"intelligent design" violated laws prohibiting the endorsement of religion

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179256,00.html

 

Im a constitutional conservative, but I have to go with the judge here. I think this sums up the debate:

How many college Biology or Natural Science Programs ( Not Phil.) that includes ID as part of the scientific program. If there are any how much of this material is prensented? It seems to me that a schools job is to prepare students for an academic or vocational future, and if colleges dont have a requirement for ID than it should not be taught. Kinda reminds me or Ebonics to be truthful.

 

I agree. I dont have a problem with creationism being taugh in a public school, but not as science. I understand that some folk hold a dear and litereal understanding of Genesis, I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that God made everything we see.

Long theory though..I think that God created the universe and created the rules. These rules, like gravity,time, & space are constant and he cannot break his rules. If I push you off a bridge you are going to splat unless something absorbs the force of you falling. Period. God cant break his own rules, but that doesnt mean that miracles dont happen, but alot of time you hear a story of " if he was six inches this way he would be dead". I think that is all part of Gods perfect plan or in this case system, which is physically explained with science. Most of the events in genesis happen in the order as life appeared here. Light, air and water, the fish, mammels, man. God created the world with the materials availible, and within the rules that HE set...the only one he would need to follow.Just a though, but this theory, read it in a Steven hawkins book, seems to sew up the seperation between science and religion. Just a though....

But I cannot find a single institution of higher learning that has ID as part of the Biology Program. I think a Public Schools job is to prepare us for the Job Force or College. I mean really, no one, outside of a select few, really cares or needs to know how a flower reproduces, so I have always though of Academics in the School system as a prep for college. No one takes biology in High school and goes to work for a lab.

I also have a family member with a Bio degree who claims that there is overwelming evidence if people investigated all the details. Are some thing unexplained. Yes. But the thing the are pretty solid on are unwavering. His favorite example is a skeleton found in Gaul that had neanderthal and homo-sapian traits. Interbreading. I still dont think this is outside of the will of our greater power. Perfect Plan-Perfect System. I always had to wonder how you would explain DNA to a shepard or fisherman who could barely read. Understanding that "God did it" was enough. I still think "god did it" because of his laws of physics, biology, or chemistry...

Glad to see you still here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It is interesting that you should say that God created all the rules and He cannot violate His own rules. I've done a bit of theology (though, unfortunately I washed from divinity school), but I seem to remember miracles being defined as times when God suspends His own laws of nature. So, the question becomes: How does one reconcile these two positions?

 

Ill have to sit on it a bit. It is possible that the exceptions were made prior to the creation of the universe. Unlimted foresight would supply God with the ability to know all that is going to happen and set the proper event in motion. SO from the outside it appears as a miracle, but essentialls Gods saying " I ment to do that". They can show that the Red Sea cna be parted with the right eviromental conditions. I guess Moses had perfect timeing, or perfect timeing was planned for him...


Most Physicist will abmit that before the big bang ( or the light) that anything was possible because the laws of science as we know them no longer apply. One reason i like this theory is because it demonstrates the absolution of the supreme being. Our universe is but a single though in Gods Mind

 

Betwixt and between the two positions, would you:

(a) hold to the notion that God created all of the laws of the universe and cannot break His own laws, thus denying that a miracle can be the suspension of the laws of nature, replacing the second notion with the notion that all miracles must have some scientific explanation

OR

(b) hold to the notion that miracles are a suspension of the laws of nature, thus revising the first notion to say that God created all of the laws of the universe but reserved the option to suspend those laws whenever He felt like it?

 

The sad thing about all this is that it had to come before a federal court and all the expense associated with it to debunk this hogwash..... The only context in which God should be invoked is to thank Him that sane minds are still present in the judiciary regarding separation of church and state, and separation of myth from fact.

 

Ted....Man your making my brain swell.....Ill have think on this a bit. Some miracle seem pretty clear, like walking on water, or curing a blind man. Let me steam on it a bit.

It seems that this isnt the first time that science and theology have crossed swords. At one time the sun went around the Earth and we were the center of the universe. Now we know that isnt true. I also seem to remeber the Catholic Church (for what that means to you, Im catholic so...) issueing a statement recently that said that Creationism was not based in fact and that genesis was presented in a way for people to understand, but it was not a litereal interpitation.

Just a thought...

 

challah fellow well met

Since that skeleton was found in Gaul, is it an example of French interbreading?
Or just a croissant?

 

I have my qualms about a judge - namely a federal judge, but any judge - telling local authories what they can and can't teach. Can you spell 'intrusiveness?'

But the debate raised a theory, and many smart people (not to add most less than smart folks), fell to the appeal of the need to teach theory. This is an appeal to fairness. But even the Templeton Foundation, an organization devoted to increasing religion's respectablility, abandoned attempts to fund research into "intelligent design." They tried to find such proposals but couldn't.

Now, ID isn't the only fruitless theory competing with neo-Darwinian evolution. There's the theory of Aryan racial superiority - should we not teach this too? What about Lamarkism? - the theory that experiences acquired can be passed on reporductively? There are lots of false and fruitless theories to teach that are important to people during high school.

But if we admit one in on such grounds, shouldn't all be taught? Admitting a fashionable guess as 'science' is frought with problems.

 

I have read that Biola University and Bryan College both do this (The latter in a book by one of Darwin's descendants).

 

Checked them both out. Very Christian Schools. Hey dont get me wrong, I believe, but these dont really count as "reputable" science programs.

I still have yet to see any REAL SCIENTIFIC evidence of ID. Remember a theory is science is supported by evidence. This is part of the problem with the presentation of ID. Theory in this context is scientific, not a perry mason theory.....


As for beind a decendent. I have a direct sibling who is a total moron, so genes matter little...

 

If we take the argument from design seriously, it seems to me that the most likely candidate is Utgardr Loki.

www.simpletoremember.com/growth/SpiderManipulation.pdf

 

If we take the argument from design seriously, it seems to me that the most likely candidate is Utgardr Loki.

www.simpletoremember.com/growth/SpiderManipulation.pdf

 

What I want to know is this: with a world as messed up as our own, who could possibly believe it to be the result of INTELLIGENT design?

 

I don't like this

The Judge's decision, if I understand the circumstances, was legally correct.

When you do a "Lemon" type analysis, you have to figure out what the PURPOSE behind the expression was. If the purpose was to inject religion into the science curriculum of a public school, as it plainly was, then the expression is prohibited. In this case, the Judge found that the proponants actually "whited out" the obviously religious term "creationism" and wrote in "intellegent design".

But when I read the opinion itself, I was struck by its needlessly harsh language. The better rule for trial Judges to follow, IMHO, is to make only those findings of fact that are supported by the evidence and are actually necessary to support the Court's decision. And, to the maximum extent possible, these findings need to be couched in "neutral" language.

He could have said, "The intent behind the expression was to teach a religious doctrine." and LEFT it at that. If he wanted to impose punitive damages or attorneys' fees, he could have said something like, "The actions of the school board were a knowing and intentional violation of the plaintiffs' right to be free of established religion." Nothing more would have been necessary.

His whole order could have been five pages long, including caption and signature.

As it is, even though the Judge himself is a Bush appointee and religious conservative, he now looks biased as hell and that reflects badly on the Court and the judiciary as a whole.