When an individual observer adopts an axiomatic principle it is not arbitrary from the standpoint of the observer. It may, however, be arbitrary in view of all that resides beyond the observer's experience.
I can understand to some degree why intelligent design may not be axiomatic to every observer outside of myself. I can even understand to some degree how one could arrive at other means of expressing the clearly apparent diversity that attends the physical world. What escapes me is how one individual, or group of individuals, considers it a matter of legal consequence to have his own viewpoint proscribed by federal judges to the exclusion of those who may be of a different mind.
May I ask why you think the federal government should enforce non-theistic thought in a public context? May I ask how such a role for federal government comports with conservative principles in general and the founding principles of this nation in particular? IMO it should be a hallmark of conservative principles to welcome free expression and free inquiry. Or does free inquiry cease where science begins?
Thank you.
Where science begins we begin to rely on data, fact, rigorous testing of hypotheses, and theory building.
We leave behind... Well, Heinlein said it best.
What are the facts? Again and again and again—what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history"--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
I'm confused, why would someone want to proscribe their own viewpoint, and who do you imagine is doing so? And how does one proscribe a viewpoint to the exclusion of others? Isn't that rather an oxymoron, like hiding yourself in an attempt to make other people less visible?
May I ask why you think the federal government should enforce non-theistic thought in a public context?
May I ask why you think I think that? I don't.
May I ask how such a role for federal government comports with conservative principles in general and the founding principles of this nation in particular?
It doesn't, which is why I don't hold such a position.
IMO it should be a hallmark of conservative principles to welcome free expression and free inquiry. Or does free inquiry cease where science begins?
Not at all.