Evolution and Stickers Revisted
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: He believes that the president has the power to retire federal judge By definition and talking about democratic principles, isn't such an action a violation of the separation of the powers and then a first step to a presidential dictatorship?
Fold With Us! Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck Doch seh ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links
K(arl) wrote: By definition and talking about democratic principles, isn't such an action a violation of the separation of the powers and then a first step to a presidential dictatorship? Good question, thanks for asking. The situation that we have (a crisis depending upon who you listen to) is that judges are legislating, not applying the law as they are charged with doing. This is something that needs correcting as they are acting outside the context of their constituitionally granted powers. The change, from applying to creating law, has been incremental over many many years. It can't be corrected by waiting for individual judges to retire. Another approach is to impeach and try individual judges by Congress but that would tie up Congress such that not much else would get done for years (which might not be all that bad). The idea of retiring judges really does not distort the idea of seperation of judges because once that arm of the judiciary was retired and replaced it would still operate independently. The fact that judges are creating, not applying law is in fact distorting federal power. One example is the one subject "you" hear constantly, that of seperation of state and church. There is absolutely no question what so ever that the idea was that there be no state sactioned religion (as with: the Church of England, Iran and Islam) not that no references to God exist in public life. Our coinage for example has always had, "in God we trust" stamped on it. Secularists and liberal judges have preverted the seperation concept. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
I think the judge should be removed. Acknowledging evolution as anything but a theory is covering up the truth. Hell, I think they should put a sticker on every text book that says, "This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It's just a sound advice. Unconstitutional, indeed. Dumb ass. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the Newbrianwelsch wrote: I think the judge should be removed. Acknowledging evolution as anything but a theory is covering up the truth. Hell, I think they should put a sticker on every text book that says, "This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It's just a sound advice. Unconstitutional, indeed. Dumb ass. The sticker does not simply say evolution is a theory. It says evolution is "not a fact". In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant fields, evolution is both a theory and a fact --- a fact attested to by an overwhelming body of evidence. Those putting on the sticker are thus promoting ignorance of accepted scientific facts for religious reasons. Material should indeed be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." If the creationists had done that, we wouldn't need to be having this debate. John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
-
Which can still be debunked, because at the end of the day it isn't known as the truth. It is the best explanation science can give based on current data, but that does not mean it is 100% fact. That's why people don't go around calling it the "Fact of Evolution". ;) BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the Newbrianwelsch wrote: That's why people don't go around calling it the "Fact of Evolution". "People" may not, but scientists do. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html[^] John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
-
David Kentley wrote: Judges, in my view, are here to protect what is right, public will be damned. I find that statement to be absolutely incredible and so anti-American as to be beyond belief. The entire rational for our Revolution was to free us from precisely that kind of thinking. The historic significance of the American Revolution was that it finally over turned the ability of a specific class of government sanctioned individuals to impose their moral will upon people and left the power to do just that in the hands of the people. What the hell is the difference between haing a government ran by religious authorities dictating morality and having one run by federal judges dictating moral authority? Your secularist philosophies hurl our society backwards in time 2000 years. Is that what you want?!!!! Christ almight, could you try actually thinking rather than just apeing something some fucking Marxist professor taught you. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: David Kentley wrote: Judges, in my view, are here to protect what is right, public will be damned. I find that statement to be absolutely incredible and so anti-American as to be beyond belief. If I had written "Judges are here to protect the law" would it make you feel better? They also make sure the laws that are made are constitutional, all of which is why I say they are here to protect what is right. The laws are written by elected officials, the judges are appointed by those officials or in many cases elected directly. It's still ultimately the will of the people at work. However, when it comes to specific issues like this, it is the judge's duty to follow what they believe is right and lawful. Do you not understand the ingenious checks and balances system this country employs? It sounds like you want to strip the judicial branch of its power by giving the executive branch iron fisted control over it. Presidents and senators bow to the will of the masses (or lobbyists); judges impose the will of the law, and the constitution, and are required to ignore the will of the masses, or else they are not doing their job. You talk about hurling society back in time, but that is exactly what would happen if fanatics, even large groups of fanatics, are allowed to run amok and impose superstition on our science classes. If these people's faith is so flimsy that observation of the real world around them theatens it, it's time for them to get a new faith, not stick their heads and the heads of their children in the sand. The judge in this case did absolutely the right thing according to the law, and proves once again that this country's system usually works. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect, has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei
-
K(arl) wrote: By definition and talking about democratic principles, isn't such an action a violation of the separation of the powers and then a first step to a presidential dictatorship? Good question, thanks for asking. The situation that we have (a crisis depending upon who you listen to) is that judges are legislating, not applying the law as they are charged with doing. This is something that needs correcting as they are acting outside the context of their constituitionally granted powers. The change, from applying to creating law, has been incremental over many many years. It can't be corrected by waiting for individual judges to retire. Another approach is to impeach and try individual judges by Congress but that would tie up Congress such that not much else would get done for years (which might not be all that bad). The idea of retiring judges really does not distort the idea of seperation of judges because once that arm of the judiciary was retired and replaced it would still operate independently. The fact that judges are creating, not applying law is in fact distorting federal power. One example is the one subject "you" hear constantly, that of seperation of state and church. There is absolutely no question what so ever that the idea was that there be no state sactioned religion (as with: the Church of England, Iran and Islam) not that no references to God exist in public life. Our coinage for example has always had, "in God we trust" stamped on it. Secularists and liberal judges have preverted the seperation concept. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: The situation that we have (a crisis depending upon who you listen to) is that judges are legislating, not applying the law as they are charged with doing. AFAIK, judges can create jurisprudence when no law can't be applied. Jurisprudence decisions have force of law. Isn't it the task of the Supreme Court to decide if their judgment respects the constitution or not? Anyway, even if I agree there should be "something" to control Judges' decisions, it should not be done by another branch, legislative or executive.
Fold With Us! Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck Doch seh ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links
-
brianwelsch wrote: That's why people don't go around calling it the "Fact of Evolution". "People" may not, but scientists do. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html[^] John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
To me a fact is absolute truth. This obviously differs from the scientific definition. I do not doubt evolution as such, but I have a difficult time believing we know for fact how life was created. If there is a good explanation that I haven't seen, I'd be happy to read it. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
The issue has absolutely nothing to do with religion or science one way or the other. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
No, of course not Stan. :rolleyes: As usual you tread where others fear to explore...I think you're a visionary of sorts... John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: The situation that we have (a crisis depending upon who you listen to) is that judges are legislating, not applying the law as they are charged with doing. AFAIK, judges can create jurisprudence when no law can't be applied. Jurisprudence decisions have force of law. Isn't it the task of the Supreme Court to decide if their judgment respects the constitution or not? Anyway, even if I agree there should be "something" to control Judges' decisions, it should not be done by another branch, legislative or executive.
