Jeepers, what is it with people today? Everything's a conspiracy! (Or at least those things we "don't like" when they happen anyway. Abolish the unfavored viewpoint! Censor all ideas that are not "popular" or acceptable to me!!!)
You characterize the crux of the trial as a nefarious conspiracy of devious Christians trying to smuggle God and religion into the public schools. Which is to accuse Christians of amazing bad faith, of lying about their true purposes, etc. Do you really think that is a warranted assessment?
Ask yourself: What possible good could accrue to the "Christian cause" utilizing such a strategy? Please think about that for a moment.
FWIW, I simply saw this thing as a First Amendment -- free speech, not freedom of religion -- issue.
This may sound strange to you, but I believe it is quite possible to speak of God without any religious motivation whatever. For instance, the classical Greek and generic Judeo-Christian development of man's understanding of God is an historical and cultural thing -- i.e., it is factually based -- and provided religious proselytizing favoring any particular confession is not included, I see instruction in such matters as properly belonging in the education syllabus geared to young Americans.
Certainly you would think American citizens ought to have some awareness of how "Nature's God" fit into the philosophy of the Framers, and got written into the DoI -- which is the set-up to both the Preamble and the Constitution itself. The historical fact is American culture is profoundly Christian -- and still is, believe it or not.
Now the Progessive Left (and certainly many neo-Darwinists) may well prefer contemporary school children NOT to know that the Founders of this nation believed in a Creator God. But for them NOT to know that means they do not know the first, perhaps most salient thing, about American history and culture.
Be that as it may. The issue is ID, and its assertion that "certain features" of natural beings cannot be accounted for by random mutation and natural selection alone. Another pesky feature of ID (to a neo-Darwinist, anyway), is its challenge to the reductionist materialist presupposition that lies at the root of metaphysical naturalism. Plus as mentioned, ID does not restrict its investigation to only material and efficient causes.
The modern scientific method owes a very great deal to Sir Francis Bacon, who deliberately set about to restrict scientific investigation to just those two causes. But modern physics and information theory cannot be construed in such narrow terms. And neither (IMHO) can biology.
Formal and final causes are not "metaphysical." They are evident everywhere in nature. Perhaps it is time for science to take notice of them, and adjust its methods accordingly.
Well, FWIW joesbucks. Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply.
And how do you propose scientists measure these?
BINGO!...
I think you have nailed it like a Butterfly or Moth on a bugboard..
Smuggling contraband is the metaphor and root agenda behind this arrogant demeanor, especially here at/on Free Republic threads.. An evangelistic fervor of "progressives".. And as anyone with the slightest sense KNOWS... Dialectic materialism and scientific materialism are sister whores in the same brothel.. In my estimation its all about money in both instances, ultimately.. As Unions drone on about being for the "people".. its the people that pay for Union excesses.. The companys do NOT.. they(business) pass on Union costs to the consumer, you know like Government does.. The "people" pay for everything in price of goods sold.. As socialism is a scam, progressive science is too..
Yes, Boopie, you nailed it, yet AGAIN..
In a word, yes. FWIW, I simply saw this thing as a First Amendment -- free speech, not freedom of religion -- issue.
No argument there. But the case outcome did have precendent that supported the decision. What I or you may personally believe and what is case law are two different things.
Certainly you would think American citizens ought to have some awareness of how "Nature's God" fit into the philosophy of the Framers, and got written into the DoI -- which is the set-up to both the Preamble and the Constitution itself. The historical fact is American culture is profoundly Christian -- and still is, believe it or not.
At the time of the Framers, most people learned these things in church, where those who have made a lifetime of devotion and study are the teachers. Not those in a secular world.
You are trying to frame the argument on the merits of ID and the fight against what many are referring to Darwinian materialism. That was not what this case was about. That's also what the Discovery Institute is also trying to do. And the Trojan Horse I mention, while not in their materials spelled out as such, is contained in their wedge document.
God created us, the universe and all the living things and seas. But there is also scientific evidence that shows things are also a bit more complex than just "six days of poof". Some of the Darwinian theory tries to explain that. A lot of it falls into known scientific evidence. Some doesn't. And a lot remains unanswered.
But the fact remains, that ID is the Trojan Horse to move the Creation Theory back into our schools. It's almost as bad as Peter when he denied God three times. ID does the same.
For that, I'm dismayed in my fellow believers.
Indeed, there are two separate issues involved. On the one hand, the intelligent design movement seeks to remove methodological naturalism as a presupposition.
On the other hand is the intelligent design hypothesis which must stand or fall on its own merits: that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
The issue of motive of the supporters (on any side) is a legal sidebar. And as you have so clearly explained - whether in law, policy or education - one can speak of God and yet neither promote nor establish a religion.
In the end, the Supreme Court will clean up the mess it created with the Lemon decision.