the process of completely privatizing universal K-12 education.

Oh,,,,and before anyone paints me with the Neanderthal brush, I support the Theory of Evolution. However, I would never threaten my fellow citizens with armed police to force my educational belief on other people's children. I would NEVER threaten a fellow citizen with the sheriff's auction of their home or business to fund it. (real bullets in those guns)

[wintertime]

You are free to believe anything about what the law should be, but the law does mandate secular education. (And properly so.) WildHorseCrash,

To Wildhorsecrash,

It is immoral and tyrannical to FORCE ( using the threat of armed police action and foster care) children into an environment that actively and with hostility undermines the religious, or non-religious secular beliefs taught in the home!

Government schools are a monstrosity!

[wintertime]

If you think non-theistic science is so fine, then fund your own private schools so as to keep out the superstitious riff raff and keep your children pure from what you believe to be academically inferior teaching. ( Fester Chugabrew)

To Fester Chugabrew,

Any government powerful enough to allow and force upon resistant children a religious worldview is powerful enough to force a secular, atheistic, or non-theistic agenda on your children.

Solution: Get rid of government schools! They are a monstrosity. They are tyranny and do not allow freedom of conscience.

[PatrickHenry]

... the time to appeal the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision expired yesterday, by my estimation. Since no appeal was taken, the decision by Judge Jones is now final and unappealable.

The decision is dated December 20. That's when the judge signed the order. Technically, however, the appeal time expires 30 days after the date the decision is entered, which is a technical term, and the date of entry may be a day or so after the decision's printed date. It depends on when it's officially filed and docketed in the court clerk's office. Paper-shuffling stuff. (It can save a panicked lawyer who fears he's too late with his notice of appeal if he discovers that, due to sluggish action in the clerk's office, he's actually within 30 days of the decision's entry.) So it may be theoretically possible for a notice of appeal to be filed tomorrow or the next day, and still be timely. But the school board has already decided not to appeal, so it doesn't really matter.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You are right. Government has no business in the education business. Government funded education can only produce mediocrity if it is to accomodate the public while maintaining religious "indifference". Government funded education with non-theistic principles established by law can only produce mendacity. It's suicidal to make non-theistic principles the law of the land in any endeavor. As long as government takes up authority and expertise for itself in the field of education it must, by law, allow for a plethora of pluralistic thought, both religious and irreligious. Yuck.

[wintertime]

You are right. Government has no business in the education business. Government funded education can only produce mediocrity if it is to accomodate the public while maintaining religious "indifference". ( Fester Chugabrew)

The problem with government schools is far more than mediocrity, although you are right about this.

Let's change the language regarding government schools. Government schools are an offense to freedom of conscience and that makes them human rights abusers. Since children are involved, government schools are child abusers. This far more damning that pointing out that their service is mediocre.

If the only argument against government schools is mediocrity, then others can suggest that we improve the quality of government schools. No. No. No. Government schools must be eliminated because they offend basic human rights to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, and government schools establish the worldview of some citizens ( with religious consequences) and undermine the most closely held family traditions and beliefs of others.

The following is what should be said about government schools:

Government schools are human rights abusers and child abusers!

Government schools use the threat of police force ( real bullets in those guns) to force children into buildings where they are stripped of their human rights. They are indoctrinated by the government in a worldview that has non-neutral political, cultural, and religious consequences.

Why is it impossible for government education of the young to be neutral in its content or consequences? Why is this so? It is because time and resources are finite. Government schools must choose what to study in depth in its curriculum, what must be superficially covered, and just what topics will be completely ignored. In making these choices the government school will favor the worldview ( with religious consequences) of some of its citizens and undermine and even sabotage the worldview of others.

The truly offensive quality of government schools is its power to use police, court, and foster care threats to impose its will on American parents. Since government schools ( being price-fixed) have created a business climate hostile to private schools, often making it the only option open to parents.

Government schools use the threat of sheriff's auction of homes and business to fund this abuse.

This is the language that must be brought to bear against government schooling. It is like Reagan when he called the Soviets the Evil Empire. From then on, the Soviets had to explain why they were not evil.

It is time that government school defenders explain to the rest of us why government schools are not evil human rights and child abusers. Of course they can't and it is this that will bring down the government schools.

[Elsie]

I guess the 'gay gene' will breed itself to oblivion some day.

You don't understand genetics? What a surprise...

You need to hop in HERE at 635 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559357/posts?page=635#635

[Virginia-American]

...At the same time, he [Judge Jones] acted to prohibit the free exercise of those who, in the same setting, would like to present the reasonable view that organized matter may best be explained by the presence of an intelligent agent...

Show me where the defendants said any such thing.

[carumba]

What, specifically, do you mean by "spontaneous biological replication", and why is it impossible?

I refer to spontaneous generation or abiogenisis. It is obviously impossible. National Geographic specials notwithstanding.
ThermodynamicsRefers to the principle of increasing chaos. Chaos is evident in the biosphere if you examine the extinction rate vs the emergence of new species. Your point that ID should be left out of the public education in this country is correct. Searching for an understanding of the universe and our place in it goes on in spite of all the crap I learned in high school...(Paul Simon).

[CobaltBlue]

That is a nutty statement.

Actually, it's sad. He's not satisfied with faith. He wants proof.

It's a common situation -- the Middle East is full of people running around looking for archeological proof of Jesus and Noah.

And America is full of people demanding that scientists find God in the laboratory.

[CobaltBlue]

But it DOES touch a bit on CREATION!

Sure it does. But it doesn't say how He did it.

God's too big to find in a laboratory. Or maybe it's just that we are too small.

That's why He gave us faith. We don't need scientific proof. Faith is enough.

At least, faith is enough for me, and I suggest to you that faith ought to be good enough for you, as well.

Let the scientists be scientists. Don't expect them to be priests.

[CobaltBlue]

The Constitution does not support such a practice, but encourages freedom of religious expression both in public and in private, whether in a scientific, philosophical, or theological context. It also encourages, among other things, nontheistic science.

Your argument is interesting, but the law is well settled.

It all boils down to taxation -- public schools are funded by taxes, and we all pay them. That includes Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, etc., etc., etc.

There is nothing so galling as being forced to fund somebody else's religion. Jefferson and Madison recognized that, hence the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and the First Amendment. In their day it was the Baptists being taxed to fund the Episcopalians.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but you can't use my tax money to proselytize your religion.