Posted on 01/06/2006 8:07:53 AM PST by MRMEAN
Your A) option was tested in a college some time ago, and you are probably correct that it would result in more acceptance of evolution than B). Not that B) will damage evolution acceptance, because I've noted even here on FR a reduction in opposition to it. But even still, option A) I think is superior at discrediting ID than B).
The way the two options were tested is probably what would actually happen in most colleges. ID was presented from some material from the Pandas book, then it was countered by evidence against the arguments in Pandas, and embellished with more affirmative evidence for evolution. The control group was merely taught evolution, with no ID argument.
The result was that the group that was taught ID overwhelmingly decided it was false and evolution was true. That's because ID was point-by-point discredited, as it deserves to be. While the group that ignored ID knew that evolution was being attacked, so took the teaching of it with a grain of salt and many refused to accept evolution at the end of the course.
The Dover case was brought by the ACLU. And I'm sure many liberal scientists believe this was a good attack against Christianity in general and supported it for that reason. While scientists who are Christian probably didn't love the idea, apparently none of them fought against the lawsuit because for once the ACLU was on the factual side of an issue. Even a stopped clock ...
No. Not a present. But I'll make you a deal. You (all) manage to reverse the precedents that every other damn thing falls under federal jurisdiction (primarily via the Commerce Clause) and then I'll join you in advocating reversal of Incorporation as well. Otherwise the States are too weak and unaccountable, compared to what they need be, to alone ensure our religious liberty.
So from an original intent point of view it would seem that Rehnquist non preferential support of religion in general would be eminently constitutional.
Of course times have changed and since Lemon truly is a dead letter with Alito joining the court we are left with O'Connors neutrality doctrine. So the obvious question to proponents of a neutrality doctrine is this. How is neutrality achieved by ncluding the secular and rejecting anything religious? And how is neutrality achieved by making the religious dependent on the secualr?
Establishment clause jurisprudence is a mess. It needs spring cleaning.
I began this morning, by attempting to read some of the St. Augustine links that the both of you kindly provided on this thread...
I was immediately drawn in by the words, and the thoughts behind those words...I found myself reading a passage, then stopping, contemplating what was said, and then going back and rereading the passage....I am reading these links in bits and pieces...reading, contemplating, rereading, and then going onto the next passage....it will be long study for me, but a thoroughly enjoyable one...
I am very grateful to the two of you for posting these links, which will provide me with hopefully many hours of reading and contemplation, accompanied by St. Augustines lovely way of speaking to me...
Indeed...St. Augustine has a marvelous mind, and has already, in my brief reading today, brought something to my attention, which I never would have thought of...really enlightening...
Would that everyone on the evo/creo/ID threads read St. Augustine, and try to understand what he is saying....
Ah, but then, I suppose that is asking too much?
And how did God say, “Let there be light?” Was this in time or in the eternity of His Word?
And was there the material sound of a voice when God said, “Let there be light,” as there was when He said, “Thou art my beloved Son?”
What is the light itself which was created? Is it something spiritual or material?
Now when God said, “Let there be light,” and light was made, did He say this on a certain day or before the beginning of days?
#####And how is neutrality achieved by making the religious dependent on the secular?#####
That's true. People of faith, particularly Christians, are told that they can't legislate their opinions into law unless there's near-unanimous support for such laws. We can seek laws against theft ("Thou shalt not steal") only because nearly everyone, including atheists, agree that stealing is wrong. But we can't seek laws against abortion or sodomy without being accused of imposing our morality on others, since support for such laws is not universal.
However there is no such restriction placed on secularists or atheists. They don't have to submit their ideas for approval to Christians before they can try to legislate them (or impose them by judicial fiat, which is their frequent method). The ACLU and the New York Times would never suggest that NARAL or Planned Parenthood are imposing their morality by seeking, and often getting, legal mandates forcing taxpayers to fund abortions. No one suggests that they can't seek such laws without first getting the approval of Christians, or without having near unanimous public support.
So we have a double standard where neutrality means Christians can only seek passage of laws when secularists agree with them, but not vice-versa.
Christ said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's. The problem today is that secularists define anything that doesn't specifically happen in a church pulpit to be Caesar's, and even the pulpit may be up for grabs as we see in Canada, Sweden, and other lands that are further down the secularist path.
Bravo...this is just what I was reading this morning...wonderful, isnt it? He addresses so very much, in so few words...He gives us so much to think about...and he makes it so very clear, that the Bible, is not so easily, simply understood, as many on FR would have us believe...he almost demands that we sit down and THINK....
Oh, and I should have added this one: Can you imagine homosexual activists consenting to rules under which they can't change the multi-millennia definition of marriage without A) getting the unanimous approval of people of faith and B) having public opinion overwhelmingly on their side?
