A Victory...
-
This is exactly the type of attitude that scientists should not have. No good scientist is an absolutist. But yes...Newton was wrong. His theories are an approximation of a more accurate (but not necessarily "true") theory developed by Einstein. This is not an improvement, but a correction. Einstein's theories superscede Newton's. You obviously know very little about the subject to make such a statement. Secondly, science also demands reproducibility. Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified. It is certainly not "fact" and should never be treated as such. Remember when a cold fusion reaction was created in the 80's? Remember how it fell apart when it was proven irreproducable? It's amazing hos modern scientists have completely brushed aside this concept when it comes to evolution. Thirdly, the constitution never states or implies a separation of church and state. In fact, it state that congress shall not keep its citizens from praciticing religion, which it now frequently does via the courts. Fourthly, ID does not even violate the fabricated "separations clause" because it does not endorse any particular religion. Fifthly, it IS fanatical behavior because ANY challenge to current evolutionary theory is immediately attacked. The concept of fair and open discouse does not apply to evolutionary biologists. I remember reading a book a decade ago that simply challenged whether humans evolved on open plains (suggesting they had evolved in swamps) and the author was ridiculed in the scientific community for challenging the status quo, even though her evidence was quite compelling. Modern biologists need to take a clue from physicists and realize that their understanding of the world is anything but absolute. I swear the way they're behaving reminds me of the Christian reaction to evolution over a century ago.
espeir wrote:
Secondly, science also demands reproducibility. Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified.
please, for the record, tell us what you mean by "evolutionary theory".
espeir wrote:
In fact, it state that congress shall not keep its citizens from praciticing religion, which it now frequently does via the courts.
actually, it doesn't say that either. but please give us an example where "the courts" have stopped anyone from "praciticing religion".
espeir wrote:
ID does not even violate the fabricated "separations clause" because it does not endorse any particular religion
that's an intentional dodge on the IDists part. but, scratch an IDist, find a Christian[^]
espeir wrote:
it IS fanatical behavior because ANY challenge to current evolutionary theory is immediately attacked
ah... here we go. out come the talking points.
espeir wrote:
The concept of fair and open discouse does not apply to evolutionary biologists
that makes no sense at all, except as a lame ad hominem attack on "evolutionary biologists".
espeir wrote:
Modern biologists need to take a clue from physicists and realize that their understanding of the world is anything but absolute.
another ad hom ? but as long as we're talking about physics: how about that radiological dating ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 13:41 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
-
espeir wrote:
Secondly, science also demands reproducibility. Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified.
please, for the record, tell us what you mean by "evolutionary theory".
espeir wrote:
In fact, it state that congress shall not keep its citizens from praciticing religion, which it now frequently does via the courts.
actually, it doesn't say that either. but please give us an example where "the courts" have stopped anyone from "praciticing religion".
espeir wrote:
ID does not even violate the fabricated "separations clause" because it does not endorse any particular religion
that's an intentional dodge on the IDists part. but, scratch an IDist, find a Christian[^]
espeir wrote:
it IS fanatical behavior because ANY challenge to current evolutionary theory is immediately attacked
ah... here we go. out come the talking points.
espeir wrote:
The concept of fair and open discouse does not apply to evolutionary biologists
that makes no sense at all, except as a lame ad hominem attack on "evolutionary biologists".
espeir wrote:
Modern biologists need to take a clue from physicists and realize that their understanding of the world is anything but absolute.
