Though not a direct reflection on the "science" of the case, does it not bother you that your "side" of this issue is headed by "the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State"?
Personally, I cannot imagine too many other groups I would want on my side less.
Flame away! ...or better yet, answer my question.
Yes. It bothers me that I have to enlist such unlikely allies. It bothers me that so many self-styled 'conservatives' are in fact theocrats. I would have preferred it if one of the libertarian legal foundations, such as, for example, the Center for Indivudal Rights, had entered the case, but I understand they are a small organization and their priorities are in other areas.
First, I'm a firm believer in Genesis' account of God's creation. Second, I'm not trying to start any fights on this (though these threads usually end up that way). With that out of the way, I must pose this question to FR's Darwinists:
Though not a direct reflection on the "science" of the case, does it not bother you that your "side" of this issue is headed by "the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State"?
Personally, I cannot imagine too many other groups I would want on my side less.
Flame away! ...or better yet, answer my question.
A broken clock is right twice a day. Sometimes, politics does make strange bedfellows.
Rush Limbaugh's case against the prosecutors who sought to pry in his medical records was taken up by the ACLU.
Should Rush then have turned his records over, so as not to find himself on the same side as the ACLU? Pat Robertson and others have found themselves in common cause with some feminist leaders when it comes to opposing pornography. In fact, if you oppose porn, your side of an issue is headed by twits like Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworki. Does that not bother you?
This is a perfect example of the "Guilt by Association" fallacy. It proves nothing.
This is but one of many radical fundamentalist attacks against science now in the courts. I agree that it's sad that the ACLU seems to have more power than the science community to launch a lawsuit on the federal level but make no mistake it's the science community that's under attack from these radicals.
Politics chooses sides, and association with someone makes you guilty of being in league with them in their views, true or not.
However, in reality, what is, is. Those that believe it, do. Those that do not, do not. It does not make it any less so. It does not matter the groupings of either camp.
Scientism is an Amoral religion. Motives mean nothing (embryonic stem cells, morning after pill is only birth control, viewing pornography doesn't perpetuate the destruction of young ladies and their future children's lives, the Drug Wars are a joke...). Why else would they willingly associate with these groups despite the science not being definitive.
Materialistic Relativism (There is no standard for morals so you believe whatever you want to believe) and Secular Humanism (a non-religiously based philosophy promoting humanity as the measure of all things) are two sides of the same coin.
If there were a conservative institution that had the guts to take on these creationist lunatics, then I would happily support them. Since there isn't, I side with whoever is on my side of the argument, regardless of my other political differences.