Fold With Us! Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck Doch seh ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links
K(arl) wrote: judges can create jurisprudence when no law can't be applied No. That is not within their purview based on our constituiition. K(arl) wrote: Isn't it the task of the Supreme Court to decide if their judgment respects the constitution or not? Yes, if and when you can afford to carry something to that level. The Supreme Court almost adheres to the Constituition but has also crossed the line and created law where none exists. This is also a problem, but not a crisis. K(arl) wrote: Anyway, even if I agree there should be "something" to control Judges' decisions, it should not be done by another branch, legislative or executive. We don't have time for a revolution, and that is the only other choice. Remember the idea of the 3 branches of government (administrative {president, etc.}, legislative (House of Representatives and the Senate}, and the judicial {Supreme Court and lower level federal courts}) is to achieve a balance. Right now I content that the balance has been lost because judges are not only adjudicating they are legislating. The only way (that I see) to bring everything back into balance is to retire federal judges (by the president, as Newt Gingrich proposes) then have the president (administrative branch) nominate a new batch who understand our history and our Consitiuition then have the Congress (legislative branch) approve or vote down the nominations. If the process is followed there is no controlling by the administrative branch (the President) there is simply a process to correct something that has gotten out of control. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
time to get out your flintlock and start the revolution. kill some lefties for jesus! Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
:laugh: He is certainly original in his views, is he not? John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
-
Of course it's religiously motivated, but in the end asking students to keep an open mind on the issue is not unconstitutional. There was no mention or endorsement of any specific relgion. Maybe spending money on stickers is a waste of money, but that's a different issue than calling them unconstitutional. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the NewEverthing has a context, as did this. The stickers were simply the latest attempt by the same group of people (that happens to include the State Superintendant of Education) to push a Creationist agenda. First they tried to pass a law to have "controversial subject' dropped from all texts and require 'alternative materials' required. (the 'and' there is most curious: the agenda was to drop 'evolution' as too controversial, but substitute creationism materials...a bit self contradictory). When that went nowhere, the tried to have the word 'evolution' stricken from all textbooks by administrative dictate. Public outrage and ridicule put a stop to that try. Finally, they tried to sneak through the stickers. Given the context, there was a clear endorsement of a specific religious point of view (one not necessarily shared by all members of that religion). If they want their views presented in the context of a comparative religion class, I would have no objection. Presenting it in the context of a science class, I object to strongly. If you want students to be presented with this garbage so they keep an open mind that is fine, but do so in the proper context. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
Yet another perfect example of the unrelenting attack from the Secularists to utterly displace any competitive set of moral principles. The people of Cobb county Ga were acting perfectly within their constitutional rights to have any damned thing they wanted plaecd within any text book they wanted in their own school district. That is precisely the how the people who wrote the constitution intended for it to work, not to be used by some fucking judge to impose his own personal set of principles without regard to the will of the people. And than the liberals stand around scratching their heads wondering why there is a reaction against this kind of tyranny. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan, the year is 2005. We are no longer in 1005, the ninth century. We have science, technology, no fear of the dark and a legal code that isn't controlled by the papacy. Welcome to it... ;P John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
-
Which can still be debunked, because at the end of the day it isn't known as the truth. It is the best explanation science can give based on current data, but that does not mean it is 100% fact. That's why people don't go around calling it the "Fact of Evolution". ;) BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the NewWhich means that even you can have a go at debunking it. Why don't you enlighten us with some of your insight as to why it's not correct 100%? John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
-
Bring it on. Either we teach children how to think and judge for themselves or we tell them "this is true and this is false". The latter is untenable, so if the Design Theorists (man I love the new term!) wish to put forward their views then they should, and must, do so in a manner that, reciprocally, allows an open mind, sound reasoning without being disingenuous and welcomes challenges and alternatives. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Bring it on. But don't pay for it with my taxes. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