another ad hom ? but as long as we're talking about physics: how about that radiological dating ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 13:41 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
please give us an example where "the courts" have stopped anyone from "praciticing religion". Where did any court acquire the power to define what "praciticing religion" means? I would be willing to bet that if the court was defining what "practicing speech" meant for you you would not be quite so casual about it. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 13:39 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
-
This is exactly the type of attitude that scientists should not have. No good scientist is an absolutist. But yes...Newton was wrong. His theories are an approximation of a more accurate (but not necessarily "true") theory developed by Einstein. This is not an improvement, but a correction. Einstein's theories superscede Newton's. You obviously know very little about the subject to make such a statement. Secondly, science also demands reproducibility. Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified. It is certainly not "fact" and should never be treated as such. Remember when a cold fusion reaction was created in the 80's? Remember how it fell apart when it was proven irreproducable? It's amazing hos modern scientists have completely brushed aside this concept when it comes to evolution. Thirdly, the constitution never states or implies a separation of church and state. In fact, it state that congress shall not keep its citizens from praciticing religion, which it now frequently does via the courts. Fourthly, ID does not even violate the fabricated "separations clause" because it does not endorse any particular religion. Fifthly, it IS fanatical behavior because ANY challenge to current evolutionary theory is immediately attacked. The concept of fair and open discouse does not apply to evolutionary biologists. I remember reading a book a decade ago that simply challenged whether humans evolved on open plains (suggesting they had evolved in swamps) and the author was ridiculed in the scientific community for challenging the status quo, even though her evidence was quite compelling. Modern biologists need to take a clue from physicists and realize that their understanding of the world is anything but absolute. I swear the way they're behaving reminds me of the Christian reaction to evolution over a century ago.
Okay, let's be pedantic. Your exact statement was: Well it turns out that Newton was wrong Newton was not wrong at all. Newton was imprecise and his theories failed to account for certain phenomena that occur when the velocity of an object approaches the velocity of light. Furthermore, Newton's theories did not contain elements of relativity and, unlike Einstein's theory, coordinate systems were important. To claim he was "wrong" is simply not correct and reveals your misunderstanding.
espeir wrote:
Secondly, science also demands reproducibility. Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified.
In fact, you are wrong about this. In a recent paper by some evolutionary biologists at Trinity College Dublin, they found evidence of reproducibility in evolutionary mechanisms at the molecular level by studying populations of drosophila melanogaster. While genotype and phenotype transtions were not observed to be reliably reproducible, the number of steps in the process was. This is not the only evidence.
espeir wrote:
It's amazing hos modern scientists have completely brushed aside this concept when it comes to evolution.
Not at all. Why do you even attempt to claim this?
espeir wrote:
Fourthly, ID does not even violate the fabricated "separations clause" because it does not endorse any particular religion.
Again, you are wrong. If you actually took time to read the decision of the court, you would realize where your mistake is in this interpretation. Furthermore, ID endorses theistic religions. Or, are you perhaps claiming that ID is not religion in disguise? If you want to take that avenue, that's fine, but then ID is not science either. Since ID is neither science or religion, clearly then you are advocating the teaching of fictitious and unfounded mythologies as competition to empirical evidence based science. You fail science 101 with flying colours. Just what do you want taught in the classroom then?
espeir wrote:
Fifthly, it IS fanatical behavior because ANY challenge to current evolutionary theory is immediately attacked.
Wrong again. Fair challenges that provide concrete and opposing evidence to evolution are fairly considered. Absolutely. ID is not a challenger to evolution becau
-
I fully support keeping religion out of schools, but the court has no business forcing it out. I fully applauded the local citizens in Pensylvania defeating the school board in order to control their local schools. Why did the court even have to get involved when the issue had already been settled democratically? Judge John Jones ruled the school board had violated the constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools. The constitution makes no mention of any such ban. The separation of church and state is enshrined in the US constitution. So is free exercise of religion. For the federal government to promote secularism in schools is just as bad as for it promote religion. The government should be entirely neutral, takeing no action at all regarding whether one or the other is promoted but requiring the local school district to settle the issue as the people there best see fit. To do anything else is an act of tyranny. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 13:19 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
Darth Stanious wrote:
I fully support keeping religion out of schools, but the court has no business forcing it out.
The courts are not forcing religion from the schools. The courts are maintaining the credibility of the educational curriculum.
Darth Stanious wrote:
The government should be entirely neutral, takeing no action at all regarding whether one or the other is promoted but requiring the local school district to settle the issue as the people there best see fit.
