Posted on 01/07/2009 6:00:18 PM PST by Inappropriate Laughter
Did you read my first sentence? You must have clipped it off when you quoted me, it was a short post. Clip off the first part and then go off on “where did I say I prayed *****ALOUDLL?Hm?”, argument of my own creation indeed.
“I notice you keep your blessings silent as well”
“...but supposed you lived in a community where Catholics were in control, or Mormons, or Muslim...”
I fail to see the problem with that, constitutionally speaking. School choice and elective courses should allow all of us wackos (including atheists) to peacefully coexist.
Currently, we have an atheist tyranny in public schools. I’m not suggesting another denomination should now get a crack at ruling over the others if that is what you fear.
“You can argue all day about how things should be, but reality says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means.”
That is NOT at all what the framers intended.
Below is a snippet from an article I wrote on the imagined “wall” of separation. I will post the whole thing if you wish to know more about how millions of modern folks have come to the same wrong conclusion as you. I particularly love the “germ of dissolution” quote. Kinda like the Theory of DEVOLUTION at least as it relates to American culture:
...Jefferson was also a political prophet predicting the condition we find ourselves in today. His (and other Founders’) fear of “tyranny” and “despotism” coming from the judicial branch are now reality despite their efforts to make it the weakest branch. The Supreme Court now lords over the legislative and executive branches, the states and individuals in ways never intended by Jefferson who said:
“The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”
“To consider the [SC] judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in...the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body...working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.”
Fortunately, Lincoln did not allow one of the worst usurpations of power when the supremes ruled in Dred Scott (1857) that “a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a state of the United States.” Honest Abe ignored the ruling which violated God’s “natural law” and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. And Congress passed the 13th amendment despite the supreme morons.
And UNfortunately, the court’s theft of power was complete by the time Chief Justice Rehnquist, in a disgusted dissenting opinion (Jaffree), reminisced about our fist President George. Washington, on the very day the First Amendment passed Congress and at their behest, proclaimed a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.” Wrote Rehnquist regarding that event: “History must judge whether it was the Father of our country in 1789, or...the Court...which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.”
“Guess who will be appointing justices?”
That is a scary thought since the Jackass-elect has already promised to appoint activist justices who he hopes will rule in exactly the manner Jefferson described as tyranny.
I pray to the Father in heaven that the four reasonably good justices outlive the reign of Obama!
This has always struck me as one of the lamest anti-science arguments out there, and it surprises me to see it coming from such a thoughtful poster as yourself. This would only be an example of science being "wrong" if the change was due to our knowledge about Pluto being wrong, or if there was some objective standard of planetude that we were wrong about. In fact, though, it was a simple definitional change: astronomers defined "planet" in a certain way (there was no official definition before) that lumped Pluto with 40-odd other, similar, non-"planet" bodies rather than with the 8 "true" planets. Nobody was wrong about anything.
“Because the creationists are always moving the macro goal posts”
The evos are famous for moving the goal posts. They said for many years that evidence of rapid speciation would negate the TOE, since it was accepted by all that changes take a long time. Then the Cambrian explosion was found and they said, gee whiz, well, there must be this Punctuated Equilibrium process. Even though there is no evidence for it and it can’t be observed we are going to choose to believe it anyway.
A small number have said that the burn either couldn’t have happened that way, despite the teacher’s confession, or was no big deal.
And likewise,....Over 75 posts. No anti-evolutionist has criticized the teacher.
Same for this thread.....
Science teacher dissed evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2034140/posts
Seems that none of the evo types gave a rip on that thread either. So spare me the self-righteous indignation about who's not complaining about the kid getting injured. Most of the complaints were against the symbol and what those *EVIIILLLL* Christians are really like.
There were several threads on this topic and that was the only one I could find. I KNOW there was another one because on that one I DID condemn the burning of the student, no matter what the symbol and I know that there were others who agreed.
If you can figure out some way to make FR's search engine work any better, let me know and I'll look up the other articles.