K(arl) wrote: judges can create jurisprudence when no law can't be applied No. That is not within their purview based on our constituiition. K(arl) wrote: Isn't it the task of the Supreme Court to decide if their judgment respects the constitution or not? Yes, if and when you can afford to carry something to that level. The Supreme Court almost adheres to the Constituition but has also crossed the line and created law where none exists. This is also a problem, but not a crisis. K(arl) wrote: Anyway, even if I agree there should be "something" to control Judges' decisions, it should not be done by another branch, legislative or executive. We don't have time for a revolution, and that is the only other choice. Remember the idea of the 3 branches of government (administrative {president, etc.}, legislative (House of Representatives and the Senate}, and the judicial {Supreme Court and lower level federal courts}) is to achieve a balance. Right now I content that the balance has been lost because judges are not only adjudicating they are legislating. The only way (that I see) to bring everything back into balance is to retire federal judges (by the president, as Newt Gingrich proposes) then have the president (administrative branch) nominate a new batch who understand our history and our Consitiuition then have the Congress (legislative branch) approve or vote down the nominations. If the process is followed there is no controlling by the administrative branch (the President) there is simply a process to correct something that has gotten out of control. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: based on our constituiition Ok, there's a difference there with "our" system. Mike Gaskey wrote: Yes, if and when you can afford to carry something to that level. So the problem isn't in the structure, but in the way to access this structure, right? Make it affordable to anybody. Mike Gaskey wrote: is to retire federal judges (by the president According to the president's beliefs!! That's highly dangerous IMO. You are just repeating the problem you want to solve, by authorizing the President to interpret the constitution. Adding approval of nomination by the Congress is not a kind of safety, and can be very partisan, more limited if there's something like a two third majority. B
Fold With Us! Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck Doch seh ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links
-
The issue has absolutely nothing to do with religion or science one way or the other. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: The issue has absolutely nothing to do with religion or science one way or the other. Bullshit. The only thing it has nothing to do with is science. It had everthing to do with religion, and appropriate separation of church and state. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
Which means that even you can have a go at debunking it. Why don't you enlighten us with some of your insight as to why it's not correct 100%? John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
John Theal wrote: Why don't you enlighten us with some of your insight as to why it's not correct 100%? Because I'm not a scientist. That doesn't change anything though does it? BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
Mike Gaskey wrote: based on our constituiition Ok, there's a difference there with "our" system. Mike Gaskey wrote: Yes, if and when you can afford to carry something to that level. So the problem isn't in the structure, but in the way to access this structure, right? Make it affordable to anybody. Mike Gaskey wrote: is to retire federal judges (by the president According to the president's beliefs!! That's highly dangerous IMO. You are just repeating the problem you want to solve, by authorizing the President to interpret the constitution. Adding approval of nomination by the Congress is not a kind of safety, and can be very partisan, more limited if there's something like a two third majority. B
Fold With Us! Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck Doch seh ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links
K(arl) wrote: So the problem isn't in the structure, but in the way to access this structure, right? Make it affordable to anybody Correct - but the Supreme Court is small and really couldn't address every potential case. K(arl) wrote: is to retire federal judges (by the president According to the president's beliefs!! That's highly dangerous IMO But retiring judges is one of his powers, it has been done before. K(arl) wrote: Adding approval of nomination by the Congress is not a kind of safety, and can be very partisan, more limited if there's something like a two third majority. Approval is one of Congresses powers, that is how it happens now. The bottom line is that what has been suggested by Gingrich is well within the powers of the various branches. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
To me a fact is absolute truth. This obviously differs from the scientific definition. I do not doubt evolution as such, but I have a difficult time believing we know for fact how life was created. If there is a good explanation that I haven't seen, I'd be happy to read it. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the Newbrianwelsch wrote: I do not doubt evolution as such, but I have a difficult time believing we know for fact how life was created. If there is a good explanation that I haven't seen, I'd be happy to read it. If you are referring to the first origin of life, then there are fragments of an explanation but, as far as I know, there is no definitive account. I expect that any decent biology textbook would make it clear that the knowledge concerning the first origin of life is significantly less than the knowledge concerning its subsequent evolution. As a point of information, the author of the textbook in question, Kenneth Miller, is a Christian. http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml[^] John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
-
Which means that even you can have a go at debunking it. Why don't you enlighten us with some of your insight as to why it's not correct 100%? John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
I'm an agnostic and believe evolution as "fact". The argument I've heard most often from creationists is this: While evolution does a nice job explaining change over time it says nothing about that initial "spark" that created life in even it's simplest form. Until science can create life in a petri dish their argument seems valid. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
There are plenty of people who believe both in evolution and God. They aren't mutually exclusive. The theory, as I understand it, is that evolution is possibly the method by which God created/creates life, or even that evolution was put in place by God. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the NewYes, I'm aware of the evolution + creationism hybrid. I think it has about as much chance of survival as the antelope + walrus hybrid. :P Seriously though, it's a bit of mental juggling on the part of the believers. It says quite clearly in the bible that god created the world as-is in a period of seven days and makes no mention of evolution. PS: I gave you a 5 to balance the 1.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »