Make a provocative post (supporting slavery in this case);
Have the post pulled;
Deny that one did this.
Even Arnold can't erase this post.
Posted on 10/07/2005 4:59:16 AM PDT by shuckmaster
How should evolution be taught in schools? This being America, judges will decide
HALF of all Americans either don't know or don't believe that living creatures evolved. And now a Pennsylvania school board is trying to keep its pupils ignorant. It is the kind of story about America that makes secular Europeans chortle smugly before turning to the horoscope page. Yet it is more complex than it appears.
In Harrisburg a trial began last week that many are comparing to the Scopes “monkey” trial of 1925, when a Tennessee teacher was prosecuted for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Now the gag is on the other mouth. In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public-school science classes was an unconstitutional blurring of church and state. But those who think Darwinism unGodly have fought back.
Last year, the school board in Dover, a small rural school district near Harrisburg, mandated a brief disclaimer before pupils are taught about evolution. They are to be told that “The theory [of evolution] is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence.” And that if they wish to investigate the alternative theory of “intelligent design”, they should consult a book called “Of Pandas and People” in the school library.
Eleven parents, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, two lobby groups, are suing to have the disclaimer dropped. Intelligent design, they say, is merely a clever repackaging of creationism, and as such belongs in a sermon, not a science class.
The school board's defence is that intelligent design is science, not religion. It is a new theory, which holds that present-day organisms are too complex to have evolved by the accumulation of random mutations, and must have been shaped by some intelligent entity. Unlike old-style creationism, it does not explicitly mention God. It also accepts that the earth is billions of years old and uses more sophisticated arguments to poke holes in Darwinism.
Almost all biologists, however, think it is bunk. Kenneth Miller, the author of a popular biology textbook and the plaintiffs' first witness, said that, to his knowledge, every major American scientific organisation with a view on the subject supported the theory of evolution and dismissed the notion of intelligent design. As for “Of Pandas and People”, he pronounced that the book was “inaccurate and downright false in every section”.
The plaintiffs have carefully called expert witnesses who believe not only in the separation of church and state but also in God. Mr Miller is a practising Roman Catholic. So is John Haught, a theology professor who testified on September 30th that life is like a cup of tea.
To illustrate the difference between scientific and religious “levels of understanding”, Mr Haught asked a simple question. What causes a kettle to boil? One could answer, he said, that it is the rapid vibration of water molecules. Or that it is because one has asked one's spouse to switch on the stove. Or that it is “because I want a cup of tea.” None of these explanations conflicts with the others. In the same way, belief in evolution is compatible with religious faith: an omnipotent God could have created a universe in which life subsequently evolved.
It makes no sense, argued the professor, to confuse the study of molecular movements by bringing in the “I want tea” explanation. That, he argued, is what the proponents of intelligent design are trying to do when they seek to air their theory—which he called “appalling theology”—in science classes.
Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Intelligent designers deny that this is why they attack it, but this week the court was told by one critic that the authors of “Of Pandas and People” had culled explicitly creationist language from early drafts after the Supreme Court barred creationism from science classes.
In the Dover case, intelligent design appears to have found unusually clueless champions. If the plaintiffs' testimony is accurate, members of the school board made no effort until recently to hide their religious agenda. For years, they expressed pious horror at the idea of apes evolving into men and tried to make science teachers teach old-fashioned creationism. (The board members in question deny, or claim not to remember, having made remarks along these lines at public meetings.)
Intelligent design's more sophisticated proponents, such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, are too polite to say they hate to see their ideas championed by such clods. They should not be surprised, however. America's schools are far more democratic than those in most other countries. School districts are tiny—there are 501 in Pennsylvania alone—and school boards are directly elected. In a country where 65% of people think that creationism and evolution should be taught side by side, some boards inevitably agree, and seize upon intelligent design as the closest approximation they think they can get away with. But they may not be able to get away with it for long. If the case is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, intelligent design could be labelled religious and barred from biology classes nationwide.
Supporting it and saying that it is not wrong are two different things. I know you find this hard to believe. Is gambling wrong? No. Do I support it? No. Illogical? Only in your mind.
Being in denial does not change the facts.
I am led to believe that JimRob has considered my later posts and sees the logic that I have submitted and considered it worthy of discussion.
If you have a link to anyone who has actually performed Dembski's calculation of "complex specified information" please post it.
No one has seen it done anywhere as far as I know.
No. It's some guy claiming to talk for God. You accept, uncritically, the claims the Bible makes for being the Word of God. Yet you really have nothing other than the words in the Bible to base that acceptance upon.
I'll believe the Words of God before I believe the words of mere mortals.
You posted this to me. I was not the one who posted the quote you listed.
What I posted to you are the words of one of the critics of Behe's book on ID.
I'm giving you the opportunity to link to an "ID study" based on Dembski's definition that Behe uses repeatedly.
Of course it was. Responding to 375 gives:
[In a shaded box] In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Evolution and intelligent design Life is a cup of tea , taxesareforever wrote:
[In the posting itself.] My position on slavery? I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves.
Who else do you allow to use your posting privileges?
Make a provocative post (supporting slavery in this case);
Have the post pulled;
Deny that one did this.
Even Arnold can't erase this post.
I do not find it curious that no creationist has yet criticized slavery.
This is the usual Marxist conflation of force with money. I do not find it curious that creationists make such catagorical mistakes.
I do not know a thing about Behe or Dembski. I don't know why you insinuate that I should.
Read my post #643. Might clear up some of your confusion.
But I was always sure that I let Hebrews go before 6 years were up (well, actually I sold them on after 5 years).
And don't get me started when it comes to tax inspectors. Taxes are just like slavery too (according to the cretinists).
In your opinion. And what is your opinion based on?
Is abortion always immoral? Does it initiate force against another? Yes and yes, yet the government sanctions it and women and doctors use it. Go figure.
Let's try this again:
You in the infamous post 375:
"I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves."
Clean and simple: You don't consider it is wrong to have slaves.
Now you imply, but do not say directly, that although is is not wrong you would not support it, making an analogy with gambling not being wrong but something you nevertheless would not support.
That leaves me with two questions:
1. Why is is not wrong to have slaves?
2. How does the idea that is is not wrong to have slaves relate to your religious views?
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.