Posted on 07/11/2008 11:11:46 AM PDT by Kevmo
New legal threat to teaching evolution in the US New Scientist ^ | 7/9/2008 | Amanda Gefter
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2008 4:06:06 AM by Soliton
Louisiana is another story. A hub of creationist activism since the early 1980s, it was Louisiana that enacted the Balanced Treatment Act, which required that creationism be taught alongside evolution in schools. In a landmark 1987 case known as Edwards vs Aguillard, the US Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, effectively closing the door on teaching "creation science" in public schools. ID was invented soon afterwards as a way of proffering creationist concepts without specific reference to God.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
What exactly is "nascientism"?
What exactly is “nascientism”?
***I got the idea for the term from you
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2038869/posts?page=442#442
The Discovery Institute has as a stated strategy to replace science with theology. This strategy, in a document marked "Top Secret," was leaked by a third party. The document was confirmed authentic by the DI. This law is part of the strategy, as is being ready to defend it against any lawsuits that come from it. The Dover incident was also part of that strategy, but they learned from their loss and adapted.
Thus, while I like the text of the law, I disagree with what will likely be done with it given the stated motives and agenda of those who pushed it. Thus it is not ad hominem, but mistrust based on a known agenda. Phillip Johnson, a founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the ID-proponent arm of the DI, said:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."Thus when the DI is behind it then the law, especially the part about no religious indoctrination, is suspect.
And someone from the back of the room yelled “we know where you live Marjore”
Neither "nascentism" or "nascientism" seem to exist in the English lexicon.
Thats what you say, but you have never demonstrated that to any degree other than declaring it a failure and linking into talk-orgins (Everyone’s favorite evolution propaganda site)
Neither “nascentism” or “nascientism” seem to exist in the English lexicon.
***We covered this item on the other thread. Please re-read post #1 and post whatever issue you have with the terminology on that other thread.
Do you have something germane to discuss with respect to this current subject, “New legal threat to teaching evolution in the US”?
I'd like to discuss what this "nascientism" is. Since you brought it up, I assumed it was appropriate to the discussion.
Thus it is not ad hominem, but mistrust based on a known agenda.
***It strikes me as ad hominem. Let’s allow the religious moderator to weigh in on that. What do you say, RM? Is it an ad hominem argument? Is it a form of antagonism? What are the criteria for determining it so that we don’t have to bug you about such things?
Then, like post #1 says, let’s bring that item over to the other thread. No reason to clutter this thread.
If any freeper has issues or discussion about using the ecumenical thread concept, post questions on this following thread dedicated to that purpose: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2038869/posts
It's not being discussed over there. It only appears on this thread. It's just a request for clarification of an unfamiliar term. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
If the request doesn’t seem unreasonable then you’ll have no trouble with pulling it over to the other thread, lest such tactics begin to be viewed as an antagonist attempt to hijack the thread from its original purpose. So... take it over there.
By other thread, I intially assumed you meant the “open” version of this thread. I’ll take it “over there”.
Thanks for participating. I don’t understand what your post meant.
a red blotch where a picture ought to be... that’s about what I thought it meant
If the PETA were behind a law supporting slaughterhouses, would you trust the law even if you didn’t see anything bad in the text of it? Wouldn’t you think there must be something you’re missing given the PETA’s agenda against eating meat? Would you call your mistrust ad hominem or just well-founded mistrust based on your knowledge of the organization and its known agendas?
If the PETA were behind a law supporting slaughterhouses, would you trust the law even if you didn’t see anything bad in the text of it?
***If I didn’t see anything bad in the text of it, then what PETA has to say about it has about as much weight before (for me) as it does now: zero.
Wouldn’t you think there must be something you’re missing given the PETA’s agenda against eating meat?
***I don’t proceed with your set of assumptions. PETA=Ethical Treatment of Animals, and probably not all PETArds believe eating meat is wrong, they just would want to see the animals treated “ethically”. So, your “given” is a false premise, an invalid argument.
Would you call your mistrust ad hominem or just well-founded mistrust based on your knowledge of the organization and its known agendas?
***It’s okay to mistrust them, but to base your reasoning on that is invalid. For instance, if the Communist Party was smart, they’d endorse John McCain, right? Then all the folks who think like you would never vote for the republican, and their agenda would be furthered.
If PETA as the organization is behind it, you know it cannot be for the eating of meat. If the Discovery Institute is behind it, you know it cannot be about the advancement of methodological science because that is 180 degrees from their goals.
For instance, if the Communist Party was smart, they’d endorse John McCain, right?
Bringing it closer to the topic, what if the Communist Party were behind McCain's rise to power? I just did some more research. Apparently the DI is not so directly involved. The Louisiana Family Forum was behind the bill's drafting. They directly support creationism and oppose evolution. I had the right principle, possibly the wrong target.
I said possibly because the Discovery Institute often lends consulting services to those people who are considering attacks on evolution/proponency of Intelligent Design. We know the Discovery Institute was behind the school board's decision in Dover (the board didn't make the decision until receiving legal advice from the Discovery Institute and a promise to defend them against lawsuits from the Thomas More Law Center). They analyzed every mistake they made in Dover and likely taught those lessons learned to the LFF. Thus we have a law that looks benign.
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.