Of course they wouldn't submit to it. They're determined to force their position on the country despite public and religious opposition, and they may be able to do it thanks to "secularist" judges practicing their mythical "neutrality".
Of course, sitting down to think involves hearing more than one opinion on an issue, such as evolution. If you only get one opinion in your textbook there's not much to think about.
You're welcome.
Another of my bookmarks is Early Christian Writings (Warning: Here lie Gnostic heresies).
Ah, but you are exactly correct...and I am one, who reads things from both sides...I never limit myself to reading only one opinion on a subject...I read many opinions...I love to read, and love to think....
And anyone who knows me at all, knows that I accept no ones word as having any authority over me...I never rely on what others think of movies they have seen, I never rely on anyone to tell me what is good or bad to read, I always, always, read as much as I can on a subject, from as many different perspective as I can, and then I make up my own mind...my husband and son would glady agree with me on this...even when raising my children, I taught them to never be bound by what someone else wanted them to believe...that as they grew and aged, they had the intelligence and wherewithall to inform themselves of many different opinions on many different things, and then they had the ability to ferret out the truth...
I always made sure that my children knew what I believed to be true and fast...but I also made sure that they knew that there were others who would disagree with me, I told my children what the disagreement would entail, I explained my reasons for believing as I did, I explained as best as I could, the opposing view(without name calling and abuse), and as my children aged and grew, they learned to root out all view on a subject, they learned to investigate, and they learned to make a decision for themselves...
If my childrens teachers could say only thing about my children, they would tell you that they were the type of children they loved to have in class...because of my childrens constant inquiries they(the teachers) had to be on their toes at all times, as my children were prone to guarded scepticism on many varying subjects, and were always posing questions, seemingly beyond their years....
I was taught to be this way by my parents, I passed this along to my children, and it has served all of us quite well..
Ah, another great link...inbetween posting on FR, taking time outs to read and contemplate, taking time with the hubby, and the usual mundane world of reality, where do I get the time to have my spiked eggnog, and enjoy life(my son bought me a new computer, and forbids me to eat and drink, while using the new computer)....I guess I could always eliminate a few hours sleep...
Actually you were pointing out a problem in your position or perspective e.g. there must be a state religion or no religion observed in public institutions. Additionally you fail to recognize or admit that the government does the very thing that supports your flawed premise in that it imposes or attempts to impose a secular theology against the will of the people e.g. the Dover decision.
As I stated the government can not mandate and or restrict religious choice and practice -this is the domain of the people AND the people can choose to do as they wish regardless who is offended e.g. you. People can not be discriminated against on the basis of religion; HOWEVER, religions can be discriminated against by the people -the government is not in the business of taking care of peoples feelings IT should only concern itself with rights AND there is no right not to be offended.
Actually, I was referring to deities in general when I asked "which one", since you were the one talking about God. I wasn't referring to state religions.
Actually I do not recognize any "deities in general" nor do I have to entertain them NOR should the government mandate I do EVEN if it offends you or hurts your feelings.
So you would have no problem with a an Islamic-controlled school board setting Islamic-based policies so long as they were voted in by the community? What if their policies included teaching the inferiority of the Jew?
You know I might have a problem with it and as such I could move or attempt to change it; HOWEVER, the government is not my mommy. As to the disparaging of Jews question or any other question in the same vein -let me suggest you again attempt a straw man. Religion is okay -breaking the law is not -- IF any laws are broken then people should be held accountable. Suggesting or implying that observing [a] particular religion necessitates allowing or condoning illegalities to occur is a flawed premise along the same lines as the other flawed premise you assert -this perspective might be termed "religiophobia"?
What of the people who don't worship the deity of the majority?
What of the DUmmiecrats who do not wish to follow the government OF the majority. The concept of majority is nothing new, the concept of self determination and local determination is nothing new. The concept of religious freedom is nothing new. IT is only the leftist ploy and flawed premise that comprises the concept of "hurt feelings" and "being offended" that is new. SO, what of the minority [them] -Well there is no "what" --one just has to look around and one can see people in the public domain crying indignantly that their feelings are hurt -people like the morally liberal, the leftists, the morally devoid, the ACLU etcetera... [they] are the minority and as such they can legitimately do nothing SO they illegitimately employ judicial activism to impose their secular theology -the minority with the aid of the state is imposing its religion upon the majority... Again, the government should not be in the business of consoling peoples feelings nor imposing religious mandates...
Sue them out of existence.
I love it!!!
[There is junk science, but it is nowhere nearly as common as some would have you believe.]
Junk science is the basis for the fable of evolution.
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.