” The theory isn't holding up in “X,Y, and Z” areas. We need to 1) change our approach, or 2) attempt to find an explanation that is **rational** and scientifically based. “
At this point the philosophers and theologians could speculate all they want. In his off-time the scientist could be a philosophical and religious as he wanted too.
I will give 2 examples:
As I posted earlier, my husband was hired to be a biochemist. He did exactly that because that was his contract, his word, and his agreement, with the company. If he had brought theology to the application and analysis of his job that would have been stealing the company's time. At work he seriously tried to give his **work** his full attention as a **biochemist**!.
Yet,....I **know** that he was personally was **very** prayerful over all his projects, and prayed often for inspiration and guidance in his profession.
( And, NO, allmendream, he did not pray aloud at work!)
In my own profession, my patients were paying me for my full **professional** attention. Also, the doctor patient relationship is not one of equal power. I would have been stealing the patients time and money to have engaged in religious discussion and I would have been abusing my position of power. However,....As my down time in my office permitted, I prayed over every one of my patients, and I believe that is why many patients commented how comfortable they felt in my office.
( And, NO, allmendream, he did not pray aloud at work!)
In conclusion:
If a scientist agrees to work as a scientist, then he needs to bring the full force of his scientific training to the job. If “X Y or Z” doesn't fit he needs to start looking for a rational and scientific reason for why it is not.
An **honest** scientist would say, “These areas are not making sense. We're looking into why it isn't.” He should **not** be speculating about God because that is **not** the job he was contracted to do. To do so would be stealing the company, school, or research lab's time and money.
If certain aspects of the Theory of Evolution break down and don't make statistical or rational sense then and **honest** scientist would start looking for a rational reason why “X, Y, or Z” exists, and **admit** that in the areas of “X, Y, or Z” do not conform to the theory.
And honest scientist would NOT drum out of the profession a scientist who rightly said, “Hey! Look guys! “X, Y, and Z” don't fit and aren't making any sense!”
Scientists must **not** seek to use science to affirm the existence of God. Doing that would not be the scientific method. Two things could happen scientifically and theologically:
1) In being so determined to prove intelligent design the scientist would be misusing his profession and possibly even overlook a part of the natural world God DID create!
God does not want us to misuse our talents.
2) On the theological and philosophical level, the scientist would be building a Tower of Babel. Any scientist who thinks they can **prove** God exists is overreaching in an extreme way.
A religious scientists needs to stick to the job of science. Let the natural world be revealed through his work, and trust that God's presence and wonder will be revealed in it due time.
Like Marxists over look basic obvious logic like there is NO free lunch, some(evos) can overlook that people must have come from an orginal source.. Common sense is not too common..
The best teachers can usually explain something quite simply.. lesser talented teachers must go into long drawn out explanations like they are in love with their own voice..
Works the same in "religion".. The truth is quite simple.. other than the truth; must be orchestrated like an soap opera.. Judaism proves religious soap operas do not work in the long term.. Jesus used short sweet metaphors as teaching instruments.. The first three chapters of Genesis could very well be the Rosetta Stone of creation metaphors.. Trumping any language or dialect..
Could be humans(of any age/eon) just can't grasp what it takes to re-model a planet let alone a solar system.. and that a metaphor is good enough.. Creating a sentient being is well beyond any humans understanding.. Could also be that the Dino's were before God re-modeled this place..
Most? Really? Who, and how many, do you count as “founding”? What comprises “most”? Have you an x number out of the total that describes the “most” who were Deists? What do you mean by “fundamentalists”? As a term of common art, “fundamentalist” came into popular usage in the late 1970s when many Christians came to understand the necessity of organizing for political self-defense. Earlier the term was used from time to time as part of the narrative surrounding the events encompassing the First and Second Great Awakenings and the other religious revivals that swept through America from the 1730s right on to the 1930s.
