Whether I personally believe one thing another is not at issue. My point is to the fact that the Evolution Club lay claim to "proven" science and froth at the mouth at even the suggestion that they could, on some or many points, be wrong.
There are scientist who do not hold to the full blank check evolution THEORIES. The evolution theories have EVOLVED into fact, in their lock step ortohdoxy thinking of the education establishment, and they arrogantly attack as fools, rubes and religious extremist, those who even have a slight doubt showing on their HUMAN face.
They label, without any qualifications, as FACT all facets of evolotion theory, defending it as SCIENCE, and suggesting that ANYTHING (not just ID) that does not rubber stamp their views is NOT science....
As for religion in the classroom, most of the Founding Fathers wanted it there...(not theory...can be proven by examination of their letters and other writtings).
Einstien, must have been an ID type guy, since he once said that God does not play dice with the universe. So, if they want ONLY science to be taught, will they not include what Einstein believed?...and would they allow the views many to today's SCIENTISTS who don't hold to a blank check for evolution theories believe to be presented....NO. They will shout down ANY desent from bowing down to their HOLY THEORY....afterall, THEORY is now SCIENCE.
My guitar did not evolve from a tree....Intelligent design created it (except for a slight buzzing at the 13th fret).
Have to call "B.S." on that. FRevolutionists could not possibly be more consistent, indeed INsistent, in asserting that no scientific claim is ever proven, and that all scientific claims are subject to potential revision or abandonment.
It is not only predominantly, but EXCLUSIVELY, antievolutionists here who forward claims that science does (or should) "prove" things.
Our present system of state-run schools didn't exist back then. It pretty much started in the 1840s. But I know one Founding Father's general thinking on the subject:
... that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions ...The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom.
BTTT
No we don't, since science does not deal in "proof". Care to try again?
and froth at the mouth at even the suggestion that they could, on some or many points, be wrong.
Wrong again. We cheerfully admit that we "could, on some or many points, be wrong". What we don't accept without a fight, however, is the various falsehoods, disinformation, fallacies, and personal attacks which anti-evolutionists dishonestly attempt to use in order to incorrectly claim that they've shown we *are* wrong. *Could* we be wrong? Sure. But not for any of the bogus reasons which the evolution-haters have managed to produce to date.
We don't mind the observation that we *could* be wrong, because of course we could -- so could anyone, on any subject. We do, however, object to being called liars, fools, members of a conspiracy, supporters of the devil, etc., for no damned good reason. In short, we don't bristle at suggestions we might be wrong, unless the speaker is being an a**hole about it -- which the anti-evolutionists have a habit of doing.
There are scientist who do not hold to the full blank check evolution THEORIES.
There aren't *any* scientists who hold "to the full blank check evolution THEORIES", because there's no such thing as a "full blank check blah blah blah". There is, however a non-blank-check field of evolutionary biology, which contains well-established theories concerning various aspects of the evolutionary changes which have occurred, and are still occurring, in the living things which live on this planet, and these theories are supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence and research findings along multiple cross-confirming lines.
Perhaps you should learn more about this subject before you misrepresent it again.
The evolution theories have EVOLVED into fact,
Wrong again, although they have become more and more validated by more and more evidence.
in their lock step ortohdoxy thinking of the education establishment, and they arrogantly attack as fools, rubes and religious extremist, those who even have a slight doubt showing on their HUMAN face.
You saw this in a comic book published by anti-evolutionists, didn't you? This is as poor a representation of evolutionary biology as is the depiction of slavering capitalists raping the environment which is a staple of the liberal TV cartoon, "Captain Planet"...
They label, without any qualifications, as FACT all facets of evolotion theory,
No we don't. Please stop making things up.
defending it as SCIENCE,
Evolutionary biology is science.
and suggesting that ANYTHING (not just ID) that does not rubber stamp their views is NOT science....
Wrong again. Many things *aren't* science, however, including "ID", but that has nothing to do with the fact that it "does not rubber stamp our views", and everything to do with the fact that "ID" fails to meet even the most minimal standards for a valid field of science.
As for religion in the classroom, most of the Founding Fathers wanted it there...(not theory...can be proven by examination of their letters and other writtings).
Gosh, really? Let's check in with, say, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, shall we? Here's what I wrote in response to the last person to make the same mistake you have:
I'm sorry that you're ignorant of American history. Madison and Jefferson both felt very strongly about the separation of church and state (even using that very term), and wrote of the importance of not using the public moneys or institutions to support one or more religions. In Madison's famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments", he wrote strenuously against using public money to underwrite in any degree the promulgation of religious teachings. In another opinion, he wrote:
A University with sectarian professorships becomes, of course, a sectarian monopoly: with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of Theological Gladiators. [...] On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative but between a public University without a theological professorship, and sectarian seminaries without a University.In another essay, he wrote:Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.And:Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. [...] If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience!Writing of the success of the First Amendment's unique new approach to the age-old problem of religious/government entanglement, Madison wrote:It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.And in the same vein:Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance.But hey, what would Madison know, he only *wrote* the First Amendment...As for Jefferson, he also wrote favorably of "a wall of separation between church and state" on many occasions, for example:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.Like Madison, Jefferson was likewise of the opinion that public schools should be secular. When the College of William and Mary wanted to become Virginia's state university, Jefferson would allow it only if that school divested itself of all ties with sectarian religion. The college declined, so Jefferson himself instead founded the first truly secular university, University of Virginia. Of his new University, Jefferson wrote:A professorship of Theology should have no place in our institution.And to teachers at his University, Jefferson said:This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is free to combat it.And from a famous earlier historian of the US:... I questioned the faithful of all communions; I particularly sought the society of clergymen, who are the depositories of the various creeds and have a personal interest in their survival ... all thought the main reason for the quiet sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state. I have no hesitation in stating that throughout my stay in America I met nobody, lay or cleric, who did not agree about that.The "complete separation of church and state" is no modern ACLU invention...
-- (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1805-1859The modern court cases upholding this principle of keeping religious advocacy out of the schools merely uphold the original intent and meaning of the First Amendment, and indeed make explicit reference to Madison and Jefferson's writings on this matter:
As the momentum for popular education increased and in turn evoked strong claims for state support of religious education, contests not unlike that which in Virginia had produced Madison's Remonstrance appeared in various forms in other states. New York and Massachusetts provide famous chapters in the history that established dissociation of religious teaching from state-maintained schools. In New York, the rise of the common schools led, despite fierce sectarian opposition, to the barring of tax funds to church schools, and later to any school in which sectarian doctrine was taught.So yes, just as I said, attempts to get religious views taught in public schools, whether overt or thinly disguised, are a violation of the First Amendment -- not just the modern view of the First Amendment, but the original intent as well.[...]
The upshot of these controversies, often long and fierce, is fairly summarized by saying that long before the Fourteenth Amendment subjected the states to new limitations, the prohibition of furtherance by the state of religious instruction became the guiding principle, in law and in feeling, of the American people.
[...]
The preservation of the community from division conflicts, of government from irreconcilable pressures by religious groups, of religion from censorship and coercion however subtly exercised, requires strict confinement of the state to instruction other than religious, leaving to the individual's church and home, indoctrination in the faith of his choice. [...] The extent to which this principle was deemed a presupposition of our Constitutional system is strikingly illustrated by the fact that every state admitted into the Union since 1876 was compelled by Congress to write into its constitution a requirement that it maintain a school system "free from sectarian control".
[...]
We find that the basic Constitutional principle of absolute separation was violated when the State of Illinois, speaking through its Supreme Court, sustained the school authorities of Champaign in sponsoring and effectively furthering religious beliefs by its educational arrangement. Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between church and state speaks of a "wall of separation," not of a fine line easily overstepped. The public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no activity of the state is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in its schools, to avoid confusing, not to say fusing, what the Constitution sought to keep strictly apart. "The great American principle of eternal separation"--Elihu Root's phrase bears repetition--is one of the vital reliances of our Constitutional system for assuring unities among our people stronger than our diversities. It is the Court's duty to enforce this principle in its full integrity. We renew our conviction that "we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion."