Science is neutral, religion is not. You cannot challenge religious ideals. They are faith-based and set. Science is, by definition, the opposite.
-
espeir wrote:
Secondly, science also demands reproducibility. Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified.
please, for the record, tell us what you mean by "evolutionary theory".
espeir wrote:
In fact, it state that congress shall not keep its citizens from praciticing religion, which it now frequently does via the courts.
actually, it doesn't say that either. but please give us an example where "the courts" have stopped anyone from "praciticing religion".
espeir wrote:
ID does not even violate the fabricated "separations clause" because it does not endorse any particular religion
that's an intentional dodge on the IDists part. but, scratch an IDist, find a Christian[^]
espeir wrote:
it IS fanatical behavior because ANY challenge to current evolutionary theory is immediately attacked
ah... here we go. out come the talking points.
espeir wrote:
The concept of fair and open discouse does not apply to evolutionary biologists
that makes no sense at all, except as a lame ad hominem attack on "evolutionary biologists".
espeir wrote:
Modern biologists need to take a clue from physicists and realize that their understanding of the world is anything but absolute.
another ad hom ? but as long as we're talking about physics: how about that radiological dating ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 13:41 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
Chris Losinger wrote:
please, for the record, tell us what you mean by "evolutionary theory".
As in natural selection being the sole driving force force between interspecial evolution. This may or may not be true (most likely true based on the evidence), but it is also subject to challenge. Scientists should be logical and open-minded...not the baffoons they have devolved into.
Chris Losinger wrote:
actually, it doesn't say that either. but please give us an example where "the courts" have stopped anyone from "praciticing religion".
Actually it does. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That means every time the courts prohibit school prayer (for example), they are ignoring what the constitution explicitly states.
Chris Losinger wrote:
that's an intentional dodge on the IDists part. but, scratch an IDist, find a Christian
ad-hominem against Christians.
Chris Losinger wrote:
ah... here we go. out come the talking points.
Ad hominem
Chris Losinger wrote:
that makes no sense at all, except as a lame ad hominem attack on "evolutionary biologists".
I provided evidence, making your claim an ad hominem against me...How ironic.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but as long as we're talking about physics: how about that radiological dating ?
Radiological dating is fairly accurate (and I accept as generally reliable). however, even its creator admitted that it's flawed. By the way, I accept current evolutionary theory as strongly supported, but I am not fanatical materialist fundamentalist, so I'm open to challenging theories.
-
This is exactly the type of attitude that scientists should not have. No good scientist is an absolutist. But yes...Newton was wrong. His theories are an approximation of a more accurate (but not necessarily "true") theory developed by Einstein. This is not an improvement, but a correction. Einstein's theories superscede Newton's. You obviously know very little about the subject to make such a statement. Secondly, science also demands reproducibility. Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified. It is certainly not "fact" and should never be treated as such. Remember when a cold fusion reaction was created in the 80's? Remember how it fell apart when it was proven irreproducable? It's amazing hos modern scientists have completely brushed aside this concept when it comes to evolution. Thirdly, the constitution never states or implies a separation of church and state. In fact, it state that congress shall not keep its citizens from praciticing religion, which it now frequently does via the courts. Fourthly, ID does not even violate the fabricated "separations clause" because it does not endorse any particular religion. Fifthly, it IS fanatical behavior because ANY challenge to current evolutionary theory is immediately attacked. The concept of fair and open discouse does not apply to evolutionary biologists. I remember reading a book a decade ago that simply challenged whether humans evolved on open plains (suggesting they had evolved in swamps) and the author was ridiculed in the scientific community for challenging the status quo, even though her evidence was quite compelling. Modern biologists need to take a clue from physicists and realize that their understanding of the world is anything but absolute. I swear the way they're behaving reminds me of the Christian reaction to evolution over a century ago.
espeir wrote:
Secondly, science also demands reproducibility. Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified.
Thats just insane. Evolutionary theory is based upon nothing but reproducible data - probably more so than any other field of science. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
I fully support keeping religion out of schools, but the court has no business forcing it out.
The courts are not forcing religion from the schools. The courts are maintaining the credibility of the educational curriculum.
Darth Stanious wrote:
The government should be entirely neutral, takeing no action at all regarding whether one or the other is promoted but requiring the local school district to settle the issue as the people there best see fit.
Science is neutral, religion is not. You cannot challenge religious ideals. They are faith-based and set. Science is, by definition, the opposite.
thealj wrote:
The courts are maintaining the credibility of the educational curriculum.
...by forcing religion from school. In any case, where did the courts acquire any mandate to involve itself with educational curriculum? Where is that at in the constitution? For that matter, where the hell is public education mentioned in the constitution?
thealj wrote:
Science is neutral, religion is not. You cannot challenge religious ideals. They are faith-based and set. Science is, by definition, the opposite.
So what? That is a very secular world view, and I embrace it fervently. But, how does "separation of church and state" become "joined at the hip secularism and state"? Science may be neutral but if the state has assumed the power to push science as an alternative to religion, than the state is certainly not neutral at all - it has become overtly anti-religious and is therefore in violation of separation of church and state. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
please, for the record, tell us what you mean by "evolutionary theory".
As in natural selection being the sole driving force force between interspecial evolution. This may or may not be true (most likely true based on the evidence), but it is also subject to challenge. Scientists should be logical and open-minded...not the baffoons they have devolved into.
Chris Losinger wrote:
actually, it doesn't say that either. but please give us an example where "the courts" have stopped anyone from "praciticing religion".
Actually it does. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That means every time the courts prohibit school prayer (for example), they are ignoring what the constitution explicitly states.
Chris Losinger wrote:
that's an intentional dodge on the IDists part. but, scratch an IDist, find a Christian
ad-hominem against Christians.
Chris Losinger wrote:
ah... here we go. out come the talking points.
Ad hominem
Chris Losinger wrote:
that makes no sense at all, except as a lame ad hominem attack on "evolutionary biologists".
I provided evidence, making your claim an ad hominem against me...How ironic.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but as long as we're talking about physics: how about that radiological dating ?
Radiological dating is fairly accurate (and I accept as generally reliable). however, even its creator admitted that it's flawed. By the way, I accept current evolutionary theory as strongly supported, but I am not fanatical materialist fundamentalist, so I'm open to challenging theories.
espeir wrote:
Scientists should be logical and open-minded...not the baffoons they have devolved into.
This is just dumb and almost as insulting as your intelligence, but not quite. When you have nothing enlightening left to say, resort to insults. Nice.
espeir wrote:
Actually it does. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That means every time the courts prohibit school prayer (for example), they are ignoring what the constitution explicitly states.
So by allowing prayer in schools are we thus not respecting the establishment of religion? Maybe then we should ban it, right? Oh, but then again we're prohibiting free exercise in that case.
espeir wrote:
Radiological dating is fairly accurate (and I accept as generally reliable). however, even its creator admitted that it's flawed.
Who, then, created radiological dating? Where is his statement admitting it is flawed? Also, while you're doing that research, let me know how it is flawed.
-
thealj wrote:
The courts are maintaining the credibility of the educational curriculum.
...by forcing religion from school. In any case, where did the courts acquire any mandate to involve itself with educational curriculum? Where is that at in the constitution? For that matter, where the hell is public education mentioned in the constitution?
thealj wrote:
Science is neutral, religion is not. You cannot challenge religious ideals. They are faith-based and set. Science is, by definition, the opposite.
So what? That is a very secular world view, and I embrace it fervently. But, how does "separation of church and state" become "joined at the hip secularism and state"? Science may be neutral but if the state has assumed the power to push science as an alternative to religion, than the state is certainly not neutral at all - it has become overtly anti-religious and is therefore in violation of separation of church and state. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
by forcing religion from school.
Removing ID from the curriculum is not removing or forcing religion from the schools. It is removing bogus and unscientific ideas from the educational system. While the curriculum may not be mentioned in the constitution, the task of setting school curriculums needs to be approved by an authoritative body. Clearly the assembly best-equipped to decide upon educational standards is a federal government. How else do you achieve standarized education? In fact, what possible argument could there be NOT to have the curriculum approved by a government body? You would prefer each state to have it's own role in that decision? Do you realize the nightmare that would create?
Darth Stanious wrote:
Science may be neutral but if the state has assumed the power to push science as an alternative to religion, than the state is certainly not neutral at all
Nobody, particularly the government, is forcing science upon anybody. Nor are they pushing science as an alternative to religion. The debate is soley about NOT teaching UNscientific ideas in a SCIENCE class. The distinction is clear. If the courts have to intervene in order to silence those that claim otherwise, then so be it. I don't like the fact that the courts are involved either, but I also cannot tolerate a bunch of uneducated people deciding and redefining what is and what is not science. Since they will not halt their "crusade", 3rd party intervention was needed. So to the courts it went.
-
This is exactly the type of attitude that scientists should not have. No good scientist is an absolutist. But yes...Newton was wrong. His theories are an approximation of a more accurate (but not necessarily "true") theory developed by Einstein. This is not an improvement, but a correction. Einstein's theories superscede Newton's. You obviously know very little about the subject to make such a statement. Secondly, science also demands reproducibility. Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified. It is certainly not "fact" and should never be treated as such. Remember when a cold fusion reaction was created in the 80's? Remember how it fell apart when it was proven irreproducable? It's amazing hos modern scientists have completely brushed aside this concept when it comes to evolution. Thirdly, the constitution never states or implies a separation of church and state. In fact, it state that congress shall not keep its citizens from praciticing religion, which it now frequently does via the courts. Fourthly, ID does not even violate the fabricated "separations clause" because it does not endorse any particular religion. Fifthly, it IS fanatical behavior because ANY challenge to current evolutionary theory is immediately attacked. The concept of fair and open discouse does not apply to evolutionary biologists. I remember reading a book a decade ago that simply challenged whether humans evolved on open plains (suggesting they had evolved in swamps) and the author was ridiculed in the scientific community for challenging the status quo, even though her evidence was quite compelling. Modern biologists need to take a clue from physicists and realize that their understanding of the world is anything but absolute. I swear the way they're behaving reminds me of the Christian reaction to evolution over a century ago.
espeir wrote:
Thirdly, the constitution never states or implies a separation of church and state. In fact, it state that congress shall not keep its citizens from praciticing religion, which it now frequently does via the courts.
Once again false statements laced with bits of truth. You are correct that the contstitution never says the actual phrase "separation of church and state". That phrase was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. However the first amendment does more than imply that there needs to be a separation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
by forcing religion from school.
Removing ID from the curriculum is not removing or forcing religion from the schools. It is removing bogus and unscientific ideas from the educational system. While the curriculum may not be mentioned in the constitution, the task of setting school curriculums needs to be approved by an authoritative body. Clearly the assembly best-equipped to decide upon educational standards is a federal government. How else do you achieve standarized education? In fact, what possible argument could there be NOT to have the curriculum approved by a government body? You would prefer each state to have it's own role in that decision? Do you realize the nightmare that would create?
Darth Stanious wrote:
Science may be neutral but if the state has assumed the power to push science as an alternative to religion, than the state is certainly not neutral at all
Nobody, particularly the government, is forcing science upon anybody. Nor are they pushing science as an alternative to religion. The debate is soley about NOT teaching UNscientific ideas in a SCIENCE class. The distinction is clear. If the courts have to intervene in order to silence those that claim otherwise, then so be it. I don't like the fact that the courts are involved either, but I also cannot tolerate a bunch of uneducated people deciding and redefining what is and what is not science. Since they will not halt their "crusade", 3rd party intervention was needed. So to the courts it went.
thealj wrote:
It is removing bogus and unscientific ideas from the educational system.
First you define ID as a fundamentally religious concept and than you say forcing it out of school is not forcing religion out. I think that is an intellectually indefensible position.
thealj wrote:
what possible argument could there be NOT to have the curriculum approved by a government body?
The argument that no government body has ever been granted the constitutional authority to do any such thing. The very notion that the government has some sort of vague mandate to both define a curriculum and use that curriculum to force a government sanctioned body of "knowledge" upon the citizens is trully horrifying.
thealj wrote:
You would prefer each state to have it's own role in that decision? Do you realize the nightmare that would create?
Yeah, I think that is a nightmare otherwise known as Jefferonian Democracy. I'm sure the concept is a great source of fear for the Marxist among us.
thealj wrote:
Since they will not halt their "crusade", 3rd party intervention was needed. So to the courts it went.
So the courts used this issue as an excuse to silence those with whom they disagree. Thanks for reminding my why I am a conservative. With any luck this will finally get to the Supreme Court and the new Justices will make sure this psycho decision is overturned. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 14:33 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
-
espeir wrote:
Thirdly, the constitution never states or implies a separation of church and state. In fact, it state that congress shall not keep its citizens from praciticing religion, which it now frequently does via the courts.
Once again false statements laced with bits of truth. You are correct that the contstitution never says the actual phrase "separation of church and state". That phrase was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. However the first amendment does more than imply that there needs to be a separation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
Jared Parsons wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it.
Why is teaching ID in a public school viewed as "establishing a religion" rather than "free exercise of religion" "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
please, for the record, tell us what you mean by "evolutionary theory".
As in natural selection being the sole driving force force between interspecial evolution. This may or may not be true (most likely true based on the evidence), but it is also subject to challenge. Scientists should be logical and open-minded...not the baffoons they have devolved into.
Chris Losinger wrote:
actually, it doesn't say that either. but please give us an example where "the courts" have stopped anyone from "praciticing religion".
Actually it does. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That means every time the courts prohibit school prayer (for example), they are ignoring what the constitution explicitly states.
Chris Losinger wrote:
that's an intentional dodge on the IDists part. but, scratch an IDist, find a Christian
ad-hominem against Christians.
Chris Losinger wrote:
ah... here we go. out come the talking points.
Ad hominem
Chris Losinger wrote:
that makes no sense at all, except as a lame ad hominem attack on "evolutionary biologists".
I provided evidence, making your claim an ad hominem against me...How ironic.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but as long as we're talking about physics: how about that radiological dating ?
Radiological dating is fairly accurate (and I accept as generally reliable). however, even its creator admitted that it's flawed. By the way, I accept current evolutionary theory as strongly supported, but I am not fanatical materialist fundamentalist, so I'm open to challenging theories.
espeir wrote:
As in natural selection being the sole driving force force between interspecial evolution
what does "force force between interspecial evolution" mean ?
espeir wrote:
but it is also subject to challenge
well of course it is. but nobody has yet come up with anything better.
espeir wrote:
Scientists should be logical and open-minded...not the baffoons they have devolved into.
WTF ? you slander millions of people based on their profession ? that's just over-the-top ridiculous.
espeir wrote:
The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
you're right. i was thinking of the first part of the sentence. nonetheless...
espeir wrote:
That means every time the courts prohibit school prayer (for example), they are ignoring what the constitution explicitly states.
if a school requires prayer, it infringes on the religion of anyone who doesn't practice the school's favored religion both by requiring students who don't belong to that religion to participate and by forcing taxpayers to pay for the practice of a religion they may not belong to. you want to pray in school? go to a religious school. simple as that.
espeir wrote:
ad-hominem against Christians.
utter nonsense. that in no way insults Christians. it insults the liars who claim ID is not a front for Bible-based Creationism when it's plainly obvious, from the IDist's own words, that ID is Creationism doctored up to make it past the legal hurdles that it couldn't clear otherwise. ID is a fraud.
espeir wrote:
Ad hominem
statement of fact. the claim that there is some kind of conspiracy of scientists trying to keep down new theories is a staple IDist talking point. don't want to be accused of using them? don't use them.
espeir wrote:
I provided evidence, making your claim an ad hominem against me
nonsense. again, statement of fact. "The concept of fair and open discouse does not apply to evolutionary biologists" literally makes no sense, and can only be seen as
-
espeir wrote:
As in natural selection being the sole driving force force between interspecial evolution
what does "force force between interspecial evolution" mean ?
espeir wrote:
but it is also subject to challenge
well of course it is. but nobody has yet come up with anything better.
espeir wrote:
Scientists should be logical and open-minded...not the baffoons they have devolved into.
WTF ? you slander millions of people based on their profession ? that's just over-the-top ridiculous.
espeir wrote:
The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
you're right. i was thinking of the first part of the sentence. nonetheless...
espeir wrote:
That means every time the courts prohibit school prayer (for example), they are ignoring what the constitution explicitly states.
if a school requires prayer, it infringes on the religion of anyone who doesn't practice the school's favored religion both by requiring students who don't belong to that religion to participate and by forcing taxpayers to pay for the practice of a religion they may not belong to. you want to pray in school? go to a religious school. simple as that.
espeir wrote:
ad-hominem against Christians.
utter nonsense. that in no way insults Christians. it insults the liars who claim ID is not a front for Bible-based Creationism when it's plainly obvious, from the IDist's own words, that ID is Creationism doctored up to make it past the legal hurdles that it couldn't clear otherwise. ID is a fraud.
espeir wrote:
Ad hominem
statement of fact. the claim that there is some kind of conspiracy of scientists trying to keep down new theories is a staple IDist talking point. don't want to be accused of using them? don't use them.
espeir wrote:
I provided evidence, making your claim an ad hominem against me
nonsense. again, statement of fact. "The concept of fair and open discouse does not apply to evolutionary biologists" literally makes no sense, and can only be seen as
Chris Losinger wrote:
by forcing taxpayers to pay for the practice of a religion they may not belong to.
But it is the government forcing the taxpayers to pay, not the religion. Think about that for just a minute - because the government forces us to pay taxes it therefore has the power to regulate all those areas of our lives in which those confiscated revenues are spent? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
espeir wrote:
Thirdly, the constitution never states or implies a separation of church and state. In fact, it state that congress shall not keep its citizens from praciticing religion, which it now frequently does via the courts.
Once again false statements laced with bits of truth. You are correct that the contstitution never says the actual phrase "separation of church and state". That phrase was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. However the first amendment does more than imply that there needs to be a separation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
Jared Parsons wrote:
That phrase was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1802.
And is taken out of context. He actually defended freedom of religion in the obscure and private letter you're referring to, but encouraging state governments not to establish official religions (as the constitution clearly allows). Nowhere in any text does any founding father state that there must be an absolute separation of church and state as it is currently exercised (or anywhere near it). And neither are those words used by any other founding father in any other known instance.
Jared Parsons wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it.
It implies no such thing and I challenge you to show how! It only states that Congress (the federal body that establishes laws on a federal level) may not specifically pass a law establishing a religion. That means congress cannot say that Christianity (or atheism) is the official religion of the nation. Likewise, it cannot pass a law saying that religion cannot be taught in public schools. It must remain neutral and is up to the public. It does not say that states cannot establish an official religion. Or that municipalities can't establish one. It only says that the congress can't. This is a right (by the 10th amendment) specifically given to the state and local governments to manage. The whole "separations" clause is just made up by atheists trying to shove their religion down everybodys' throats via tyrannical means.
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
by forcing religion from school.
Removing ID from the curriculum is not removing or forcing religion from the schools. It is removing bogus and unscientific ideas from the educational system. While the curriculum may not be mentioned in the constitution, the task of setting school curriculums needs to be approved by an authoritative body. Clearly the assembly best-equipped to decide upon educational standards is a federal government. How else do you achieve standarized education? In fact, what possible argument could there be NOT to have the curriculum approved by a government body? You would prefer each state to have it's own role in that decision? Do you realize the nightmare that would create?
