Evolution vs literal biblical interpretation: No Peace/No Surrender

[Robert Cooper]

Having read Judge Jones judgment as well as most of the reactions of various interested parties, I am struck by the secular inability to understand Evolution's opponents. I hope to provide some clarity.

Repeatedly we see editorials and opinions claiming that Christianity is not being attacked by Evolution, that Evolution and God can co-exist peacefully, that the problems arise when some Christians try to force their beliefs upon others.

And there is some truth to this, but not the whole truth. Within Christianity there is a broad spectrum of beliefs regarding the interpretation of the Bible.

On one hand there are those who see the Bible as a combination of history and metaphor: a collection of the stories and wisdom of Abraham's descendants in the Old Testament, a collection of stories and wisdom of Jesus of Nazareth and his followers in the New testament.

On the other hand there are those who see the Bible as a divinely-inspired document, every word the literal Truth as told by God through a variety of representatives. it is upon this faith that they build their religious beliefs.

It is true that for those whose religious beliefs interpret the Bible as history and metaphor that Evolution poses no threat.

But not true for those whose religion is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. For them, Evolution is a direct contradiction to their religious beliefs. The Bible describes six days of creation, co-existence between humans and all created animals, a global flood involving a family and ark that saved breeding pairs of every animal... neither Evolution nor Geology support these claims. Indeed, both sciences deal harshly with such claims.

Most certainly, when it comes to the question of how Humanity came to exist, the literalists and Evolution are most at odds with one another. While the Bible literally states Man was created in the image of God, Evolution clearly states that Humanity arose from preceding species of hominids that arose from preceding species of apes.

Evolution cannot offer any comfort for the literalists, and literalists cannot make any exceptions for Evolution yet remain true to its religious premise: the literal interpretation of the Bible.

In his decision on Kitmiller et al vs Dover, Judge Jones wrote:

"As articulated by the Supreme Court, under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Ammendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principle or primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13." (Page 90 Of Judge Jones' decision).

Note the words in Item 2: "its principle or primary effect advances or inhibits religion". Let me make it more clear: "its principle or primary effect ... inhibits religion".

In the case of Christian literalists, Evolution most certainly "inhibits" their religious beliefs, most especially their ability to teach their faith to their school-aged children attending public schools where Evolution is taught. There is no compromise possible between a strict literal interpretation of Genesis and the scientific certainty that supports the Evolution paradigm.

Now look at Item 3: "it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion". Can it not be argued that this is exactly what is happening within the community of Christian literalists?

On Page 36 of his decision, Judge Jones writes: "The Supreme Court instructed in Edwards that it has been particularly 'vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools'. 482 U.S. at 583-84. The Supreme Court went on to state:
Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family. Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary.
Id. (citing Grand Rapids Sch. Dist. v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 383 (1985); Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60 n.51)."

This might help some of you understand why the Christian literalists continually assert that Evolution is a "religion" and/or "philosophy". If you believe that Genesis is the literal truth of God, any contradiction cannot be true. "Science" is defined as that knowledge which does not conflict with an acceptance of the literal interpretation of the Bible. Since Evolution contradicts this interpretation, Evolution must not be "science". Ergo, Evolution is a faith-based pseudo-"science".

From that religious point of view, re-read that quote from the Supreme Court and you can see why Christian literalists seek an end to Evolution in the classroom. For the literalists, Evolution is the "religious view" that conflicts "with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family". And as SCOTUS states: "Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary."

As long as the courts adhere to an interpretation of Evolution as a secular science, the literalist interpretation of Evolution as a religion cannot stand. Thus the many attacks on Evolution's legitimacy as a secular science by literalists.

So far, Evolution stands.

But there is a brooding silence on the issue of secular education's impact on Christians whose religious beliefs require a literal interpretation of the Bible. The religious beliefs of these groups, often forming significant majorities, are under assault by secular education. The question: is the state actively working to undermine a religious group by teaching their children ("Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary") that there is no basis for literal belief in their sacred book?

I hope you can see this is not a simple open-and-shut case. The danger of the state attacking a religion is just as serious as the state imposing a religion. In this case, tax dollars from Christian literalists are used to fund a secular education that can't help but challenge the religious beliefs of Christian literalists. They are being required to pay for the demise of their own faith.

When the Constitution was written, Darwin hadn't described Evolution. Back then, secular education did not contradict the Bible in any significant way. Constitutional literalists like Scalia will have a difficult time working through this issue. It was unforeseen.

Under these conditions, there can be no surrender and there will be no peace.

For the sake of completeness, I'll point out I am not a Christian literalist, and that I hold Evolution to be good science. I think that if the Democrats are to address this issue, it is important they understand it.

I hope I've contributed to that understanding.

(edit: typo)

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. They are allowed to give their kids notes to get out of Sex Ed classes so

why not notes to get out of biology?

[Robert Cooper]

2. Pg 47 of Judge Jones' decision:...

...

"...the stark choice that exists between submitting to state-sponsored religious instruction and leaving the public school classroom presents a clear message to students 'who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.' "

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. The alternative is a lot of kids getting sent out of the room when ID is

taught.

[Robert Cooper]

6. That would be one alternative...

...but not the only alternative.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Because Biology is required on a transcript to get in to college

Sex ed is not.

[Zenlitened]

3. Well, then polyester conflicts with their biblical literalism, too.

More to the point, the teaching of evolution has a secular purpose. Its principle purpose is to advance scientific knowledge, not to inhibit any particular religious belief.

And if just a few -- if very vocal -- fundies have their knickers in a twist over it, I'd say any "entanglement" could hardly be defined as "excessive."

[chaplainM]

5. Other classroom threats to Biblical literalism

1. The Earth is not flat.

The Bible refers to "the four corners of the Earth," and also descibes Satan and Jesus on a point so high that all of Earth can be seen.


2. Pi does not equal 3.

(1 Ki 7:23 NIV) He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it


3. Insects have six legs. Bats are not birds.

Leviticus 11

[Robert Cooper]

7. I'm also reminded of stopping the sun over Jericho...

...but somehow I don't think these are the 'show-stoppers' evolution poses for literalists.

And this doesn't really address the issue I'm raising about the state undermining their religion.

[ComerPerro]

9. Pi does not equal 3 is my favorite example

always has been! Thanks!

[Xipe Totec]

27. Except in a suitably curved space

Couldn't resist offering the contrarian view.

Sorry :hi:

[FreedomAngel82]

207. But also in the Bible

I remember it mentions the earth is round and not flat. I can't recall where now. Sorry.

[ComerPerro]

8. By that reasoning, though, any view at all that isn't taught

could be seen as an "attack" on that religion.

I do agree that Evolution and Creationism can never really truly co-exist. Its just not possible for Bible literalists.

But that doesn't mean that Evolution shouldn't be taught, just to spare their beliefs.

Hell, equal rights for women could be considered an affront to the beliefs of literalists. And the government promotes that. They are, therefore, forced to contribute tax dollars to tearing down their beliefs.

If these people are such Biblical purists, why do I see them driving cars and using computers?

[Robert Cooper]

10. I think material left out...

...would not necessarily constitute an "attack". Lots of material is left out, to be taught in later grades or not at all.

"But that doesn't mean that Evolution shouldn't be taught, just to spare their beliefs."

"Hell, equal rights for women could be considered an affront to the beliefs of literalists. And the government promotes that. They are, therefore, forced to contribute tax dollars to tearing down their beliefs."

I've seen no SCOTUS test for when government cannot "inhibit" religion. But both situations certainly appear to challenge the idea that government could ever "inhibit" religion. Certainly religion is inhibited if it is outlawed, members rounded up and arrested, etc.

Could a school teach that a religion is "wrong"? It seems to me that is what is happening in the case of Evolution and Christian literalists. Decisions do not seem to protect this particular religion from the state.

If science class taught that God is a mythological invention because there is no scientific evidence of God's existence, is that pursuing a "secular purpose" or "inhibiting religion"?

[Warren DeMontague]

56. No science classes teach that God is a mythological invention.

What science classes do is teach what we KNOW about the universe through the scientific method.

If that comes into conflict with someone's deeply held religious beliefs, that's too bad.

As for your question above, you can't prove a negative like that. "God" is so loosely defined all over this planet that no one is ever going to "disprove" "his" "existence".

(All those words need quotes, when you're talking about "God", IMHO)

[Robert Cooper]

65. From the Kitzmiller case...

...it is clear Science cannot posit the existence of God. Thus God does not exist in Science. We dismiss Astrology because we say there is no evidence to support it. We dismiss Phrenology because we say there is no evidence to support it. We dismiss LGMs from Mars because we say there is no evidence to support it.

Why doesn't God fit that paradigm?

And in what way does science class not challenge the existence of the Christian literalist's God whom they believe made the universe some 6000 years ago when Geology teaches the planet is billions of years old, and Astronomy teaches the universe is even more billions of years older?

[Warren DeMontague]

67. If thats the inference they make from the FACTS, that's their problem.

Science doesn't posit the existence of LOTS of things. It's only religious fanatics who are so certain of the 'special' class of some of their ideas (i.e. "God") that they blow a 'persecution' gasket when SCIENCE doesn't accord those ideas similar priviledged status, much less even bring them up. They ASSUME that "God" is such a powerful idea that you're not even allowed to discuss anything in the universe without asking where 'he' is. It's like, "You just explained indoor plumbing, without asking how God fits into the process!" Nope, there's no evidence for God, and yes, the evidence of the Earth's age runs directly counter to what Biblical literalists believe. Too fucking bad. Maybe you want to go back to the 13th century just to protect these folks' fragile egos, but I sure as hell don't.

That said, Science classes don't MENTION "God", either pro or con. If people infer from what we KNOW about the Universe things that run counter to their limited understanding of cosmology, again, that's their problem... Science isn't in the business of dumbing the truth down or softening its edges just because some people can't deal with the facts.

And I always find it funny that "God" is such a self-centered publicitiy hound that he seemingly can't stand to have people talk about the universe without "his" name coming up. Waaah.

[Robert Cooper]

71. I think I've read enough of your opinion about religion...

...to see it doesn't match up with any breed of liberalism I'm familiar with.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Shit, dude.

I think there's an echo in here. I'm sorry that your limited view of religion requires positioning people of faith as constantly playing the poor victim of oppressive, mean, promoters of scientific truth. Funny, plenty of people I know have faiths that are strong and robust enough to deal with the truth, whatever it may be. But they don't seem terribly interested in grinding these inane culture war Scopes Trial redux axes, do they?

[The Flaming Red Head]

94. If they want religion taught, take classical western lit, poetry or art

It's full of it.

edited to put the word they instead of you because it wasn't intended at you impeach. you I like.

[FreedomAngel82]

210. It isn't God

It's a lot of the followers. The fundies. I don't have a problem with God not being a part of the picture. Why? Because I still believe and it's still in my heart and soul. Me believing in God isn't going to change science and how that is. Same thing with other things in life. That's why it's called faith.

[FreedomAngel82]

209. It doesn't with me

I've never had my faith challenged with science. Since I believe in God I personally believe that I'm studying what He has done. I want to learn more about the world I live in and plus take care of this world as well since I live here and for future generations who will come here.

[FreedomAngel82]

208. Yes

My grandfather was an elder of his church for twenty-seven years and worked at his church and everything. For several years he worked at NASA and my dad is a civil engineer. I love science and it was always one of my favorite classes when I was in high school whether it was biology or chemistry or physical science. It was all fun to me and I loved learning more about my world. Science is about the how and why. I don't get why so many of my fellow Christian's are afraid of science. *sigh* Just because I believe in science and do not want ID taught in schools doesn't mean that I'm against God and don't believe in God. That's why it's called faith. The first amendment is made for two purposes. To protect the church from the government and minorities from the church. The founding fathers knew this and were brilliant with the first amendment. I always thank them for it. Because in ten years from now wicca could be the popular religion since we do not have a national religion as we shouldn't. ID is a belief in a creator whether you're Christian or some other faith. If you put ID in schools you will be forcing other people to learn about something with a creator. That is forcing religion onto someone. I as a person who someday wants to be a parent want to be the one who teaches and guides my someday child where religion is concerned. They say it's not about religion (they as the fundamentalists) but it really is. Look at the outburst from Pat Robertson. Even a preacher at my grandmother's church this past Sunday talked about this and how it was bad the judges ruling. Of course I rolled my eyes through that part. Oy. You can tell it's about religion because of who is rooting for it. Where are the pagans? Jews? Muslims? No where in site rooting for this ID. They know what it's about. And I remember either reading here or hearing on a program that there was a book about Creationism where they changed the word to Intelligent Design and it was presented to a judge. The judge recognized it all and knew what they were up to. It's purely UnConstitutional and Un-American. I can't stand it anymore.

[countingbluecars]

11. Yes,and if they are such biblical purists

they best not be using any medicine or going to any doctors.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Hey Comer!

Merry Christmas!
:toast:

Greetings to Gilmore too!

[H2O Man]

12. Recommended.

This is a well thought-out essay that makes for enjoyable reading. My wife and two of our four children are members of a local church. I attend at times, though my interest is in large part the history of the building. It is located in a tiny hamlet, just west of the Ft. Stanwix Treaty Line, which was the nation's "western front" until the Revolutionary War. In the two-part collection of his writings, a man who went on to be a US Senator wrote about his childhood experience of helping to build the church. The fellow went on to be the first American politician to advocate for federal aide to education. I wrote the application that got the church put on the state and national historic register.

When the children who attend the church come to our house to play, or use our swimming pool, or go to the water falls, most of them are interested in my archaeological collection. I have 10,000 years of northeastern "artifacts," as well as others including from the Olduvai Gorge (Bed 1) in Africa. I talk to these children exactly the same as I have to school children (up to college students) almost every year. There is no conflict between evolution and bibical faith. We can either have an open mind, or a closed mind.

[Robert Cooper]

19. Thank you...

...As I understand the Establishment Clause, it is to protect minorities from majorities. By requiring government to be strictly neutral, no religion gains or loses.

But clearly the modern secular education runs contrary to some religions, most notably in the conflict between Evolution and Christian literalists.

This wasn't an issue for the authors of the Constitution. They were concerned about one religion gaining ascendancy over the others through legislation, as they'd witnessed in England and Europe in general. The idea that a secular/neutral government might teach something to kids that conflicts with the religious beliefs of those kids and families never seems to have entered their heads.

I don't have to be a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist to argue that the state has no right attacking their beliefs. Is it not just as meritorious to argue that the religious beliefs of Christian literalists should be protected from state-sponsored attack as well?

Consider Mennonites. Their religious beliefs limit their opportunities in many ways, yet their beliefs are respected. No one argues that Mennonites should be forced into the 21st century. Why can't we accomodate Christian literalists in a similar manner?

Most of us call for open minds when we want others to see our points of view. But do we offer open minds that allow us to see the points of view of others?

That's what I'm trying to do here.

(edit: typo)

[drthais]

190. but we are speaking here of a scientific theory,

i.e., evolution
and whether or not the current version of Creationsim
belongs in a science class, in a public school,
as a challenge to that theory
it cannot, because creationism is a religious belief based on fatih
and not science in any form

that said (and I am surprised it needs to be said at all),
I remember having a conversation once
wherein it was told to me that the balance between religion and science
can be seen as a game long played out through history
the more we discover through science,
the more is passed from religious faith alone to fact
this, in turn, can be viewed as a 'threat' to one's religion...
science has proven or disproven this or that
and it no longer resides in the religious relam
but is given over to the scientific realm

and each and every time this has happened
(as in the discovery that, in fact, the earth revolves around the sun
and not the other way around),
those in the scientific community who posit this are persecuted
and, indeed, it takes a long long time for the facts to be viewed as undeniable

I have come to view this particular controversy this way
the interesting thing about it, though,
is that it would seem that the theory of evolution had been a settled matter
and was subsequently upended

hmm

what's next
the Theory of Gravity?

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

197. Amish versus Mennonites

Consider Mennonites. Their religious beliefs limit their opportunities in many ways, yet their beliefs are respected. No one argues that Mennonites should be forced into the 21st century. Why can't we accomodate Christian literalists in a similar manner?

You should know that the vast majority of Mennonites in this country and throughout the world do not reject technology. About the only opportunity that being a Mennonite restricts is the wonderful (:sarcasm:) opportunity to "be all you can be". There are a number of religious groups that are related to Mennonites that do reject technology (the most well known are the Amish and Old Order Mennonites) but you should be aware that they are a very small minority and do not represent Mennonites.

Case in point, I am a proud Mennonite and I'm only 1 month away from my PhD in Computer Science. I'd not say that my opportunities were very limited.

That said, you started an interesting thread. However from what I see what the Biblical Literalists are interested in is not religious freedom, understanding or respect, but to control what everybody learns in school. They are using the public education system to evangelize their own religion.

[Robert Cooper]

219. Thank you for the lesson...

...we have Mennonites in our area and I must assume they are of the Old Order as they do not use modern technology.

"That said, you started an interesting thread. However from what I see what the Biblical Literalists are interested in is not religious freedom, understanding or respect, but to control what everybody learns in school. They are using the public education system to evangelize their own religion."

What they seem to be doing is trying to defend their religious beliefs from persecution. If they can't get protection from the Establishment Clause, they can only get protection by taking over school boards.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

218. but mennonites acknowledge the existence of science, they choose

not to rely on its advantages and disadvantages. It is not a willful ignorance, and a concerted effort to push their beliefs on others, to the exclusion of science. That is precisely what certain fundemental sects are doing.

[Robert Cooper]

220. If literalists had other options they might not need to take...

...over the public system.

[KittyWampus]

13. Very few people are "opposed" to Evolution. At Issue Is Darwinism

Darwinism is the THEORY of Evolution.

At issue is Darwinism and Darwinism's underlying PHILOSOPHY of Materialism.

There simply aren't that many literalists.

And present day Science has an unjustifiable bias toward Materialism and against any Theory that posits a role for Consciousness/Intelligence in Nature's ongoing unfoldment.

Present day Science and Darwinists do, in fact, have a Philosophy that amounts to Religious Adherence. That Philosophy is Materialism.

And just as a tadpole doesn't know it's swimming in water, most Scientists and those defending the Materialist approach don't realise they are indiscriminately adhering to dogma.

I say most, because there are a handful of Scientists moving the ball forward.

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. "unjustifiable bias"?

Codswallop.

Have you ever heard of the principle of parsimony? Lovely and useful little logical tool, it is. Formulated back in the 14th century by a chap called William of Ockham. (You may know it as "Ockham's Razor".) It states "entities ought not to be multiplied, except out of necessity". Now, it seems to me that it's not necessary to a rational and coherent explanation of the formation of the universe and the evolution of life to posit a guiding intelligence. Such an intelligence, in fact, is no more necessary to those theories than the now-discarded "luminiferous aether" is to an explanation of light. I'd say that science has a healthy and reasonable bias in favour of reason and logic, and away from unnecessary and superstitious nonsense.

[Robert Cooper]

20. Would I be correct in assuming...

...your religious beliefs contradict the idea that humans evolved from apes?

And would you explain what "materialism" means to you?

[Ediacara]

200. Materialism in this context is synonymous with "reality-based"

She chooses to use the term materialism because of its negative connotations (hyper-capitalism, Madona etc). It's as dishonest a word-play as creationists claiming that evolution is just a "theory." If she doesn't like reality-based science, well, she'd better get of her reality-based computer...

[Robert Cooper]

221. at this point...

...I doubt I'll ever know what she intended.

And I can jump to conclusions as easily as the next person. I asked so as to avoid the need to jump to conclusions.

[Ediacara]

245. She and I have clashd over this very subject in the past

She will dress up "materialism" in all sorts of negative sounding language, but at the end of the day, it's her way of putting down reality-based endevours, and is exactly synonymous with "reality-based." I agree though that it's a shame she's hit and run.

[Name removed]

250. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ediacara]

252. Well since you keep insisting that demonstrably incorrect ideas are in...

...fact correct, I can see why people have gotten annoyed. Science says nothing about religion. It never has, it never will, and it never can. Problems arise only when religions chose to take offense and/or choose to believe something so mindblowingly stupid as special creation.

THE STATE IS NOT PERSECUTING ANY RELIGIONS BY TEACHING REALITY-BASED SCIENCE!

Again, in the immortal words of Harry Truman, "I don't give 'em hell, I tell the truth and they think it's hell."

And one more thing. If you think you can casually imply that teaching evolution is an equivalent evil to Nazism, you've got another thing coming. I know you're smart enough to know this is a lie, so do yourself a favor and drop this line of comparison right now.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Baloney. "At Issue" is SCIENCE, and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

That's why the state of Kansas had to take the crackheaded step of redefining science entirely, because they didn't like the results real science was giving them.

Nice to see you repeating Discovery Institute/Creationist/Religious Right talking points about evolution being merely a "theory". Surely, we're not going to have to get into that again, are we? Science is full of 'theories'. Relativity is a 'theory' even though it's been experimentally verified countless times. Electromagnetism is explained by 'theories'.

Evolution is known scientific fact. Deal with it or stay in denial, I don't care, but waving the word "theory" around doesn't change the truth.

Arguments that "darwinism" amounts to "materialism" which amounts to a "religion" are prima facie bullshit, as well. I can say that Darwinism doesn't take into account my belief that the Universe is actually an invisible shade of orange, and therefore it is "anti-orange". Darwinism, and by extension, 'materialism', doesn't take into account the truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, (r)Amen. Therefore it is inherently antipasto. (Get it? Ah, sometimes I crack myself up.)

Really, I would think How Science Works has been repeatedly explained to our erstwhile ID 'defenders' here enough times, I shouldn't have to go though it again, but here goes.

Science is predicated upon explanations for phenomena verifiable by experiment and a little thing called

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

...got it? That's science. That's how science works. If evidence turns up tomorrow for the blather and rantings of the shilling-for-the-Catholic-Church Discovery Institute waterheads (please.. lets have some more links to your "handful of scientists moving the ball forward". I'm sure everyone here would love to read about their impressive credentials) or any other "Creationist" gobbledygook, hey- whoopie- then they will become science. Until then, they belong in church, they belong in theology class- but they sure as shit don't belong in public school science class. If the "ID" crowd doesn't like it, tough, they should take their ball and go home. But they can't demand a wholesale redefinition of science just because it's not validating their belief in their particular pet deity.

[SidDithers]

103. Now THAT, Ladies and Gentlemen, is a good effing post...

:toast:

Sid

[Bridget Burke]

122. Small quibble: The Catholic Church has no problem with Evolution.

"Biblical Inerrency" is the doctrine that every word in the Bible (prefereably KJV) is literally true. The Church has long taught that parts of the Bible should be interpreted symbolically.

[Warren DeMontague]

170. I know. Which makes it all the more mind-boggling

that some people, even here, can't deal with it.

[hfojvt]

153. if I may note, that you have more histrionics in your argument

than logic. Yet, you yourself, admitted the materialistic bias when you emphasized "physical evidence". Yet, I submit that there is evidence for three things which seem non-physical - life, consciousness, and awareness. Are those things purely physical? Can we describe the physical differences between a live dog, a sleeping dog, and a dead dog? I would say that chemically they are the same, but that different processes are taking place in each, but what drives those processes. If it is nothing but physics, then, of course, I have no more choice in the letters I am typing than a billiard ball does when it is hit by another billiard ball. Nor do you have any choice in the disparaging sarcastic remarks you are likely to respond with.

It seems to me that we are not nearly far enough along in our science to be able to sarcastically dismiss the non-material, which also seems far more important than the material to me (which is why I am a social scientist rather than a physicist). That dismissing the non-material has lead many down the slippery slope where instead of people being human beings, to the science worshipper, "they're cattle."

[Warren DeMontague]

171. There is a difference between 'dismissing' the non-material

and insisting a very specific VERSION of it, namely the kind that posits, with NO proof whatsoever, an obviously religious 'intelligent designer' be taught in public school science class.

And actually, if you understand any quantum physics, the 'real' world is quite likely far weirder than the newtonian determinism you describe. But that doesn't mean the theology-pushers among us get to go "Aha! God!"-- When quantum physics implies nothing of the sort, and if it implies any sort of mystical, spooky, consciousness-based influences on reality, they come from the entity in the mirror - NOT the one on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

[Warren DeMontague]

173. Oh, and one more thing...

I know there's a crowd that loves to flog this idea of atheism and darwinism being responsible for, as you put it, some 'slippery slope' where science causes human beings to treat each other 'like cattle'.

Um, lets send that bubbling cauldron of crap back where it belongs, shall we? I notice that several thousand years of pious monotheism hasn't kept ALL of the major western religions from each racking up their own QUITE impressive body count. All the oil paintings of the Baby Jesus and the Virgin Mary in the world didn't stop the inquisitors from treating Jews like vermin to be tortured and exterminated. So, please, lets cut the crap about science and materialism being some kind of pied piper leading humans away from this oh-so-decent standard of treating each other that the fucking CHURCH has provided for the past two thousand years. :grr:

[hfojvt]

211. sorry, no can do

nothing has racked up the body count as quickly as the non-religious ideology of nationalism, the non-religious ideology of stalinism, and the non-religious ideology of nihilism.

It is not about oil paintings, it is about ideals and standards that people can live up to, but yes it has been and continues to be true that "hate is strong, and mocks the song of peace on earth, good will to men".

Whether it is religious or not, I believe we need more wisdom than we need more science. "At present, there can be little doubt that the whole of mankind is in mortal danger, not because we are short of scientific and technological know-how, but because we tend to use it destructively, without wisdom...The errors are not in science but in the philosophy put forward in the name of science."

[beam me up scottie]

63. Here we go again with the "atheistic" version of evolution bullshit.

Too bad you haven't choked on that Koolaid yet.

[Ediacara]

158. There is no such thing as "Darwinism"

I would think that you'd know this by now, having been corrected hundreds of times....

Darwin didn't push any materialist philosophy, he proposed the mechanism of natural selection. Subsequently, natural selection has been shown to be true, and the exact mechanics of evolutionary theory have taken the names Neo-Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis (re-embracing of natural selection after the rediscovery of Mendelian Genetics).

And I'm curious, how would you have non-materialistic science? If something cannot be tested, then how is it science?

[seabeyond]

14. my son is in fifth grade and has yet to have evolution in his science

i jsut asked my son and he said no, never in his academic career have they talked evolution. who is being taught evolution? when i went to school decades ago it was a little section in a chapter showing the picture of advance of ape to man and a paragraph or two talking the theory of evolution. so i think this whole thing is a bogus issue


leviticus


Having tattoos.

Touching anything a menstruating woman has touched.

Eating shellfish.

Eating pork.

Wearing a garment made of two different fibers (God hates cotton-poly underwear).

Sowing a field with mixed seeds (that kitchen garden for fresh salad is evil).

Trimming the edges of your beard.

Eating rabbit.

Cutting the hair on the side of your head.

Eating blood sausage.


secondly, when the literalist literally take every aspect as a literal truth is when i will respect their right to live the bible in literalism. but they dont. they pick and chose and wont explain why they want me to follow some of gods laws and ignore others and i am to take them seriously

[Robert Cooper]

21. Have you considered...

...that when you open up the can of worms called "let me define your religion for you" the -only- defense is how close anyone is to living the literal instructions of the Bible. If that's the way we define "Christianity", then almost everyone else isn't one.

We live in an age where more people define Christianioty to suit themselves, rather than using some external standard as comparison. Literalists use the Bible.

Your argument seems to depend upon them being perfect literalists. I know of no religion that requires perfection first. Religion in most parts of the world is about helping imperfect people achieve perfection. For Christian literalists, that would be adherence to the literal truth of the Bible.

The idea of the Establishment Clause is that religions don't have to jump through arbitrary hoops to achieve secular tolerance from others. If you would attack -their- religious beliefs because they are not perfect, name one religion that is safe from your attacks?

[kevinbgoode]

195. They are also not supposed to be supported by tax monies.

This isn't about secular tolerance at all. It is about religious tolerance, particularly with a group that demands their interpretation be seen as the only true one. They need to build their own school.

[Robert Cooper]

222. certainly part of the solution...

...would have to exclude tax dollars going to religious instruction.

[kevinbgoode]

16. I think that is a case for the fundies to

create their own schools - which some of them do. However, I am also conscious of the fact that these are religious beliefs that are CHOSEN, not innate. At what point are they supposed to shoulder responsibility for their personal choices, particularly when they are free to change those choices as they wish (and often do)?

Part of their problem is also that their "literal" interpretations, which aren't always so literal when it comes to certain Old Testament restrictions they've decided not to embrace, involves openly vilifying others as a matter of free speech. Are we supposed to expect that other students of other religious beliefs are supposed to be relentlessly subjected to being called "sinners" who are "going to hell" as part of their classroom instruction just to placate one group's religious teachings that demand others be held captive or used as human sacrifices to their altar? I think not. . .just how would these same people react if, for example, a student demanded that satanic rituals be taught in the public school alongside their approach? Or that space aliens created earth? The issue here is that these people have repeatedly shown a blatant intolerance for ALL other viewpoints because their religious beliefs refuse to accept those as possible or viable - thus their idea of teaching ID along with evolution is about attacking one theory rather than presenting other possibilities. They would not tolerate the instruction being about attacking ID.

These are also the people who claim (with very little evidence) that gays exist because they made a "choice" about their relationship orientation. In fact, they insist they be legislated against, have their rights abridged, and be treated as less than full citizens in order to adhere to their religious doctrine. They neither believe in representative government or freedom for people who are not part of the "flock" - and in that respect, the larger society has no obligation to embrace their views and demand others be punished to accommodate the fundie's CHOSEN.....and I mean..CHOSEN...religious beliefs.

[Robert Cooper]

22. About choice...

...you seem to limit their protections (and by extension, the protections for all religious people) based on a supposition that they "choose" their religious beliefs.

I don't see the Establishment Clause being undermined by such a supposition. Perhaps you can explain that.

I agree that seperate schools might satisfy the problem, but here's the kicker: what about the price?

Let's look at a hypothetical case:

100 children from Christian literalist families
5 children who are not.

Taxes collected are used to pay for the secular school. The school teaches evolution and thus creates conflict for the literalists. They form their own school and pull their 100 children out of the secular school.

Now all the school taxes are going to pay for the education of 5 children. On top of school taxes, the literalists are also paying for their own school.

Fair?

[kevinbgoode]

23. Yep. Perfectly fair.

The public school is not a forum for religious indoctrination. When a religious group demands that schools recognize only the "proper" religious belief, meaning THEIRS, then they are, in my opinion, violating the establishment clause.

Payment of taxes has nothing to do with separatist religious beliefs. Moreover, they have no legitimate argument for themselves, since they have always demanded gays pay taxes without having access to full protection or citizenship. And their legal excuse for this is that the gays made a "choice." So they are the ones who established that argument - they don't get special rights to be exempt from their own concepts simply because of THEIR chosen religious beliefs.

On the issue of choice, many state constitutions expressly and clearly address the issue of worshipping according to an individual's own conscience. Evolution is not recognized by any governmental body as a "religion" - practitioners do not receive tax-exempt status nor special benefits afforded those recognized as "religious" groups. Therefore, the fundies already receive special tax breaks directly affecting their house of worship. If their church demands they exit the public school system because it does not embrace its religious teachings, then fine - but, just like the single people, the elderly, the gays and the childless, they have to pay taxes without getting a say or a seat at the PTA meetings.

If the community is too small to support the public school, then it will merge with another nearby community and its public school system. And the fundies will pay their damned taxes just like they've always demanded others pay taxes.

[kevinbgoode]

24. By the way "limiting" their protections is the same concept

they have used to limit the protections of others, often those who have no choice (in gender, race, and arguably sexual/relational orientation). Those limits were based on the religious CHOICE to see these people as less than themselves and as undeserving of the benefits of full citizenship.

They also choose to alter their beliefs and interpretations at the will of the clergy - meaning that these same people are careful not to portray themselves as white supremacists, even though their own forefathers who embraced the literal translations certainly did and demanded all others in the country live under their doctrine. Their protections do not deserve any additional special status than anyone elses innate characteristics, particularly when it is obvious these beliefs are a conscious CHOICE.

[Robert Cooper]

28. About inhibiting religion...

...I understand your points and appreciate you making them.

I'd like you to tell me what circumstances must exist to rule that religion is being inhibited by the state. I'm sure if we started shooting members of a religion, or incarcerating them, then we'd have a pretty blatant case. Are there any cicumstances less obvious than that which you can think of?

[bklyncowgirl]

234. The flip side is that if non-literalists want their kids to learn biology.

they would have to pay for thier children to go to private school.

That is ridiculous.

Perhaps an opt out from science classes for children of literalists might solve the problem. Their kids would not get a full education but I'm sure the parents would be willing to accept that their children would never be doctors or nurses will be a small price to pay for protecting them from the idea that the Bible may not be literally true.

[TahitiNut]

25. The 'literalists' can only evolve or destroy themselves. That's irony!

Many centuries of rabbinical and Christian theologians have (eventually) comprehended this. Adherence to a literal interpretation of an n-th generation translation of Genesis is a theologically suicidal choice ... arrogant anthropocentrism in the extreme. In making "God" subordinate to Time itself instead of the Creator of all - including Time - is to posit a flawed "God." Indeed, that "God" is even made subordinate to some contemporary version of humanity, shorter than today's and certainly even less resembling a future Man.

The core of their rejection of Evolution is in the denial that they themselves are the Purpose of "God's" Creation. "Made in God's image' is their Kodak Moment -- an "only child syndrome" that has infected Abrahamic beliefs to one degree or another for millennia. Neanderthal? Certainly not. Not them. Some future subspecies that is to today's human as Cro-Magnon is to Neanderthal? Unthinkable!!

For them, "God" has only one child ... and it's them. (Imagine the sibling rivalry with some future Man!)

[Robert Cooper]

30. Not quite irony yet ;-) ...

...think of the Mennonites.

And most (all?) religions believe humans to be the result of an act of creation conducted by a God.

So what conditions would you say must exist to rule that the state is inhibiting religion under the Establishment Clause?

[TahitiNut]

39. What conditions? Sophistry run rampant, I guess.

Flat earth. Earth centrism. Pi=3. Just because evangelical religions wish to "practice" their religion in my ear, using my taxes, and I protest against such an intrusion doesn't mean anyone is inhibiting them. It's not about others entering their houses of worship and arresting them. It's not about anyone breaking down their doors at night and scaring their children.

This is like the anti-choice crowd - they act like the government abortionist is hovering over the pregnant bellies of their women ready to rip out the fetus. It just ain't so. They're blowing their wad over something that doesn't even come close to infringing on their rights.


I'm not aware of any religion that claims our ancestral ape was "created in God's image."

[Robert Cooper]

41. Sorry, I've confused you. I'll try again...

..."Just because evangelical religions wish to "practice" their religion in my ear, using my taxes, and I protest against such an intrusion doesn't mean anyone is inhibiting them."

I'm not suggesting they have a right to force others to listen to their religious beliefs.

I'm asking if they have a right to refuse to listen to others undermine their religious beliefs. Do they have a right to establish a curriculum that does not conflict with their religious beliefs, assuming this curriculum only applies to their own children?

"I'm not aware of any religion that claims our ancestral ape was "created in God's image.""

I don't think I suggested that. I know of no religions that overtly state that humanity is the result of evolutionary processes. To my knowledge, all religions assert humans are the result of a miraculous creation-event governed by God(s).

[JayWyss]

26. A great book...

An incredible book on religious tolerance, intolerance, literal interpretations and loose interpretations is "When Religion Becomes Evil" by a man named Charles Kimball. It is EXCELLENT, especially when it points out that no one can take the Bible literally, has strong words for men such as Falwell and Robertson. Had to read it my first year of college in Religion 200. Definitely opened my eyes.

[Robert Cooper]

31. Thanks for the suggestion, but I must ask...

... are you suggesting we should deny tolerance to religions that insist on a literal interpretation of their sacred texts?

Where do you see the state inhibiting religion, according to the Establishment Clause?

[Charlie Brown]

29. I have no problem w/teaching creationism in a religion/philosophy class

but it ain't science, and it should never be taught as such.

Evolution remains the only scientific theory capable of explaining the diversity of species.

[Robert Cooper]

32. With that in mind...

...where do you draw the line between a neutral position towards religion and an attitude that "inhibits religion" as described by SCOTUS when testing the Establishment Clause?

[Charlie Brown]

33. If a school-board outlawed religious clubs or banned Bibles

I think that would in violation of the Establishment Clause. We can keep curriculum neutral while still guaranteeing the rights of students to worship or fraternize freely.

[Robert Cooper]

34. "keep curriculum neutral"...

...I agree with you about outlawing religious clubs and/or bibles.

As for keeping the "curriculum neutral", what do you do when a religion claims the curriculum is not "neutral" for them.

Bear in mind the courts have said that education involves "impressionable" children whose participation is "involuntary".

How do you claim their right to worship freely is not affected when the basis for that worship is undermined in school?

[Charlie Brown]

37. Do you mean science?

Curriculum in almost any field should be consistent with what researchers, scholars and educators feel is the most recent, credible, and impartial means of presenting that info to impressionable minds.

Religion and philosophy only enter the equation when you teach those respective fields. In the public schools, equality requires as neutral a presentation as possible, although a religion course would undoubtedly emphasize Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, as those religions have played a greater role in the course of Western Civilization. If parents want their children to have an explicitly Christian/Jewish/whatever education, private schools and seminaries exist for that purpose, though I think ultimately it is the parents' responsibility to instill religious beliefs in their children. Public schools should not be in the business of religious instruction.

Most public universities offer degrees in religion and theology, which I think is sound policy for everyone.

[Robert Cooper]

40. "Religion and philosophy only enter the equation when you teach...

...those fields"

I agree with everything else you said, but the statement I quoted is unsupported.

Religion and philosophy enter into the equation any time secular education contradicts the belief system of a religion and/or philosphy.

How can it not enter the equation?

For the sake of argument, let's say a child learns from his/her minister that the world is flat. Next day in school, the teacher is saying the world is an ellipsoid. To keep religion and secular education from influencing one another, the child is required to compartmentalize the information so that if asked in church the child says "flat" and if asked in school the child says "ellipsoid".

Already the child is being taught that "truth" is context-sensitive, in contradiction to their religious training that "truth" is absolute.

How do you avoid the conflict between religion and secular education in this case?

How do you fail the child who answers a test question by saying "the world is flat because my religion tells me so"? Do you tell him/her directly that his/her religious beliefs are wrong? Irrelevant? How does this not represent a conflict between religion and the state?

[Charlie Brown]

42. Amazingly enough, I have seen people who do just that

They learn one thing at schools, even though "religiously" they believe another set of facts.

Mormons, for example, are taught that Native Americans are descended from one of the twelve tribes of Israel, amidst many other inconsistencies that don't jive with the historical record.

In the antebellum South, it was common practice for pastors to preach that Africans were descended from the biblical Ham, and thus inferior to whites.

Even I questioned my grade-school sceince text when the existence of dinosaurs didn't coincide with what my parents had taught me in the Bible. Christian scientists believe that prayer can heal in lieu of medical expertise.

"How do you avoid the conflict?"

There is no "conflict" as far as the public schools are concerned. They teach curriculum impartially, as it has been settled on by professional educators and scholars. Any inconsistency is up to the children and their parents to reconcile. Many can and do maintain their beliefs inspite of what is taught at school (they're convinced God is "tricking" people with the fossil record and evidence of evolution, as corny as that sounds.) That is their perrogative and the public schools have no say in what parents choose to tell their children. They only teach obejectively.

Education as a fundamental right should be CREDIBLE education. If our society resorts to teaching pseudo-science or discredited ideas in public schools, we are doing a disservice to the students and our future as a society.

[Robert Cooper]

43. "They teach curriculum impartially..."

I was just warning Neil recently to beware of absolutes. ;-)

As we've seen in the cases of Kansas and Dover, school boards can cherry-pick whom they wish to consider 'experts'. Can they not also argue that "ny inconsistency is up to the children and their parents to reconcile"?

How does this translate into the state not inhibiting the religious beliefs of a specific group?

Like I asked before, how do you fail the child who claims the answer is correct based on their religious beliefs? Does the state, through its agent: the teacher, tell the child his/her religious beliefs are "wrong"? That the "truth" they learn from their religion is "wrong"? How is that not a state-sponsored attack against a particular religious belief?

[Charlie Brown]

45. Straw-man

The Kansas and Dover school-boards are elected by popular vote. You do not have to have any kind of certification or expertise to win elections. Most curriculum and policies are approved by the Dept. of Education, which is wisely kept separate from shifts in public opinion.

You tell the kid the same thing you tell people who believe in faith-healing and alchemy. According to where the evidence points, their beliefs are mistaken. If they further object, it's an issue they should take up with Mommy and Daddy at home.

Let me ask a question now. What are you proposing? Vouchers? Private schools? Teaching junk science? Have you offered a solution for this perceived problem w/the public schools?

You have made a point of critizing the schools for "forcing" Christian kids to reconcile their beliefs with what is taught, but you are oblivious to the five atheist kids who have to indulge a Bible class in Texas or Alabama, or to the rational Christian student who has to indulge an Intelligent Design class b/c of the posturing of a loud religious group.

Are these rights worth less than the rights of the literalist students?

[Robert Cooper]

47. "You tell the kid...their beliefs are mistaken"...

...So an agent of the state is to tell a Christian literalist child, officially, his/her "beliefs are mistaken".

And presumably the child's answer on the test merits no points towards the score. It is contributory towards the child's failure in the test, and the grade, and that would constitute penalizing the student for the religious beliefs they hold to be true.

How is this not a case of the state inhibiting religion?

"Let me ask a question now. What are you proposing? Vouchers? Private schools? Teaching junk science? Have you offered a solution for this perceived problem w/the public schools?"

I'm asking Democrats to consider that from the Christian literalist's point of view, their rights to be free of state intervention in religious matters are under assault. Their arguments have an internal supporting logic, providing certain faith-based assumptions are made (which is just as true of any religion as it is for theirs).

Unless Democrats wish to hand these people over to the Republicans, Democrats need to consider how to make America work such that no one need feel their religion is under attack.

SCOTUS has included statements against the state inhibiting religion, and that children attending public school are impressionable and their attendance is "involuntary". The children are not in school to have their religious views challenged or invalidated. And certainly we have decisions attesting to the protection of kids whose religious beliefs are not reflected in school policy when those kids are non-Christian-literalist.

Do Christian literalists not deserve as much protection as others?

"You have made a point of critizing the schools for "forcing" Christian kids to reconcile their beliefs with what is taught, but you are oblivious to the five atheist kids who have to indulge a Bible class in Texas or Alabama, or to the rational Christian student who has to indulge an Intelligent Design class b/c of the posturing of a loud religious group."

I hardly think I'm "oblivious", CB. I wrote two essays on the subject opposing ID in school.

"Are these rights worth less than the rights of the literalist students?"

Certainly not "less". But there is an argument that says their right to religious freedom is worth more than the rights of literalist students.

Religious students who give the answer the state wants to hear benefit from higher scores on tests and higher grades. Religious students whose beliefs include those answers have an advantage over those whose religions provide different answers. How is this not discrimination based on religious beliefs? How does this not undermine -some- religious beliefs while favouring the beliefs of others?

[Charlie Brown]

49. and let's finish that sentence..."according to where the evidence points"

Yes, an agent of the state tells a literalist his belifs are mistaken according to credible standards in the interest of a sound education. I will not sacrifice reason to pander to the hopelessly superstitious for votes. Let the Republicans have them.

These same people want to change the Constitution to ban gay marriage and to ban stem-cell research. Shall we cave on those issues as well?

If the Democratic Party does what you suggest, they will lose me.

[Robert Cooper]

51. and who determines what constitutes "evidence"? ...

You talk of "credible standards", but fail to note the bias that determines what is "credible". Since there is no such thing as an absolutely objective opinion (just consensus), "credibility" is in the eye of the beholder. To the Christian literalist the only "credible" source is the Bible.

And you demonstrate the harsh reality of intolerance: "I will not sacrifice reason to pander to the hopelessly superstitious for votes. Let the Republicans have them." To a Christian literalist, you've declared open war on their religion and are willing to interfere with their right to raise their kids in a faith of their own choosing. Any reason -they- shouldn't take advantage of every opportunity to keep -you- out of office so as to preserve their faith and protect the faith of their children?

"These same people want to change the Constitution to ban gay marriage and to ban stem-cell research. Shall we cave on those issues as well?"

Straw man. We're talking about "impressionable" children whose attendance in public school is "involuntary" (according to SCOTUS). No one is forcing anyone into a gay marriage, or to participate in stem cell research.

[Charlie Brown]

52. Well, we'll agree to disagree

Seriously, I don't want to spend this evening arguing about the public school system and literal creationism.

Have a Merry Christmas, Mr. Cooper.

[Robert Cooper]

54. And a Merry Christmas to you, Mr Brown nt

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Bull. People can home school their children, and often do.

According to your 'reasoning', if I can call it that, nothing that conflicts with anyone's so-called "religious beliefs" can be taught in public schools. And while I respect your seeming aim of accomodating people's opinions, there ARE such things as agreed upon scientific FACTS. The Earth is not flat. Objects do not fall up. If you wish really hard over your cat's litter box, it will not turn into a bowl full of Neapolitan ice cream. To argue otherwise is to argue that the entire BODY of western scientific thought be jettisoned overboard.

It's not "harsh intolerance" to argue, forcefully, that science not compromise its standards just because a small minority of religious extremists might be unwittingly exposed to the truth. I'm curious as to why it's so important to you to stand up for these folks and echo lies about how merely having a secular government and legitimate science taught in public schools amounts to 'discrimination' and 'bigotry'.

Who has declared war on who? You say 'no one is forcing anyone into gay marriage or stem cell research'.. that's right. But the same far right 'bible literalist' crowd are perfectly happy to try to impose THEIR beliefs on everyone else through the law and the public square. Many of them would like to see gay people put to death, not just forbidden from getting married. They're plenty happy to try to criminalize abortion, ban the birth control pill, or lecture rape victims at pharmacies when they're trying to get emergency contraception prescriptions filled. How nice of you to look out for their interests when their kids might be exposed to the idea that the sun is a ball of thermonuclear
hydrogen, as opposed to a giant group of orange angels singing hosannas to Jesus.

These folks cling to a belief system that is in open conflict with what we KNOW about reality. If they want to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were on "Noah's Ark", that's their right- but they sure as shit don't have the right to redefine what everyone else's kids are taught in public school science class, just because it conflicts with their 'religion'. To even argue anything resembling that is just beyond absurd, particularly given the multitude of 'deeply held beliefs' that various people may have.

And no, I'm not worried about losing the votes of Bible literalists- those folks aren't voting for our people come hell or high water. And if teaching scientific FACT in public schools -schools that they're welcome to pull their kids out of- amounts to 'intolerance', too fucking bad.

[Robert Cooper]

64. So if a Constitutional Ammendment came along...

...ending protection of religious freedoms, you'd be for it?

I'd be alarmed, as it is the fundamental concept of the freedom of conscience that is at stake.

If the state is permitted to persecute those whose freedom of conscience is not in vogue, how long will those in vogue remain so, and what becomes of their freedoms once the pendumlum swings the other way?

How quickly some liberals forget our roots.

Arguing for intolerance is the -other- guy's thing. Liberals never argue for intolerance. We argue for understanding, compassion, and cooperation.

When did that change?

(Edit: And not everyone can afford to homeschool. What of those who must send their children to PS?

[Warren DeMontague]

66. Your argument is just plain inane.

there's a difference between 'protection of religious freedom' and 'modifying the teaching of scientific FACT because it runs smack dab into some people's beliefs about reality'.

What you are saying, in essence, is ANY science that conflicts with ANY 'religious viewpoint' shouldn't be taught in public schools. Sorry, chum, teaching science isn't 'persecution', no matter how flailingly you may try to defend that astoundingly weak position.

There is probably someone, somewhere, whose 'religious beliefs' conflict with just about everything that might be taught in ANY science class. Someone, somewhere, probably believes that electricity is the white, hot, cracklin' jizz of the devil. What you are arguing for is that we chuck the entire body of western science overboard to placate people who are in deep denial about reality and who -as I keep mentioning, but I guess you're too busy with righteous indignation about the poor persecuted creationists to hear it- ARE PERFECTLY WELCOME TO HOME SCHOOL THEIR KIDS IF THEY CAN'T DEAL WITH THE REALITIES PRESENTED IN SCIENCE CLASS.

C'mon, keep trying to flip this around into the big bad, intolerant atheists and science-defenders turning our backs on our progressive roots while we argue for 'persecution' of those who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

[Robert Cooper]

68. perhaps a liberal will step forward...

"there's a difference between 'protection of religious freedom' and 'modifying the teaching of scientific FACT because it runs smack dab into some people's beliefs about reality'."

You don't seem to recognize that in granting religious freedom, you grant the freedom to chose what is "FACT" and what isn't to each religious individual. If they wish to believe God si a "FACT", they are free to do so. If they wish to believe in the Bible as the literal word of God as "FACT", they are free to do so. The Establishment Clause promises them freedom from state persecution for their religious beliefs.

Secular education like Evolution clearly challenges their religious beliefs, and does so through children at public school who are described by SCOTUS as "impressionable" and whose attendance is described as "involuntary".

"What you are saying, in essence, is ANY science that conflicts with ANY 'religious viewpoint' shouldn't be taught in public schools. Sorry, chum, teaching science isn't 'persecution', no matter how flailingly you may try to defend that astoundingly weak position."

Shall I assume you've not bothered to put yourself in the shoes of a Christian literalist and judged the situation from -their- point of view?

"There is probably someone, somewhere, whose 'religious beliefs' conflict with just about everything that might be taught in ANY science class. Someone, somewhere, probably believes that electricity is the white, hot, cracklin' jizz of the devil. What you are arguing for is that we chuck the entire body of western science overboard to placate people who are in deep denial about reality and who -as I keep mentioning, but I guess you're too busy with righteous indignation about the poor persecuted creationists to hear it- ARE PERFECTLY WELCOME TO HOME SCHOOL THEIR KIDS IF THEY CAN'T DEAL WITH THE REALITIES PRESENTED IN SCIENCE CLASS."

Actually, I added a response to that on edit, but it seems you were faster in responding than I was in editing. So I will repeat: not everyone can afford to homeschool. Furthermore, it would seem to me to be an economic penalty to require parents to take this step to avoid religious persecution at the public school.

And while I suppose chucking everything might be -one- solution, it's not one I've advocated nor do I believe it to be the only one.

Perhaps a liberal will step forward and discuss the matter with me.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. How the %*&@*(&%*( do you propose something like natural history be taught

or geology... without offending the tender sensibilities of people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old?

And you've got a really fucking distorted idea of what constitutes 'persecution'. People are free to believe whatever they want.. the ONLY fuckers in this country trying to mess with that are the religious right. But, again, people are free to believe that the Holocaust never happened- that doesn't mean they get to change HISTORY classes to protect their viewpoint. You seem to be utterly confused about the difference between the inside of the head of a 'biblical literalist' and the reality on the outside. It is not up to US to change the facts to suit their beliefs. Merely presenting the facts to their kids is not 'persecution'. Want me to put myself in their shoes? Sure. I would imagine that anyone so deep in fucking denial about reality would have a whole closet full of gibberish at the ready to handle little Samuel coming home from school with a geology textbook talking about the 4.5 billion year old Earth-- if someone can argue, with a straight face, that "satan" planted dinosaur bones to deceive man away from God and woo his virginal daughters into steamy pre-marital sex acts, they probably could say the same thing about geology textbooks.

[kevinbgoode]

191. Uh...what makes you think this has something to do with only

"christian" literalists? Again, they have made that choice, understanding the culture and society around them. Moreoever, unless they have also shown that their religious interpretations remain stagnant over time, the attempt here is to impose their contradictory teachings on everyone else. Sorry - they can attend religious schools.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. So, is it "progressive" to argue that the Holocaust shouldn't be taught

in history class?

After all, we wouldn't want to 'persecute' the children of Neo-Nazi holocaust deniers, right?

Is it 'progressive' to say that biology and medicine classes need to take into account the beliefs of those who think antibiotics are evil and all illness is a result of demon possession?

Because that, in essence, is what you're arguing here.

And 'not everyone' can afford to do a lot of things. The right wing in this country decided a long time ago that our tax dollars shouldn't have to go towards paying for poor peoples' abortions, even though mine have to go towards Iraq, and a multibillion dollar 'drug war' aimed primarily at locking up millions of nonviolent people who are not otherwise criminals (you want to talk about who is really being 'persecuted' in this country...) ... if Biblical literalists 'cant afford' to homeschool their children and thereby that avoid their exposure to the satanic influences of the ideas contained in that wicked tome known as Scientific American, again, that is most certainly NOT 'persecution'.

[Robert Cooper]

73. I think I've read enough of your opinion about religion...

...to see it doesn't match up with any breed of liberalism I'm familiar with.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Oh, that's a nice way

to avoid my question about whether history classes should be modified to avoid 'persecuting' folks who deny the reality of the Holocaust.

[Bridget Burke]

143. You already said that.

I've read some angry anti-religion screeds at DU. But none on this thread.

Perhaps you ought to become familiar with more breeds of liberalism.

[Warren DeMontague]

146. I've read enough of this guy's writing

to know that this is the kind of thing he does when he runs up against a question he plainly doesn't want to answer.

[Robert Cooper]

148. If you wish to tell me the breed of liberalism...

...that persecutes people of faith, let me know.

I'll be curious to see how many of their candidates get elected in '06.

[Warren DeMontague]

169. You're still trying to call the teaching of scientific truth "persecution"

I'm sorry, but that's sow's ear doesn't make anything resembling the silk purse you'd like it to.

Ah.. and I see you've switched tack, and now you've picked up the hackneyed "we need to woo the values voters" line. Hmmm. For a self-described gatekeeper of all that is truly "liberal", you sure do seem to babble an awful lot of right wing talking points.

The "breed" of Liberalism that defends teaching science in science class? I dunno. The ACLU sure seems to subscribe to it.

You can CALL teaching the TRUTH anything you want. Doesn't change what it IS.

And please- lets have an answer to my question: Does teaching the Holocaust in History class amount to "persecution" of Neo-Nazi parents?

[Bridget Burke]

214. There is no "breed of liberalism" that persecutes people of faith.

And I haven't seen any such posts on this thread. But plenty of us wish to support the Public Schools--& keep nonsense out of the science curriculum. Or--do you agree with these guys?

An all-out assault has been launched to uproot the foundations of Christian civilization in America.

If you’re intellectually sensitive to the presuppositions underlying current events, you’ve already seen the explicit agenda of humanists to silence the Christian voice in America.

No doubt you are greatly disturbed by the efforts of secularists, pluralists, and false religious groups to remove the Judeo-Christian God “from every post and pillar.” The following is just a few of the wicked strategies imposed by such humanist organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and other secular and false religious groups:

* The persecution of Chief Justice Roy Moore in Alabama

* The judicial attempts to remove Christian symbols, such as the nativity, from every public place

* The elimination of public prayer from every local and federal institution

* The promotion of gay marriage in Massachusetts and San Francisco

* The unhindered encroachment of Islam throughout Western nations

www.chalcedon.edu/underwriters.php

The War Against Christianity is a favorite phantom of the Religius Right. Thanks for revealing this new persona.

[Name removed]

224. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[countingbluecars]

229. You may not be a radical right winger,

but you will use their religious persecution argument to try to convince 'true liberals' to accept school vouchers. You have made your opinions on paying taxes and vouchers clear on previous threads. This argument, lofty as it may appear, sounds the same to me.

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[countingbluecars]

240. Just calling it like I see it.

Oh dear, I had forgotten you saved all my 'disruptive' posts.

Your words, "I have this archived on my machine, should this copy disappear for some reason."

LOL

[Robert Cooper]

244. I think you go beyond -that-...

...demonizing those who disagree. Making wild, unsupported accusations (as Bridget just did) simply to tear down those who disagree with your position. We've seen that before from Karl Rove. It's rather surprising to be getting the same treatment from so-called "liberals".

[Bridget Burke]

248. So--you're just using the Religious Right arguments to plead your case?

Even though you don't consider yourself one of them. Is it better to be a hypocrite than a fanatic?

My position: Anyone has the right to educate their children as they wish. If the Public Schools don't work for you, try a Private School. Or homeschool them.

[Name removed]

253. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

254. So--if I don't continue stalking you, I admit I'm a disruptor?

Your logic escapes me.

Has anybody here agreed with you that adding non-scientic theories to the Public School curriculum is "persecuting" Christians? That bit of logic has escaped just about everyone.

[countingbluecars]

249. You, Mr. Cooper,

are hypocritical in your criticism of me. Review your carefully archived collection for your "demonization' of the public schools and educators in your arguments for tax paid vouchers.

Does your making up dialogue such as below count as "wild, unsupported accusations"?

"So nice to see yet another example of the Public School system...
Edited on Sat Dec-03-05 06:57 AM by Robert Cooper

...helping to 'socialize' children.

Teacher: "Today, children, we're going to learn about homophobia, and here is our guest lecturer, the Principal"
Principal: "We got no room for faggots, closet queens or fairies and if you think you're going to be free to practice your sexual preference in public then think again..."

So when the PS system isn't failing up to a third of our children, the kids are traumatized when religious bigotry is rammed down their throats.

And we call this "socializing the children".

[Robert Cooper]

255. Nice effort to take matters out of context...

The topic was "Girl may suit school for telling mom she's gay..."
The link to the reply you've provided:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2288002#2288330

And I supported the satire in this reply:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2288002#2288330

But don't let that stop you from continuing to earn a reputation as a "disruptor".

[kevinbgoode]

194. So what about them?

Parents have been sending children to public schools for generations, knowing their church teachings sometimes differ than the public school. How is that, for example, intolerant? Especially when these same proponents for teaching creationism demand...DEMAND...that the Flying Spaghetti Monster not be taught, UFO colonization not be considered, settlement from another dimension, etc. In effect, they can't tolerate any belief that is different from their own explanation. Religion is not science - it is a chosen faith. And when that faith demands that you cannot practice it without imposing it on others, it belongs in the church. Many mainstream denominations have understood that for decades.

[K-W]

46. You answered your own question.

With that in mind...
...where do you draw the line

You draw the line exactly where you drew it:
between a neutral position towards religion and an attitude that "inhibits religion" as described by SCOTUS when testing the Establishment Clause?

That is the line.

[Robert Cooper]

48. That is a broad generality...

...I"m seeking something more concrete by way of example.

[K-W]

57. Right, drawing lines is by definition generalizing. EOM

[Robert Cooper]

60. Not necessarily...

...consider the line between "murder allowed" and "murder prohibited". I don't see any generalizing there.

The courts have had to cut some pretty clear lines with respect to the Establishment Clause. Creationism/ID is out because it imposes a religious belief.

The question is, does the teaching of Evolution inhibit a specific religious belief known as the believing in the literal truth of the Bible, including the story of Creation in Genesis? And the next question is, do the religious groups who hold that belief have a right to relief through the courts because their children are being taught that their religious beliefs are wrong by government-controlled entities according to government-controlled policies?

What teeth does the Constitution provide to prevent the state from persecuting a religion for one, some or all of its religious beliefs?

[Neil Lisst]

36. I agree with your analysis. However ...

We cannot dumb down the country in the hopes of reaching those who, frankly, don't understand science and prefer stories their equally uneducated preachers tell them.

[Robert Cooper]

38. I agree, in part...

... I would not suggest we "dumb down the country". I don't think that is necessary.

There has to be a less-extreme solution to this issue.

[Robert Cooper]

44. You know, we could use a few lawyers specializing in constitutional cases

involving the Establishment Clause in this discussion.

[ismnotwasm]

50. Oh good God

(Pun intended) Lets teach our children the scientific method shall we? In public schools? Let the parents round out the religious details. My husband and I were married by a man who is a fundamentalist, a "young earther" His wife, also a young earther, is a Nurse Practitioner. In college, she wrote a biology paper from the creationists view. She backed it up with the facts as they see them. These are nice folks and she's an excellent, caring nurse.

Do I agree with their views? Hell no. But they, as adults have the ability and resources to live their lives in the manner that supports their spiritual beliefs. It's the public funded indoctrination of CHILDREN I object to. Any science instructor I've EVER had has make it very clear that science is an evolving dynamic discipline with a lot of room for discovery. The very first biology professor I ever has mentioned that their were biologist who believed that ID and evolution were not incompatible. Look at Quantum Physics. Just who is the observer?
I'll never forget my chemistry professor. "Life puzzles me. I don't understand it" She didn't need to bring up religion, but she got across the pure awe she held for science and possibilities.

Legally, I don't see the problem. Science isn't in stasis. It's a wide open field especially right now. And it needs the discipline of scientific method, and the accurate understanding of scientific theory.

[Robert Cooper]

53. I appreciate that you are science-friendly...

...but not all religions are as friendly with all sciences as you seem to be.

The question is, does the Establishment Clause protect all religions equally from state-intervention, or do some religions get more protection than others?

Those in conflict with some of the sciences do not find their children's faith particularly protected in secular public schools.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. Too bad.

If people believe the Earth is flat, that's their right- but they don't have the 'right' to protect their kids from science classses that teach the truth to the contrary. Actually, that's not even entirely true- they certianly have the right to home school them, and teach them all manner of gibberish.

What they don't have the right to do is redefine science and fuck with public school curriculum simply because they conflict with their deeply held beliefs.

[savemefromdumbya]

59. Religion should stay out of education

[Lexingtonian]

61. There's one more predictable phase of the conflict

in sight, if you look at Jones III's outlining of the creationism/evolution court record. The Creationists' last opening is an all-out attempt to discredit Evolution. The evolution of that argument is itself predictable- all kinds of residual problems in modern biology brought up, then the scientists resolve them, and that goes on for a time. Ultimately what remains as an issue is the most marginal problem in evolutionary theory, the origin of material life, which evolutionary theory doesn't quite circumference.

The problem with your ideas about protecting religions from the state is what status to give reality and mainstream society in the argument. Say there were a religion that dogmatically believes the sky is orange, rather than blue. Or a religion that practices voluntary cannibalism. Or a religion that adamantly kills its adherents for underaged sex or adultery. Or a religion that believes in and inofficially enslaves people. Or one that insists on a primary language different from English. In practice there simply isn't a way to accommodate these religions with/in mainstream schooling.

There simply is a point where Creationist parents have to be told that they can and will not be accommodated by their public school system. They do have options- going to or founding schools that teach according to their views, homeschooling, or moving to a different country.

[Rodger Dodger]

62. If the literalis truly believe the bible:Then Adam and Eve family engaged

in incest, for they could not have extend the human race as they invision it without doing so. Therefore, we would all be descended from parents who committed incest' or perhaps adultry. Not a pleasent thought: which can hardly be denied.

It is also implied that the bible was written by learned men who wrote it for ignorant peasants. If that is so:those who wrote it made a lot of techinical mistakes.

As in the past:the student often, soon, surpasses theie teacher in intelectual persuits. Careful reading of the bible uncover many contradictions. For which literalists only answer is "you must have FAITH." Yes but in what; a fable?

The question them becomes; why!

[Robert Cooper]

69. I don't believe you will find any literalists who agree...

...and more to the point, none of that is relevant to the question of whether they have constitutional rights preotecting them from persecution by the state, and to what degree?

[Warren DeMontague]

72. They have the right to believe whatever they want

and they have the right not to be sent to jail for their beliefs.

They do NOT have the right to demand a wholesale redefinition of science merely because it conflicts with their demonstratably wrong ideas about things like the age of the Earth.

[Finder]

81. Thank goodness for public education...

where children can be educated in spite of their parents' ignorance. Jefferson knew an educated citizenry would understand religion for the myth that it is and he specifically meant Christianity and even cited Minerva's creation. So, our founders were well aware that education would contradict absurd belief systems.

[Robert Cooper]

83. "children can be educated in spite of their parents' ignorance"...

...and when they come for your children for indictrination into whatever belief is in power at the time, you're okay with that?

After all, the quoted bit of logic can be applied in -so- many different situations. It was the basis for the Hitler Youth and the re-education program of the Khmer Rouge.

I'm more concerned about state-run indoctrination programs than parental ignorance. The first rule of totalitarianism is the indoctrination of the young.

[Finder]

86. Well that is why being active in a child's education is important.

Too many see school as daycare and aren't proactive in the process.

[Robert Cooper]

89. Doesn't much matter how active you are...

Look at Kansas. Can't tell me there aren't lots of active parents in Kansas, yet the state board adopted a -minority- recommendation and the supernatural is part of science as far as the board is concerned.

Parents have no control over that. These individuals are elected by the general populace, parents making up only a portion of the vote.

And even with the opportunity to provide input, the board sided with the minority.

How did being an active parent prevent this from happening?

[Finder]

91. I mean active in your child's education.

Staying involved in what they are learning etc...

As far as Kansas, like Dover it will get back to educating rather than indoctrinating.

Remember, Hitler's first step to indoctrination was making religion a requirement in all schools.

[Robert Cooper]

98. I think this is missing the point...

...remaining involved does not change the way a test is scored, or the way a grade is earned in public schools.

If a child chooses to answer test questions with religious "truth" rather than secular "truth", how do you avoid Establishment Clause entanglements through Items 2 and 3 of the Lemon test?

[bread_and_roses]

138. Now you are conflating science with State-sponsored propaganda.

Science is not propaganda.

That is not to say, of course, that science has never been used for propaganda, nor that science has never been influenced by culture and mores. It would be salutary for some history of science to be taught along with the method, as a caution and one would hope prophylactic.

But the scientific method and the conclusions derived from its' observations are not intended to support a political doctrine or "belief" system.

Teaching science is not "indoctrination into belief in power" it is teaching of a method and the observations derived from that method.

[Robert Cooper]

150. one person's "propaganda" is another person's "truth"...

"Science is not propaganda."

Science is antagonistic to some religious beliefs, and thus is "propaganda" from the point of view of those who hold those beliefs.

"That is not to say, of course, that science has never been used for propaganda, nor that science has never been influenced by culture and mores. It would be salutary for some history of science to be taught along with the method, as a caution and one would hope prophylactic."

I agree, but I don't think that will resolve the issue being debated here.

"But the scientific method and the conclusions derived from its' observations are not intended to support a political doctrine or "belief" system."

I disagree. Science can only put forward natural explanations, and cannot accept supernatural explanations. I don't think anyone would disagree that this is how science is "intended" to work.

That is a "belief system" and disagrees with most religions on the causes of such things as "miracles".

"Teaching science is not "indoctrination into belief in power" it is teaching of a method and the observations derived from that method."

I'm not sure where you got that quote from. I don't recognize it as mine. But "teaching" involves more than just providing information. It also tests students to see if they absorbed the material and are fluent enough to use it. Students who provide religious "truths" in answer to questions are going to fail those questions. They will be told, in effect, that their religious "truths" are "wrong" by state employees acting in their official capacities.

How is that not an attack on the student's religious beliefs?

[bread_and_roses]

202. Which is why science teaches neither

Science teaches neither propaganda nor "truth."

<science:
# The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and THEORETICAL explanation of phenomena. (ie, not eternal and unalterable)
# Such activities restricted to a class of NATURAL phenomena. (ie, not magical or supernatural)
# Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.>

I post a definition which I am quite sure that you know simply to point out that it does not apply to either propaganda nor to religious "truth." Science is not much in the business of "truth" in the religious sense - unchanging, impervious to new knowledge. That is precisely why, if I understand correctly, Evolution is a "theory" - because it is an explanation subject to change should it be disproved by new "observation...experimental investigation." That is why those errors in science that have arisen and could arise from contamination by "culture" tend to be self-correcting - they cannot stand the continued "testing" of new knowledge derived from the scientific method. These are not the sources or the "tests" of of religious "truths."

You write: < Science can only put forward natural explanations, and cannot accept supernatural explanations. I don't think anyone would disagree that this is how science is "intended" to work.

That is a "belief system" and disagrees with most religions on the causes of such things as "miracles". >

And this is the false premise that you keep repeating. Science is not a "belief system." It is a methodology.

A student in science class is not being taught that his/her religious "truths" are "wrong" because he/she is not being taught an alternative religious "truth." The student is being taught the current theories supported by the scientific method - which has nothing to do with religious "truth."

In answer to your question about my quote, you wrote: "..and when they come for your children for indoctrination into whatever belief is in power at the time, you're okay with that?"

I truncated that quote inadvertently in my response. The point was that teaching science is not "indoctrinating into whatever belief is in power" because science is not a "belief system."

I don't see what is so hard about that distinction.

[Jim__]

77. I don't see how the Lemon test applies to the teaching of science.

Taking the part of the recent Dover decision that you quoted: "As articulated by the Supreme Court, under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Ammendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principle or primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13." (Page 90 Of Judge Jones' decision).

The issue with teaching the Theory of Evolution in biology class is a question of teaching science. So, (1)it has a secular purpose, (2) its primary effect is the teaching of science; therefore its primary or principal effect is neither to advance or inhibit religion; and (3) the teaching of science does not create an excessive entanglement of the government with religion.

I haven't read Judge Jones' decision; but my guess is that he ruled that the little disclaimer that had to be read before the teaching of evolution was that the statement was not teaching science and that its primary purpose was to advance religion. However, neither NOT reading the statement, nor the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution will fail any of these 3 tests.

[Robert Cooper]

79. Item 2 od the Lemon test...

...states that the "principle or primary -effect- advances or inhibits religion" (emphasis added). Here we're not talking of purpose. The purpose of educators may be non-hostile, but the "effect" for those whose religious beliefs run contrary to the material taught (and graded) is certainly "hostile" towards their religious beliefs.

And I think it hard to argue that the matter has not created "an excessive entanglement of the government with religion". School grades affect prosperity. To be graded lower for answering questions with religious "truth" rather than secular "truth" is to affect their future prosperity. They're punished by the state for their faith in their religion.

It seems to me arguments along these lines are in line with the Establishment Clause's prohibition about inhibiting religion.

[Zenlitened]

95. Nope.

The primary effect of teaching evolution is to properly educate young people.

What you describe is an effect on a small subset of people, i.e. fundamentalists.

That's very different, and no reason to override the very real public interest in creating an educated citizenry.

[Robert Cooper]

101. Primary "effect", or primary "purpose"?

I agree the primary -purpose- is "... teaching evolution is to properly educate young people.". And some will interpret the results as that being the "primary effect" as well.

But not all, which you concede:

"What you describe is an effect on a small subset of people, i.e. fundamentalists."

I agree that what I describe is an effect on a subset of people ("small" being a relative term and inconsequential to my reasoning). The question is: is the Establishment Clause for the protection of the minority from the majority, or is it a tool for the majority to assert itself upon the minority?

My understanding was that it was always for the protection of the minority (or to put it in your words: "a small subset of people").

"That's very different, and no reason to override the very real public interest in creating an educated citizenry."

And so religions that do not agree with state education standards are to be penalized through their youngest members in public schools? How does this avoid Items 2 and 3 of the Lemon test?

[Zenlitened]

132. No, religions that do not agree with state education standards...

... are free to seek education elsewhere, as many have done, or to participate in the democratic process to set those standards. As they've also done.

The establishment clause really does not apply here, though it does have an emotional appeal to the "poor persecuted christians" crowd. The state is doing nothing to establish a religion, nor is it prohibiting anyone from practicing their religion. Parents are still free to try to fill their kids' heads with whatever sort of mythology they prefer.

And your Lemon Test argument fails in so many ways, too. In terms of Items 2 and 3...

Neither the principle nor the primary effect of teaching evolution has anything to do with religion.

Any entanglement that may be present is hardly excessive. More like hyped, thanks to the political skills of a a few zealots, who should not be given the power to destroy both the teaching of sound science and the basis of our nation's public education system.

[Robert Cooper]

155. a few thoughts...

"No, religions that do not agree with state education standards are free to seek education elsewhere, as many have done, "

Which assumes they can afford it. Protection from the state inhibiting religion is not a right that must be purchased.

"or to participate in the democratic process to set those standards. As they've also done." And lost at trial, as in the case of Dover.

Which leaves us with a group of students who have no choice about being in the public school and whose religious beliefs receive no protection from the state's effort to inhibit those beliefs by replacing those beliefs with scientific knowledge.

As for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Zenlitened]

161. Re: The Dover trial...

The court case was part of the democratic process as well.

Re: rights that must be purchased. File this under "freedom isn't free," I suppose. More to the point, no one has denied them their right to a belief, so the argument really has no merit from the outset.

Again, as has been pointed out more than once in this thread, this is not a matter of "the state inhibiting religion." This is not a case of "replacing beliefs," but rather of conveying current science as part of a well-rounded education. If one's beliefs crumble up and blow away in the mere presence of facts... well, there's a belief system that just wasn't fit to compete in the marketplace of ideas, anyway.

And since you've raised the issue, what the f--k "breed" of liberal is so terrified of scientific knowledge, anyhow?

:shrug:

[Robert Cooper]

163. going around in circles...

"The court case was part of the democratic process as well." which I think demonstrates that it is not as simple as you made it sound when you said "religions that do not agree with state education standards are free to ... participate in the democratic process to set those standards. As they've also done."

"Re: rights that must be purchased. File this under "freedom isn't free," I suppose. More to the point, no one has denied them their right to a belief, so the argument really has no merit from the outset."

I disagree. Quoting from Jones' decision: "The Supreme Court went on to state: Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family. Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary."

Note the words "impressionable" and "attendance is involuntary". Students are no less "impressionable" and their attendance no less "involuntary" when the state tells them their religious "truths" are "wrong", as is the case when a student quotes Genesis rather than evolutionary theory.

"Again, as has been pointed out more than once in this thread, this is not a matter of "the state inhibiting religion." This is not a case of "replacing beliefs," but rather of conveying current science as part of a well-rounded education. If one's beliefs crumble up and blow away in the mere presence of facts... well, there's a belief system that just wasn't fit to compete in the marketplace of ideas, anyway."

And you don't see the self-contradiction there, do you?

"And since you've raised the issue, what the f--k "breed" of liberal is so terrified of scientific knowledge, anyhow?"

I'm sure I have no idea, as I've not suggested there is a breed of liberal who is "terrified of scientific knowledge".

Have we arrived at the point where we can agree to disagree?

[Zenlitened]

164. I'm curious as to what solution you might propose...

... to the problem as you've defined it?

:shrug:

[Robert Cooper]

167. I think looking for solutions is a bit premature at this point...

...because we've yet to frame the problem.

Consider that SCOTUS may have addressed this issue. Would be pointless to suggest a solution if SCOTUS has already provided one.

If SCOTUS has provided a solution, we don't actually have a "problem" (other than my ignorance of their decision, assuming there is one).

I've said elsewhere that I don't think the authors of the Constitution imagined this kind of problem. I've also said I'd really like a few legal eagles to drop in and set me straight on this issue, or agree it's a problem, either way will do. I've also said I don't see this as a "your way or my way" kind of problem. To me, either way is just as disrespectful of the religious beliefs of the other party.

One thing I -do- believe: the politics of exclusion and conflict resolves nothing, and that certainly seems to be the paradigm in play today between the state and Christian literalists. I think it is to the advantage of America and the Democrats if Democrats can find a solution to this problem that respects all involved.

[Warren DeMontague]

176. The problem is that you don't recognize objective scientific truth

And thanks, but I think someone with such an obvious fingernail grip on reality isn't in any position to be offering meaningful political advice to anyone.

[Zenlitened]

180. Edwards v. Aguillard?

Epperson v. Arkansas?

Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet?

:shrug:

[Robert Cooper]

184. Can I assume...

...these are cases related to the issue being discussed here?

My thanks if they are.

[Zenlitened]

182. Re: "And you don't see the self-contradiction there, do you?"

No, I don't. Care to explain?

[Robert Cooper]

185. This is probably going to sound 'cute', but...

...how do I explain something you can't see when all the evidence is there before you?

"this is not a matter of "the state inhibiting religion." ... If one's beliefs crumble up and blow away in the mere presence of facts... well, there's a belief system that just wasn't fit to compete in the marketplace of ideas, anyway."

Very interesting considering you're talking about "impressionable" children whose participation is "involuntary". So if children can't stand up to their teachers, the school system, are unwilling to fail for the sake of their religious principles, their beliefs weren't "fit to compete in the marketplace of ideas, anyway."?

"This is not a case of "replacing beliefs," but rather of conveying current science as part of a well-rounded education."

Schools are teaching these "impressionable" kids whose participation is "involuntary" that humans evolved from apes, in an effort to replace the belief that God created humans some 6000 years ago, or any other belief that is not in agreement with evolution. Not just teach, but test these kids with lower marks as a punishment for anyone who doesn't provide the "right" answer.

Yes, I'd call that a case of "replacing beliefs": the beliefs of "impressionable" children.

[Jim__]

129. The primary effect of teaching science is students get an education

in science. Any inferences people may draw from a knowledge of science is secondary.

Up until quite recently, the head of the Flat Earth Society was a fundamentalist. His interpretation of the Bible was just more literal than most other fundamentalists, although quite in line with the common fundamentalist interpretation circa the 15th century and earlier. Based on your assertions, public schools couldn't teach that the earth is (roughly) round, because the principal effect of this is to inhibit this type of religious belief. I'm sorry, but if people's religious beliefs fly in the face of simple reality, the state is not prohibited from discussing reality.

As to the assertion, made in the opening of the thread: The question: is the state actively working to undermine a religious group by teaching their children ("Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary") that there is no basis for literal belief in their sacred book?

The state is not teaching young people that there is no basis for their belief. The state is teaching young people about a scientific theory. If, based on this scientific theory, the people infer that their is no basis for their religious belief, that is an inference made by them, and is not a primary effect of a science education.

[Zenlitened]

133. Well said!

The state is teaching young people about a scientific theory. If, based on this scientific theory, the people infer that their is no basis for their religious belief, that is an inference made by them, and is not a primary effect of a science education.

:applause:

[Robert Cooper]

160. If you ask a literalist student how humanity came to exist...

...and he/she answers with a quote from Genesis the student will fail the question. They will be told they are "wrong", not given a mark, by a state employee.

There is no inference here. The case is as black and white as it gets. The state, in pursuing it's "purpose" to educate children, will actively teach Christian literalists that their "truths" are "wrong" when it comes to science. That is the "primary effect" for these students. They are not "educated" when they are told their religious "truths" are "wrong". They are "persecuted" for their religious faith.

[Jim__]

227. The question of how humanity came to exist, is outside the scope of

biology in particular, and science in general.

Now, in a college biology class (I doubt this question would be asked in a high school biology class)if a student were asked who were the ancestors of human beings, the student could simply preface his answer with. "According to the theory of evolution ..." and give the scientifically correct answer to the question. Once again, it is only by inference that he could conclude this means his religious beliefs are wrong.

[Raydawg1234]

78. That's why we have private schools. These people have to realize

that if you want the bible taught in school, you can enrol your kids in a private school.

[Robert Cooper]

80. and then they are punished financially for their religious views...

...I don't see this being a solution, especially for those who cannot afford it.

(edit: typo)

[Finder]

82. Most accredited private schools teach evolution in biology class...

so they would not be comfortable there either.

[Raydawg1234]

84. I'm talking about a religous private school, Like the Catholic school I

went to for a year, where we had nuns as teachers.

[Finder]

88. I attended Catholic School 25+ years ago and was taught...

evolution in biology. The Catholic faith accepts evolution as fact in science.

[Raydawg1234]

85. most fundies are not poor. The people who you see critizing the schools

are generally middle class. That Is why I suggested they enroll their kids in a private school where creationism is taught. I'm not suggesting the privatization of education in general.

[Robert Cooper]

87. So undermining a religion doesn't breach the EC?

...those who cannot afford private schools or home school are locked into a system that undermines the faith of their children.

How does this not breach Items 2 and 3 of the Lemon test?

Those who -can- afford private schools or home school suffer a financial burden to do so to avoid persecution of their religion in public school. How does this not breach Items 2 and 3 of the Lemon test?

[Finder]

90. Your definition of persecution is incorrect. n/t

[Robert Cooper]

102. "to cause to suffer because of belief" nt

[Warren DeMontague]

145. People who believe gays should be stoned to death and women should be

veiled, presumably, have to "suffer" as part of their beliefs because we live in a society that allows 'sodomites' to live relatively unbothered, and women to walk around unveiled.

What if someone's religion includes the belief that dinosaurs aren't real? Or God made white people the master race? How are their kids supposed to get through High School without being "persecuted"?

Your definition of persecution is laughable.

[The Flaming Red Head]

92. You can’t teach basic biology without evolution

Eukaryotic versus prokaryotic development can’t be taught without evolutionary theory coming into the discussion.

Evolution and the belief in developement of the species didn’t start with Darwin and it is the basis for all modern biological sciences.

I wouldn’t want a surgeon operating on me that didn’t know basic cellular biology. He wouldn’t have a clue.

ID is junk, it’s trash, it isn’t even religion, it’s utter nonsense.


"ev·o·lu·tion
(plural ev·o·lu·tions)
n
1. biology theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.
On this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.
2. biology developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material "

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. I'm still waiting for an answer from the OP

on how schools are supposed to teach natural history or geology without upsetting people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

[Robert Cooper]

107. I'm still trying to figure out what brand of liberalism you represent...

...the only people I know who are as flagrantly opposed to people of faith, showing them so little respect as to be non-existent, are the Communists.

I don't think those views are widely held, let alone shared by a majority of Democrats.

And a complete lack of respect for people of faith is a non-starter in this discussion.

Your position is known, and is no less dogmatic than the positions of those for whom you obviously disrespect. Repeating the arguments back and forth between you and I serves no purpose in this discussion. Unless you actually come up with something new -and- useful, I see no reason for further comment from me and I'm quite happy to see your position judged upon its merits as determined by each reader.

[bread_and_roses]

134. How is the question in post #96 disrespectful?

It seems perfectly pertinent to me.

[Robert Cooper]

162. I suggest you read all of the responses from that individual...

...as I have done.

[bread_and_roses]

196. I'm not interested in that poster, I'm interested in your answer to his/

her questions, which seem valid and pertinent to me.

I read all the posts in a thread before I respond, but I rarely pay much attention to who is posting what, certainly not in a thread as long as this one was even earlier when I posted that question.

I have not yet read the new posts; perhaps you answered the question in one of those. But if not, I'd certainly like an answer, since they stand in large part for a point I raised down-thead: a child cannot spend any time in public school without encountering teaching that contradicts the beliefs of biblical literalists.

[bread_and_roses]

198. Just realized I sound very rude to poster # 96

That was awkward phrasing. I meant that whatever points he/she had made, or whatever tone he/she used in other posts, was not the issue.

[Robert Cooper]

217. "...a child cannot spend any time in public school without ...

...encountering teaching that contradicts the beliefs of biblical literalists."

I could be wrong, but I suspect there is a range of grades that would not pose problems: K-6 or K-8. I doubt secondary school is as problem-free.

As for the question: what to do with them, it depends in large part on whether SCOTUS has ruled on this matter. If it has, there's the solution. If not, Dems need to work out a solution.

It might involve vouchers, opting out, and/or adding a stream in the existing school system. It might involve something entirely different. I don't want to limit the options at this point because we're still working on defining the problem.

Bear in mind that the problem is rather narrowly defined in the sense that we are talking about kids in school, not adults in society. Adults in society can opt out of activities. Kids in school cannot. As SCOTUS has described them, they are "impressionable" and their participation is "involuntary". That creates a particularly vulnerable situation for the children that doesn't exist elsewhere in society. They're cut off from their support group: no moral support, emotional support, religious support at school. They're confronted with authority figures whom they are expected to obey and respect, and those authority figures are telling them that their religious beliefs are "wrong" when it comes to evolution and parts of geology and astronomy.

So questions like 'what about those who don't think women should vote, etc' are not relevant to this debate. Such questions are about adults (who are not "impressionable") who can choose to emigrate if they don't like American democracy (iow their participation is not "involuntary").

Adults are not in as great a need for protection as school-age children. And Jones' alludes to that in his decision:

"On Page 36 of his decision, Judge Jones writes: "The Supreme Court instructed in Edwards that it has been particularly 'vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools'. 482 U.S. at 583-84. The Supreme Court went on to state: Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family. Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary.
Id. (citing Grand Rapids Sch. Dist. v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 383 (1985); Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60 n.51)."

I hope that clears up the backlog of your questions, but feel free to point out any I've missed for which you'd like an answer.

[Finder]

140. I figured you would throw out the "godless commie" sooner...

or later. Liberals and progressives tolerate but are not required to "respect" anyone's beliefs. I personally take the position of several founding fathers. As long as someone's beliefs don't harm me, I don't care. As Jefferson said:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

[Robert Cooper]

188. And if that was what I'd been seeing...

...I'd be talking to liberals.

I'm yet to meet the liberal who believes in persecuting people of faith. It's a sort of 'mutually-exclusive' thing.

[Zenlitened]

135. Good question. - n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. For the sake of peace, let's teach that 3 = 1.

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Actually, according to the OP, it's not "peace"

it's to avoid persecuting people--- with the truth!

It's really one of the most clusterf*#@ed arguments I've ever heard anyone try to float here.

[Robert Cooper]

108. I'm not familiar with the quote, but I'd say that was a crack...

...against Catholicism's faith in the Trinity.

I fail to see the relevancy of this statement to this discussion. Perhaps you can clarify.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

112. The argument is against the acceptance of ignorance.

Jefferson said many things against established religion of any stripe. The idea that we should accept the teaching of ignorance out of respect for the benighted is as old as the advent of the first purveyor of religious dogma.

As with "prayer in school", it is a strawman. If people wish to pray anywhere there are free to do so. If they wish their children to believe in mythology they can teach them what they please. They just aren't allowed to use the public schools to do so.

"The bible is a book with some beautiful poetry, a blood stained history, a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of 10,000 lies." - Mark Twain

[Robert Cooper]

116. "The idea that we should accept the teaching of ignorance ...

...out of respect for the benighted is as old as the advent of the first purveyor of religious dogma."

That would include the following:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"If they wish their children to believe in mythology they can teach them what they please. They just aren't allowed to use the public schools to do so." Which is no different to what literalists say about Evolution. It all depends upon which paradigm you accept as "true".

But when literalist students are flunked for providing religious "truth" rather than secular "truth", how do you claim the state is neutral with respect to their religion?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

136. You make a good argument for doing away with "the state".

Actually, as an Anarchist, one that I agree with to a point.

I don't particularly care if someone wants to believe that the universe was created by chance, by a God(s), or hatched from the egg of a kangaroo. I'm sure the universe is unconcerned about what we junior pipsqueeks residing on what amounts to a speck of dust do, think, or believe.

However, extrapolating on your argument, if little Johnny wants to insist that 2+2=9 because he was taught it was and believes it because of his religion, he will have to accept the consequences of his and his religion's ignorance. Or, who knows, perhaps in some nook in the indifferent universe 2+2 does equal 9. Alas, poor little Johnny and his like, reside in this part of the universe where 2+2=4 and there is no evidence of a God(s).

It is interesting to note that the quote you used "We hold these truths..etc" is patently false. The man who wrote those words didn't even believe them.

[Robert Cooper]

168. I was unaware of this...

...perhaps you'll point out where I gave that argument.

As for the rest (sans last paragraph), it is certainly -not- easy to keep a promise not to interfere or discourage religion in general or any religion in particular. No one can foresee the form religion will take in the future.

But for better or worse, your Constitution includes such a provision and your courts are obliged to reckon with it.

And there is something to be said for a country that can remain neutral towards all religions.

As for the last paragraph. "Patently false" or not, America was founded by religious men.

Whatever else is said of the religious, as Sagan's "Contact" makes clear, the vast majority of humanity believes in a supernatural reality that science cannot touch. Either the vast majority are insane, chronically superstitious, or experiencing something that science can't recognize.

[Warren DeMontague]

141. So, you argue that concepts like the age of the Earth, or Newton's Second

Law of Motion..

have no objective reality whatsoever?

:crazy:

Well, at least another poster cleared up what this is all REALLY about. Behind the questioning the 'liberal' (awfully hung up on labels, there, aren'tcha Bob?) credentials of anyone who wants SCIENCE taught in SCIENCE classes, you're really just shilling for school vouchers. Wow. What a liberal YOU are.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. The "relevancy" is that you want FACTS modified to suit people's BELIEFS.

NOT teaching that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, or that Humans, apes, and your cat share common ancestry, is the same as teaching 3=1... I.E. It's teaching BULLSHIT in leiu of science and math.

Sorry. The world don't work that way. Try again.

[DanCa]

99. I was readding Bill Press how the republican's stole Christmas.

If you want a clear cut mindset of the fundie mentality and why they scare the hell out of me I suggest that you pick it up. It's a hell of a read, pun intended :D

[Robert Cooper]

109. I don't think I favour fundamentalism any more than you do...

...when it comes to taking over the state.

Those whose religion are not protected by the state have every reason to take over the state to obtain the protections otherwise denied them.

[Lindacooks]

100. And those literalists don't even understand how inconsistent they are.

They don't stone their kids to death when they disobey.

They wear fabrics made of two different kinds of thread.

They eat shellfish.

They don't stone family members to death when there's a divorce.

They don't examine their daughters for virginity before marriage (at least some don't).

They pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally and ignore huge swathes of the rest. They are TOTAL hypocrites.

[Robert Cooper]

111. I refer you to reply 69

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5676733&mesg_id=5691597

[Jeffersons Ghost]

104. Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A legal eagle might swoop in and correct me but this appears to say that there can be "no law" to establish Christianity or ANY religion in federal institutions like schools, especially if your evicting Darwin, who, instead of replacing it, only marveled at the wonder of Divine work. Divinity and science are not in conflict: conflict is between people and it might be a ruse to distract from other issues of constitutional law that are more pressing.

[0rganism]

105. You repeatedly ask, "When is the state interfering with religion?"

Judge Jones addresses this in his opinion -- in fact, it is the primary topic he considers. The difference here is, Jones proceeds on the premise that school board of Dover is considered to be part of the state, as are the public schools of Dover. So when the Dover fundamentalists decide to push their peculiar texts and disclaimers into the classrooms via dictates of the school board, that in itself is deemed to be "excessive entanglement" -- which is precisely the violation of the Establishment Clause you were seeking.

As to the matter of secularism conflicting with religion, that is hardly a new problem. Any number of religions could take issue with the secular scientific views of cosmology, atomic structure, geology, or biology, and the fanatically devoted sometimes go so far as to call science a religion. The issue we have to examine, then, is whether a lack of religion is itself a religion. It seems to me that such an outlook is itself inherently religious -- not that it becomes less relevent thereby, but I think we can agree that it is not the scientists who are calling their profession religious. Anecdotally speaking, I have known many devoutly religious people in my life, and not one of them would have hesitated to describe their religious views as such. Oddly enough, a great many of these were also professional scientists, and never would have categorized their career practices as religious.

Regardless, it is not the job of scientists to keep their findings in line with the dogma of any church.

It is not the job of public teachers to attack science in order to preserve that dogma.

It is not legal for the school board of Dover to mandate that they do so.

[Robert Cooper]

106. I've no objection to your statements, but they do not address the issue...

...I've raised.

It seems to me inhibiting a religion does not require the establishment of a competing religion (tho' it might be argued this is being done as well). Communists inhibit religion without replacing it with another religion.

Christian literalists are expected to provide the "right" answers to school questions. If asked "how did humanity come into existence", the correct answer would be something like "descended from apes".

However, that is not the "truth" according to their religious faith. They must "lie" to get full marks on the question. If they provide their religious "truth" ("God created us") they get no score on the question.

Clearly, they are penalized by the state for holding certain religious beliefs to be true. Penalizing them for holding certain religious beliefs is persecution. Those whose religious beliefs are not in conflict with secular education are rewarded when they answer questions with secular "truths".

This certainly appears to be a matter of favouring some religious beliefs over others, and taking a direct hand in ending the unfavoured beliefs through the education of "impressionable" children whose participation is "involuntary".

If your children are indoctrinated into beliefs that your religion rejects, how does this not conflict with Items 2 and 3 of the Lemon test?

[0rganism]

166. Sure they address the issue

The two important questions are:
1) In what sense does the state establish religion or prevent the free exercise thereof?
and
2) Does teaching the theory of evolution in a biology class constitute establishment of religion or preventing the free exercise thereof?

> Christian literalists are expected to provide the "right" answers to school questions...
> If they provide their religious "truth" ("God created us") they get no score on the question.

This is not prejudicial. Just as religious literalists and non-literalists and secularists alike could be expected to answer questions regarding Zeus correctly in a class regarding Greek mythology, the questions themselves are to be addressed in the context of material studied rather than the paradigm preferred.

If a student takes severe religious issue with the theory of evolution, s/he is welcome to preface his/her answer to your hypothetical question with a phrase like, "According to the theory of evolution," as in "According to the theory of evolution, humanity descended from apes." Such an answer would have equal truth value to the expected answer, but in no way conflict with the student's beliefs to the contrary. If instead of biology, it were a literary course on the bible (my public high school had one) and the same question was posited, an atheist would not be hard-put to write "According to Genesis 1:26..."

Of course, the responsible test author could qualify the question appropriately beforehand. For instance, answers to questions of descent could be markedly different if one were considering the Lamarckian version of evolution, or punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism. By referencing the appropriate parameters in the question, the careful school teacher could do much to avoid such conflicts before they occur.

In any case, the student is NOT prevented from making a religiously-correct answer. While it may not score points on a test, they can still express their beliefs, or not answer the question at all. That choice has not been taken away.

And this...
> Those whose religious beliefs are not in conflict with secular education are rewarded when they
> answer questions with secular "truths".

Rewarded? Hardly. They are given the same points as anyone else for the correct answer to a question, that is all. There is no intrinsic reward for having a world-view that fits the course context.

[Robert Cooper]

177. response...

"This is not prejudicial...That choice has not been taken away."

Between the course material and the deference shown evolution as a science, I don't think you're going to get around creating the distinct impression that some religious beliefs are acceptable and some are not.

"There is no intrinsic reward for having a world-view that fits the course context." Of course there is. One is better prepared to provide "right" answers. If you raise a child to believe in Genesis as literal truth, how much more difficult to provide "right" answers than the child raised to believe in Evolution (for without a doubt, the child is not out there testing scientific statements to determine their accuracy)?

[0rganism]

187. we'll have to agree to disagree, then

> Between the course material and the deference shown evolution as a science,

Let's be very clear here. Evolution is "shown deference" because it is science, it is not science because it is shown deference. If we were to chop everything from the science classes that could possibly conflict with a student's deeply held beliefs, it would do much to gut what are already watered-down curricula.

> I don't think you're going to get around creating the distinct impression that
> some religious beliefs are acceptable and some are not.

Once again, the public schools cannot and should not walk on eggshells around every impression a student may or may not get. However, I would point out that the distinct impression students of all faiths would be wise to gather from such conflict is that some religious beliefs do conflict with empirical knowledge in specific ways.

> Of course there is. One is better prepared to provide "right" answers. If you raise a child to believe
> in Genesis as literal truth, how much more difficult to provide "right" answers than the child raised
> to believe in Evolution

Only insofar as one's religious instructors have not actively interfered with the student's ability to assimilate course content. Would a student with holocaust-denying neo-nazi parents have greater difficulty with respect to a history course covering WW2? Possibly, but one cannot simply excise that chapter to avoid that potential clash with ideology, nor should history teachers be forced to cover "alternative" versions of the war as equally credible when they aren't. Nor should they be forced to cater to a Klan-child's views on race, simply because the notion that other races are equally human is deeply offensive or difficult to grasp because of upbringing.

The public schools cannot account for every friction introduced by careless or opinionated parents. If a religion holds that women should not be allowed to read, do we expel female students and teachers from the system to avoid conflict? No, we do not, and by not doing so we are not repudiating the religious belief per se but rather separating that belief from common public practice. Whether a child is illiterate because of neglectful parents or religiously zealous parents, that does not excuse them from learning the curriculum.

> for without a doubt, the child is not out there testing scientific statements to determine their
> accuracy

Even if students are not an active part of the peer-review process, they may still be repeating experiments or doing further study. Back in the day, my 9th-grade geology class took field trips to rock formations with trilobyte fossils and various other types of sediment, using radiometric-dated index layers to annotate the age of our collected rock samples. That is hardly the kind of thing that should be put on hold to facilitate a young-earth creationist's sensibilities.

Most humans will never see, touch, hold, or isotropically date an archaeopteryx fossil. It is as inappropriate to withhold related material concerning the development of birds on that basis as it would be to ignore the red shift phenomenon because most people will never work at an observatory.

The promise science makes is that its theories and inferences are built upon observables, not that everyone and their dog will necessarily be in a position to make those same observations.

[ProfessorGAC]

110. Sorry, Robert

You have not contributed anything to my understanding. The whole thesis is that the secularists dont' understand that some people read the bible as literal. I knew that. I think most here did, as well.

That's the crux of the disagreement. They think the book is literal. The majority of christians do not. Add in those non-christians, and the vast majority disagrees with them.

The disagreement isn't secularist vs. religious. It's hardcore literalist flying in the face of science against the vast majority.

It's not a matter for most, i think, of not understanding the other side. It's understanding what they say, why they saying, and flat out rejecting that interpretation of the world.
The Professor

[Robert Cooper]

114. So you seem to be saying the EC is a tool to be used by the majority...

...against the minority.

"They think the book is literal ... the vast majority disagrees with them." ergo no protection from the state undermining the religious beliefs of a minority?

"It's hardcore literalist flying in the face of science against the vast majority." and this gives the state the right to undermine their religious beliefs?

Seems to me this gives rise to an argument that the only religions the state will protect are the religions whose beliefs coincide with the state. 'all religions are created equally, but some are more equal than others'? (with apologies to Orwell).

[ProfessorGAC]

115. A Gross Overtinterpretation

Don't read too much into my reply. I didn't say that weren't allowed to believe what they want to believe. That's absurd to ascribe that to my first post. Read your first paragraph. The "ergo" is completely yours. My statement is a fact. To infer as much as you did from that simple statement is simply wrong.

Second paragraph: How in the world does keeping a religious POV out of a science classroom undermine their religious belief?

"Seems to me" that you are so defensive about your point of view in this regard that you will resort to putting words into other people's mouths to support it.
The Professor

[Robert Cooper]

117. Actually, it was a question...

"Don't read too much into my reply. I didn't say that weren't allowed to believe what they want to believe. That's absurd to ascribe that to my first post. Read your first paragraph. The "ergo" is completely yours. My statement is a fact. To infer as much as you did from that simple statement is simply wrong."

First, note that "ergo" and the words that follow are not in quotations, clearly delineating my question from your statement. Furthermore, my statement is followed by a question mark, making it clear I am asking you if this is the case, not telling you it is.

"Second paragraph: How in the world does keeping a religious POV out of a science classroom undermine their religious belief?"

Their answers to questions (and acceptance of course material) hinges upon their religious beliefs.

If asked how old the world is, and they answer "it was created by God 6000 years ago", they are going to be told their answer is "incorrect" and not given a mark for their answer. They are being told their religious "truth" is "incorrect" by their teacher. How does this not undermine the religious faith of these children?

" "Seems to me" that you are so defensive about your point of view in this regard that you will resort to putting words into other people's mouths to support it."

Really. If you were to simply follow my use of basic punctuation like quotation marks and question marks you'd have a much harder time trying to make -that- argument.

[ProfessorGAC]

118. Well, You Never Addressed The Point Of My First Post

You took things out of context and asked questions that weren't related to what i originally posted.

What was i supposed to think? I certainly know how to recognize a question. So, when a question is asked that is irrelevant to the earlier point, it would seem logical to conclude an overreach.
The Professor

[Robert Cooper]

124. I think yoiu will find...

...that I've been addressing points like yours elsewhere in this discussion.

But let's go over your original statements:

"You have not contributed anything to my understanding. The whole thesis is that the secularists dont' understand that some people read the bible as literal. I knew that. I think most here did, as well."

Declaratory statement, irrelevant.

"That's the crux of the disagreement. They think the book is literal. The majority of christians do not. Add in those non-christians, and the vast majority disagrees with them."

Declaratory statement: you appear to be making a distinction between a majority group and a minority group as if this has merit in this discussion (thus my first question)

"The disagreement isn't secularist vs. religious. It's hardcore literalist flying in the face of science against the vast majority."

Declaratory statement: you appear to be dismissing "hardcore literalist" as a "religious" individual, without evidence to support the apearance you've created. self-contradictory. And again you push the "vast majority" as if religious protection is only reserved for the majority (thus my second question).

"It's not a matter for most, i think, of not understanding the other side. It's understanding what they say, why they saying, and flat out rejecting that interpretation of the world."

Declaratory statement: irrelevant.

[ProfessorGAC]

127. Let Me Clarify

Then you'll see the relevance.

The understanding of the root of their point of view doesn't matter. I already understood it. It is that root with which i disagree. So, anything beyond that is where the irrelevance begins.

I do not think the state has ANY place in this. The role of the state is to stay out of religious differences. That's it. There is no majority right or minority right. If the state is sponsoring and funding public education, their place is easily protected by making sure that science is science, and religion is religion.

The vast majority of christian faiths accept the bible as metaphorical. There are more than a billion catholics, more than 150 million of each, Baptists (non-fundamentalist), Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Luterans, and orthodox catholics who accept the basic tenets of evolution and cosmology. The RC church has issued written statements to the effect that their teachings are compatible with Darwin and the Big Bang. So, billions of christians accept that science is science and faith is faith. Now, add in the billions of folks of faith who are non-christian and those who do not ascribe to any faith!

There can be no negotiation with a minority that will not accept the same basic facts of science as the vast majority. There is, for instance, nothing i can say that will dissuade them from believing in the literal nature of the bible, and nothing they can say to convince me it is anything other than allegory.

So, the state is not responsible for inserting the minority view into the world of science. Their place is to stay out of it completely. That is not only constitutional, but abjectly fair. No political body, from the federal gov't to the local school board, should attempt to validate any religous point of view, majority or minority. The simple out is to keep science science, and faith faith!

Hence, i reject your basic premise that there is any point of negotiation or that the state has any place whatsoever in this discussion. There is no common ground on which to reach agreement since the primary theses are intractably separate. And, the state has zero responsibility to see the point of view of any one group is protected over any other.

Turn your statement around. What should the state do to provide protection of the belief of the majority over the minority? I think you'd agree that the answer is nothing! The minority or majority status has nothing to do with it. But, the right of that minority to believe what they wish, while certainly protected, ends with their personal decision. They have zero right to impose those beliefs on anybody else, and the state has no obligation to see that those beliefs fostered further.
The Professor

[Robert Cooper]

183. so we'll agree to disagree...

"I do not think the state has ANY place in this. The role of the state is to stay out of religious differences. That's it. There is no majority right or minority right. If the state is sponsoring and funding public education, their place is easily protected by making sure that science is science, and religion is religion."

It would be simpler if science and religion could be kept separate. But that is not always possible. The Establishment Clause gives the state no power to control religion, let alone tailor it to suit the state's desires. Religion can be include or exclude any belief.

"The vast majority of christian faiths accept the bible as metaphorical. There are more than a billion catholics, more than 150 million of each, Baptists (non-fundamentalist), Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Luterans, and orthodox catholics who accept the basic tenets of evolution and cosmology. The RC church has issued written statements to the effect that their teachings are compatible with Darwin and the Big Bang. So, billions of christians accept that science is science and faith is faith. Now, add in the billions of folks of faith who are non-christian and those who do not ascribe to any faith!"

Irrelevant. The EC does not talk of a "majority" of religions.

"There can be no negotiation with a minority that will not accept the same basic facts of science as the vast majority."

So you've nullified the Lemon test's protection of religion from being inhibited by the state? SCOTUS seems to think it's still valid.

There is nothing about a right being negotiated. Nothing about the size of the minority involved. Nothing about cooperating with the state and it's objectives in education. It's a blanket protection that the state will not inhibit religion, period.

"There is, for instance, nothing i can say that will dissuade them from believing in the literal nature of the bible, and nothing they can say to convince me it is anything other than allegory."

Nor any need for either to convert the other against their will.

"So, the state is not responsible for inserting the minority view into the world of science. Their place is to stay out of it completely."

That's right: neither promote nor inhibit.

"That is not only constitutional, but abjectly fair. No political body, from the federal gov't to the local school board, should attempt to validate any religous point of view, majority or minority."

And neither should they attempt to -invalidate- any religious point of view, majority or minority. The state must remain neutral to all religions.

"The simple out is to keep science science, and faith faith!"

Unfortunately this out is not available. Religious freedom means we each pick our own beliefs. The state cannot dictate those beliefs to us. There can be no guarantee that religion and science will be mutually agreeable.

Consider the cases of primitive tribes believing a camera would steal their soul. Can you measure a soul to their satisfaction to prove to them that their soul was not stolen? Some religious beliefs do not deal with reality through the scientific method. the religious "truths" and the scientific "truths" are mutually antagonistic.

"Hence, i reject your basic premise..."

Then we'll agree to disagree.

[annabanana]

192. bravo, professor...

and thank you.

[Warren DeMontague]

179. I think you will find...

that the OP ignores questions or arguments he deems inconvenient.

[kalibex]

113. Are you implying...

...that you suspect that if the Bible Literalists were thrown a bone (such as being given permission to 'opt-out' of evolution lessons in public schools), that perhaps some of the zeal of the dominionist impulses running through their community would wane...?

But where does it end? Should Literalist college students be 'forgiven' their ignorance of evolution theories as they enter college? Will they be allowed their own 'track' throughout life, coddled from any challenge to their belief system?

Would that not be them successfully forcing some level of warping of the society around them?

They would, by all accounts, very much like everyone else to switch to their way of thinking. Willy nilly. At what point does such accomodation become a slippery slope?

-B

[ProfessorGAC]

119. To Add To Your Question

Should any science student be able to opt out of a basic understanding of cosmology? How about basic orbital theory in chemistry? We would have a coterie of folks trained in the sciences who didn't understand anything about science.
The Professor

[Robert Cooper]

121. Yes...

..."Are you implying that you suspect that if the Bible Literalists were thrown a bone (such as being given permission to 'opt-out' of evolution lessons in public schools), that perhaps some of the zeal of the dominionist impulses running through their community would wane...?"

Yes. Either a group feels protected by the state or it is tempted to take over the state to obtain protections the group feels are rightfully theirs yet are being denied them.

I think it can be fairly argued that state education does not remain "neutral" with respect to Christian literalist religious beliefs. The Establishment Clause tells all Americans they should be free of a state antagonistic to their religious beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs are in the majority or the minority.

"But where does it end? Should Literalist college students be 'forgiven' their ignorance of evolution theories as they enter college? Will they be allowed their own 'track' throughout life, coddled from any challenge to their belief system?"

I don't know if I would accept the word "coddled". They have a right to expect the state to remain neutral with respect to their religious beliefs, neither providing them support nor undermining them. The courts have been very diligent about keeping government from supporting a religious belief. I'm not aware of whether the issue I raise has been brought before the courts or not.