-- Justice Felix Frankfurter, U. S. Supreme Court, in McCollum v. Board of Education, the 1948 decision that forbid public schools in Illinois from commingling sectarian and secular instruction
classic Marxist/ACLU double talk...
Yeah, boy, that Theodore Roosevelt, what a Marxist and ACLU lawyer:
"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."
-- Theodore Roosevelt Address, New York, October 12, 1915.
Einstien, must have been an ID type guy,
You're batting 0.000 in this post...
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."That's about as direct an ANTI-"ID" statement as can be stated in the English language.
-- Albert Einstein, letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive
since he once said that God does not play dice with the universe. So, if they want ONLY science to be taught, will they not include what Einstein believed?
First, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but not everything that Einstein believed automatically qualifies as science. He believed he shouldn't wear socks either, but that doesn't make the non-wearing of socks a scientific discipline. Or am I going too fast for you?
Second, if you think that Einstein believed in "ID" -- in an actual consciousness as the source of the Universe, you're sadly mistaken (and have yet again been led astray by the misrepresentations and out-of-context quotes favored by the anti-evolutionists). Here's what Einstein ACTUALLY believed, in his own words -- note how little comfort they give to any "ID" fan or anyone who thinks that Einstein believed in anything like the Christian idea of God. Let's have a look at some of the quotes that the creationists like to sweep under the rug, shall we?
"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task..."And:
-- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter dated 24 March 1954, included in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side".
"It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished."And:
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in W. I Hermanns "A Talk with Einstein," October 1943
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."And:
-- Albert Einstein, 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman, Albert Einstein the Human Side
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."And:
-- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."And:
-- Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."And:
-- Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a Baptist pastor in 1953; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."And:
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in The New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Thoughts, New York: Ballantine Books, 1996, p. 134.
"Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees."And:
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," in the New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930, pp. 3-4; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, pp. 205-206.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."And:
-- Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., September 28, 1949; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):64.
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world as far—as we can grasp it. And that is all."Einstein's "God", his "religion", was the deep spiritual awe he felt in contemplation of the majestic breadth and depth and orderliness of the Universe itself:
-- Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):62.
"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a Rabbi in Chicago; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton University Press, 1981, pp. 69-70.
...and would they allow the views many to today's SCIENTISTS who don't hold to a blank check for evolution theories believe to be presented.... NO.
Not in science class if they're not science, of course not. And not in public schools if they're a veiled attempt to push a particular religious view, either.
They will shout down ANY desent from bowing down to their HOLY THEORY....afterall, THEORY is now SCIENCE.
LOL! You're doing a lot of "shouting" there yourself, son. And no, we don't "shout down" any "desent [sic]" (plus we actually know how to spell "dissent"), nor does anyone "bow down" to any theory nor do we expect anyone to, nor is evolutionary biology "HOLY". Are you sure you have any clue what in the hell you're talking about?
Theory is, however, part of science, you sort of got one partly right for a change.
My guitar did not evolve from a tree....
Nor did anyone claim it did. Duh! The reason no one claims it did is because a) there's no evidence indicating that it did, and b) there's plenty of evidence indicating that it was designed and built by humans.
The converse is true for living things, however (i.e., there is massive evidence that living things have evolved from simpler forms, and there is zero evidence that they were designed), which is exactly why an overwhelming percentage of science-literate people have concluded that living things *have* evolved, and guitars *haven't*.
Let me know if I'm going over your head or anything. I would have thought that these points would have been obvious enough even without the explanation, but I see that in your case I've been guilty of overestimation.
Do you actually know what "theory" means in science? Any clue at all? Your post would suggest that you are arguing from a strictly religious, not a scientific, view.
Here is a list of definitions of how some terms are used in science. You will probably not agree, but your agreement or disagreement has no effect on the way science is practiced. (Sorry.)
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]