Darth Stanious wrote:
Science may be neutral but if the state has assumed the power to push science as an alternative to religion, than the state is certainly not neutral at all
Nobody, particularly the government, is forcing science upon anybody. Nor are they pushing science as an alternative to religion. The debate is soley about NOT teaching UNscientific ideas in a SCIENCE class. The distinction is clear. If the courts have to intervene in order to silence those that claim otherwise, then so be it. I don't like the fact that the courts are involved either, but I also cannot tolerate a bunch of uneducated people deciding and redefining what is and what is not science. Since they will not halt their "crusade", 3rd party intervention was needed. So to the courts it went.
thealj wrote:
Removing ID from the curriculum is not removing or forcing religion from the schools
Did you read the ruling judges statements on this case? He stated exactly the opposite.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
by forcing taxpayers to pay for the practice of a religion they may not belong to.
But it is the government forcing the taxpayers to pay, not the religion. Think about that for just a minute - because the government forces us to pay taxes it therefore has the power to regulate all those areas of our lives in which those confiscated revenues are spent? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Given:
Darth Stanious wrote:
But it is the government forcing the taxpayers to pay, not the religion.
and
Darth Stanious wrote:
it therefore has the power to regulate all those areas of our lives in which those confiscated revenues are spent
And taking into account
The first amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
What exactly is your point? -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
thealj wrote:
It is removing bogus and unscientific ideas from the educational system.
First you define ID as a fundamentally religious concept and than you say forcing it out of school is not forcing religion out. I think that is an intellectually indefensible position.
thealj wrote:
what possible argument could there be NOT to have the curriculum approved by a government body?
The argument that no government body has ever been granted the constitutional authority to do any such thing. The very notion that the government has some sort of vague mandate to both define a curriculum and use that curriculum to force a government sanctioned body of "knowledge" upon the citizens is trully horrifying.
thealj wrote:
You would prefer each state to have it's own role in that decision? Do you realize the nightmare that would create?
Yeah, I think that is a nightmare otherwise known as Jefferonian Democracy. I'm sure the concept is a great source of fear for the Marxist among us.
thealj wrote:
Since they will not halt their "crusade", 3rd party intervention was needed. So to the courts it went.
So the courts used this issue as an excuse to silence those with whom they disagree. Thanks for reminding my why I am a conservative. With any luck this will finally get to the Supreme Court and the new Justices will make sure this psycho decision is overturned. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 14:33 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
Darth Stanious wrote:
The very notion that the government has some sort of vague mandate to both define a curriculum and use that curriculum to force a government sanctioned body of "knowledge" upon the citizens is trully horrifying.
Then you must be mortified by No Child Left Behind. Glad to hear it.
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it.
Why is teaching ID in a public school viewed as "establishing a religion" rather than "free exercise of religion" "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
A distinction made in the article was that it was wrong to teach ID in a public school Science class. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
thealj wrote:
The courts are maintaining the credibility of the educational curriculum.
...by forcing religion from school. In any case, where did the courts acquire any mandate to involve itself with educational curriculum? Where is that at in the constitution? For that matter, where the hell is public education mentioned in the constitution?
thealj wrote:
Science is neutral, religion is not. You cannot challenge religious ideals. They are faith-based and set. Science is, by definition, the opposite.
So what? That is a very secular world view, and I embrace it fervently. But, how does "separation of church and state" become "joined at the hip secularism and state"? Science may be neutral but if the state has assumed the power to push science as an alternative to religion, than the state is certainly not neutral at all - it has become overtly anti-religious and is therefore in violation of separation of church and state. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
For that matter, where the hell is public education mentioned in the constitution?
Congress is granted broad and sweeping Constitutional powers in two areas: 1) provide for the common defense, 2) promote the general welfare. Education is merely one example where Congress has chosen to promote the general welfare.