Aside from that alleged vast majority of Deists, what were the religious denominations of those pitifully few Founders who were Christian? You have quite a choice to select from: Methodist, Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, Congregational, Baptist, German Reformed, Episcopal (High, Low, and Broad), Quaker, and even some Catholic (plus surely one or two more I’ve overlooked). Of these, which ones would you consider “fundamentalist”? All were profoundly impacted by the waves of religious revivalism mentioned above, save Episcopal, Quaker, and Catholic who were little affected or not at all.
”The Bill of Rights does contain the Establishment clause and, even though the words “separation of CHurch and State” are not specifically there, the meaning is clear that the government cannot favor any religion.”
What do you mean “government cannot favor”? Can you be a little more specific? Here, let me help by providing some examples that you can pass on, yea or nay:
a) An association of Christian students holds regular club meetings after school, and are allowed to use school facilities. Improper favoritism, or a proper practice?
b) Four separate Christian congregations have no place to hold their Sunday services, so county government permits them the use of its court house for a joint service, each denomination taking a week to lead the service. Improper favoritism, or a proper practice?
c) The Federal government permits church services to be held in some of its buildings, including the state department and in the capitol itself. Improper favoritism, or a proper practice?
d) The governing body of a state university decides that it will permit their students to hold morning devotionals before class, and to provide meeting places in the university’s lecture halls. Furthermore, the governing body also decides to permit any divinity schools located in the vicinity to use the same halls for Sunday services. Improper favoritism, or a proper practice?
Finally, in the context of the 1st Amendment, what, specifically, does the term establishment mean?
That would be the sun.
Simply poring energy at something isn’t enough. In order for entropy to decrease, work needs to be done in and on the system. What is the source of work?
That would be the living systems themselves.
(For someone who professes to know and love science, you sure post some whoppers!)
Why would I need to? Evolution is more or less blind to emotion. It does not understand cruelty (does not care, more accurately). What did you intend to imply?
Any more I suspect that there are more brown Christian people, black Christian people, and Asian Christian people than there are White Christian people, making whites a minority among Christians. And many of those “other” Christians live in one of 52 countries that murder Christians, or otherwise oppress them, making their number and their commitment all the more remarkable. It’s just my estimate, but until someone can present me with valid and convincing data to the contrary, I think I’ll stick with my estimate, and otherwise also note that the Christian commitment isn’t due to ‘tribal’ influences, since many of those people, including many whites, don’t come from a Christian cultural past.
That blows your little pet aphorism right out of the water. I know you’ll recover, but for now it’s back to the drawing board for you.
Science rarely elevates a theory to a "law" and instead speaks of evidence accruing for or against theories. Ditto for taxonomy whether classifying a planet or a fossil.
And some theories which remain good in one context fail in another - e.g. Newtonian physics v. Relativity v. Quantum Mechanics.
Indeed, the first chapter of the book of Genesis should make it clear to the reader that he will not be able to understand the words of God by his physical senses and reasoning alone. Ditto for the first chapter of the Gospel of John. And both start with "In the beginning..."
It was supposedly an example of a time science was wrong. I think it's fair to label an assertion that something was wrong an "anti-something" assertion. But no big deal.
Science rarely elevates a theory to a "law" and instead speaks of evidence accruing for or against theories. Ditto for taxonomy whether classifying a planet or a fossil.
The point is that the evidence didn't change, and the question of whether Pluto is a planet or not wasn't a theory. We didn't learn anything new about Pluto that led us to reclassify it--it was purely definitional and entirely up to science how to define "planet." Right or wrong doesn't enter into it.
Yes, we do. See Inbred Science. Examine Hunter's Civic Biology to see the sort of material that was introduced into the public schools long ago.
There is an issue which, for whatever reason, is hardly ever brought up in these threads, but should be. And that is the indoctrination of students with the ideology of Thomas Malthus. This is taught as fact under the guise of "science" in evolution classes, e.g., as part and parcel of the lessons on "natural selection." I do not think that students should be indoctrinated with Malthus's pernicious ideology about population.
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.