I don't support reducing standards, but that only makes finding a solution all the more complicated.

"Would that not be them successfully forcing some level of warping of the society around them?"

I don't think so. If I'm right, the Establishment Clause requires a religion-neutral government. This is a clause written when the secular education and religious belief didn't differ that much. I don't think they expected such a clash between the two.

"They would, by all accounts, very much like everyone else to switch to their way of thinking. Willy nilly. At what point does such accomodation become a slippery slope?"

When neutrality towards religion is lost. They have no right to force others to abide by their religious beliefs. They seem to have every right to expect the state remain neutral regarding their religious beliefs.


-B

[Kazak]

120. But, there is no basis for literal belief in their sacred book!

The book is not a basis unto itself. To me, this represents the literalists opportunity to legitimize their assertions by finally, once and for all, providing said basis, and putting this idiotic public debate to bed FOREVER. In other words, it's put up or shut up time.

:shrug:

[Bridget Burke]

123. What an original way to come out for Vouchers!

Sorry, it won't work this time, either.

If parents are so in love with Biblical Inerrency that they don't want their children taught science, they can send them to private school. Of course, they'll need to find a private school that shares their beliefs; most don't. Or they can home school them.

I don't have children but my taxes help pay for public schools. They shouldn't pay for home schooling--whether the parents are Religious Rightists or Groovier Than Thou "Liberals".

[Robert Cooper]

125. Irrelevant to the issue...

...of whether they are entitled to a government neutral to their religion as guaranteed by the Establishment Clause.

State-supported education is hostile to their religious beliefs. Either they are as entitled of protection as everyone else, or not.

Or does the Establishment Clause allow government to persecute whatever religion the state wishes?

I don't see your statements bearing on this issue.

[Bridget Burke]

130. You're a fan of Vouchers in other threads.

And you've come out against "state-supported education" for your own purposes.

Evolution is a proven theory. Slavery was Wrong. The Holocaust did occur. Many parents believe otherwise. So they can pull their poor kids out of school & start teaching them at home. Nobody will stop them. If they must sacrifice financially, they can be assured that God will provide.

Keeping crap out of the curriculum does not involve government persecution of religion.

[Warren DeMontague]

144. Which explains alot.

Nice to know who, and what, precisely this guy is shilling for.

What a facockta argument he tries to peddle to get there, though.

[Robert Cooper]

147. While vouchers might be a solution here, it is not the issue I'm dealing..

...with here.

Before we even get to the question of vouchers in this case, I'm trying to understand how the Establishment Clause fails to protect literalists.

I agree that "keeping crap out of the curriculum" is a worthwhile effort. But literalists have a very different world-view, and thus a very different definition for what counts as "crap".

I'm not arguing that it should be their way -or- our way. As I read Jones' decision I was struck that -both- ways are disrespectful of the religious beliefs of others.

I think what I'd really appreciate is some legal eagle responding to tell me that this issue was debated before the Supreme Court and here is how they resolved it.

What I've been getting here is a lot of people saying, in effect, 'we're the majority and minorities can suck eggs for all we care about their religion being persecuted'. That's not my understanding of how rights work.

The EC is not just about preventing religion from gaining ascendancy, but also to protect religion from the state. It is that question of protecting religion from the state that raises this issue for me. And as yet I've seen no solid answer to this question.

So I continue to explore the concept of protecting religions from the state in this thread. Adults can opt out of all kinds of things that disturb their religious sentiments, but kids cannot opt out of school where their religious "truths" are judged "wrong" by state employees acting officially on behalf of the state.

Yes, some parents can pull their kids out, but not all can do this. As SCOTUS said: "Students in such institutions (public schools) are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary".

To not give children a choice about opting out, and to teach them that their religious "truths" are "wrong" certainly sounds like their religious beliefs are under attack by the state. I'd like to know how SCOTUS has resolved this question (assuming it has done so, and I've seen no evidence thus far that it has).

[Bridget Burke]

215. Kids can't "opt out" of home schooling, either.

It's up to their parents.

You've already pointed out that the reasons not all parents can homeschool is lack of funding. The reason that most don't homeschool is that they don't think they know everything.

Why have no "legal eagles" responded? Most of them bill by the hour. They'll gladly donate free time for a good cause--but probably don't care to waste it.

[bread_and_roses]

126. Science is not religion. Teaching science is not attacking religion.

Your argument seems largely to rest on the children of Fundamentalist parents being penalized by being downgraded if they answer questions on a science test according to their religious beliefs, and that mere exposure to current scientific theory constitutes an assault on those beliefs. In science class they are being taught current theory. The test is presumably to gauge their comprehension of what is taught - in science class, not Church. There is no "attack" on religion; religion is irrelevant to science. As for exposure, it is impossible to attend public school at all without being exposed to the contradictions to the Literalists' beliefs.

Literalist parents are surely aware that even in grade school the earth is depicted as a globe. Popular culture, literature, even commercials reference evolutionary theory (see the Gyco "caveman" commercials). If the parents are flat-earthers or creationists, they will have to find some way to help their children understand that their "belief" contradicts all known science and observation.

Since science is not a "belief" any requirement that answering from "belief" rather than from an understanding of the deductions arrived at by the scientific method be validated would be - I'm afraid that the only descriptor that comes to mind is "insane."

And no, it is not illiberal to dismiss your arguments, they are based on the false premise that science and religion are fundamentally the same - both "belief" systems. Which science is demonstrably not.

[Robert Cooper]

128. My read of the First Amendment...

... does not specify that religion is only protected if it agrees with science. Perhaps your version differs?

Jones, on Page 64 of his Kitzmiller decision, states: "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science."

Science starts from the premise that all phenomena can be explained through natural causes. This is a belief system. Phenomena it cannot explain by natural causes (the miracle of the Burning Bush, the Resurrection of Christ) must be dismissed as mythological tales without a basis in reality. Science has no other explanations for events caused by supernatural means. Science doesn't deal in supernatural explanations. That's part of the belief system: supernatural explanations do not exist in science.

That scientific explanations can be demonstrated through experiementation while religious explanations cannot is no different than me trying to prove to you I talked with my wife today. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence to demonstrate I speak the truth, yet it is the truth nonetheless.

Yet according to science there is no evidence of this conversation, no proof that can be tested by others, so the claim is refuted as unscientific.

Yet it happened.

We see this approach taken over and over with a variety of phenomena: those who report UFOs, those who claim to have experiences with ESP, etc.

(edit: typo)

[bread_and_roses]

131. The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since science is not a religion, teaching science in no way constitutes and "establishment" of religion, nor does teaching science in any way prohibit the free exercise of religion.

As for your other arguements, they were answered earlier by other posters:

"As articulated by the Supreme Court, under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Ammendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principle or primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13." (Page 90 Of Judge Jones' decision).

The teaching of science:
(1) has a SECULAR purpose; it's PURPOSE is not to advance or denigrate any religious belief
(2) has a PRIMARY effect of teaching the scientific method and the current state of observations arrived at by that method.
(3) Since science is not a religion, teaching it does not create an "excessive" entanglement of the Government with religion. To state that it does, one would have to conclude that all curriculem that conflicts with some religious belief or another is an "excessive" entanglement.

It seems to me that it is your contention that the teaching of science somehow "inhibits" religion that is illiberal, since you seem to be seeking a special status for the beliefs of ONE religious sect. THAT, it seems to me, is illiberal in the extreme in that it constitutes a special status equivalent to "establishement" of that religious viewpoint as deserving of special respect and status.

[Robert Cooper]

151. Communism is not a religion yet "inhibits religion"...

"The First Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Since science is not a religion, teaching science in no way constitutes and "establishment" of religion, nor does teaching science in any way prohibit the free exercise of religion."

As SCOTUS has chosen the Lemon test to determine this, I'll skip comment here to get to where you discuss Lemon.

"As for your other arguements, they were answered earlier by other posters:

"As articulated by the Supreme Court, under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Ammendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principle or primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13." (Page 90 Of Judge Jones' decision).

"The teaching of science:
"(1) has a SECULAR purpose; it's PURPOSE is not to advance or denigrate any religious belief"

I've not contested Item 1 in the Lemon test. I assume the purpose is secular.

"(2) has a PRIMARY effect of teaching the scientific method and the current state of observations arrived at by that method."

This does not address the matter of whether "the principle or primary effect" of teaching science "inhibits religion". I think it is clear that it inhibits those whose religious beliefs include a literal interpretation of the Bible.

"(3) Since science is not a religion, teaching it does not create an "excessive" entanglement of the Government with religion. To state that it does, one would have to conclude that all curriculem that conflicts with some religious belief or another is an "excessive" entanglement."

Communism is not a religion either, yet "inhibits religion" regardless. That science is not a religion does not preclude it from a similar charge. While the Establishment Clause prevents one religion being raised up against the others, it also precludes the suppression of a religion.

"It seems to me that it is your contention that the teaching of science somehow "inhibits" religion that is illiberal, since you seem to be seeking a special status for the beliefs of ONE religious sect. THAT, it seems to me, is illiberal in the extreme in that it constitutes a special status equivalent to "establishement" of that religious viewpoint as deserving of special respect and status."

Unless we wish to posit that the government is free to inhibit any religion it wishes, I don't see how you escape a prohibition that prevents the state from inhibiting any religion. To say 'we won't protect this religion because it's antagonistic towards science and we're not' sounds very much like we would like the state to play favourites with religion. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about "ONE religious sect" or many, the principle of protecting religion from the state applies to all, or it applies to none.

(edit: overlooked the last paragraph...corrected the oversight)

[Zenlitened]

137. Interesting point.

In science class they are being taught current theory. The test is presumably to gauge their comprehension of what is taught...

There's no test of a student's "beliefs" -- it's a matter of how well they've learned the material that's been presented in class.

[bread_and_roses]

139. The Constitution does not protect "belief." It protects free exercise of

religion. Nothing in the teaching of science prevents the free exercise of religion. And it is impossible for the law to protect "belief."

People are free to believe whatever they want: that the earth is flat, that there is an advanced civilization in the center of the earth, that people with brown skin are inferiour to people with pale skin, that the Holocaust never happened, that the moon is made of green cheese, that the earth is 6000 years old. Free to believe in reincarnation, in the divine right of kings, in ancestor worship, or blood sacrifice to the Aztec gods. Whatever. They can believe whatever they want.

Science is not concerned with "belief." If the observations of the scientific method contradict any or all of those beliefs, that is the believer's problem - not science's, not the State's.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

149. You can stop now. Everybody can see where you stand.

And it isn't pretty.

Pack your bag o' fallacies and go spread anti-scientific crap elsewhere.

[Robert Cooper]

178. Ya know, I've been -waiting- for someone to come along...

...and try that.


Oct. 5: This Smart and No Smarter: The Hubris of Intelligent Design
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/rcooper_20051005.html

The central tenet of Intelligent Design seems to be based on hubris. To accept ID we must accept that humans have reached the limit to what they can explain through the life sciences, and that whatever questions remain must find their solutions in a belief that one or more intelligent designers used magic to make life the way it is. In other words, we are the ultimate pinnacle of human intelligence and no one past, present or future could be smarter than us. If we can't figure out the solution, then the solution will be forever beyond humanity's reach and study, and only a magical 'designer' can provide us the answers for our unanswered questions.

Not that Intelligent Design wants us to believe it is a faith-based religion. ID refuses to speculate on the nature of the designer. So we are free to believe that in the ancient past Little Green Men landed their flying saucer on Earth and 'designed' all life-forms as they exist now. You have to wonder how enthusiastic the support would be towards teaching kids that aliens are responsible for designing humans. Yet Intelligent Design does not exclude the possibility of magical aliens designing life on Earth.

That these fanciful explanations are not taught in universities, that they do not appear in peer-reviewed scientific literature, that there is no way to test for the existence of an "intelligent designer" or the 'magic' used to create life, advocates of ID find comfort in conspiracy theories. Brainwashing seems to be the current theory, though the motive behind it seems rather vague. It would seem to be almost a crime against children to send them on for higher learning if they are to be brainwashed in the process.

Thanks to Intelligent Design, kids can be inoculated against Darwinian brainwashing by being taught that maybe supernatural Little Green Men used magic to create humans.

In Dover and Kansas Christian fundamentalists are trying to push Intelligent Design into the classroom. In California, Christian schools are trying to force the University of California to give equal merit to creation-taught students as they give to evolution-taught students. If successful the day might not be far off when faith healers are graduating out of medical schools with licences to practice medicine.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, science continues pretty much as it has for the past century or two. Unlike the advocates of Intelligent Design, the rest of humanity is pretty much convinced we're not the epitome of human intelligence, that humans can be smarter than us. The rest of the world still recognizes the role evolution plays in our fight against disease, helping us to stay on top of the illnesses that plague us. If Intelligent Design advocates wish to take America out of the race for cures by stifling the teaching of evolution, just as the anti-abortionists have stifled research into stem cells, I'm sure the competition in the rest of the world won't mind too much.

The funny thing is, if we assume some mystical, unexplainable method used by supernatural aliens to create life on Earth, can't we assume that the mystical, unexplainable method is, in fact, evolution?




Oct. 24th: Did Darwin Lead to Hitler?
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/rcooper_20051024.html

I wonder at the ignorance of history when I read statements suggesting Darwin's Theory of Evolution led to the crimes against humanity committed by Hitler. Such claims fail to mention that Hitler led a country where 98% of the population was Christian. To gas over 6 million Jews, Hitler didn't need Darwin. He just needed the help of his Christian countrymen.

When we consider the rampages of the likes of Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and the blood purges of the French Revolution we realize that humans have never needed an excuse like evolution to slaughter each other. When the crusaders 'liberated' Jerusalem, the Temple was knee-deep in the blood of Moslem women and children who'd sought refuge there. Thousands of people were burnt at the stake after being accused by Christians of being witches. Religious wars throughout European history have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

And who should be blamed for including slavery in the American Constitution? Long before Darwin published his work on evolution, the Southern Baptist church arose to defend their faith that slavery was sanctioned by God.

History shows Christians have been more than happy to conduct their own version of ethnic cleansing when they've held the reins of power.

On the other hand, Darwin's theory has led to conservation and protection of the environment and endangered species, genetically-enhanced crops and keeping us ahead of a world of evolving diseases. Instead of wrecking the planet expecting God to relieve us of our responsibility for Earth at any moment, we've learned that we are as dependent upon the health of our planet as any other animal and we're going to be here for a long time unless we drive ourselves into extinction.

Evolution has taught us to see ourselves and our home in the long term, not just a month or a year or even a generation. Now we look at plans that span decades as we try and reverse the loss of the ozone layer and prevent ourselves from cooking the planet with global warming. Evolution teaches us that our decisions have consequences.

What I find most informative is the apparent Fundamentalist view that if you accept Darwin's theory then you can't be a Christian. Seems to me their real argument isn't against evolution, but against other Christians about what beliefs are required to be a "Christian". Evolution just happens to be the wedge between Fundamentalists and the rest of Christianity.

What the Fundamentalists are trying to do in Dover is establish a state religion: a literalist view of creation taught in public school. If your brand of Christianity teaches that the Bible is a metaphor, your brand of Christianity doesn't count and your kids will be taught to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Apparently Fundamentalists are not above recruiting the kids of non-Fundamentalists by teaching literal interpretation of biblical creation in public school.

And claiming that humans did not evolve but were formed by an "intelligence" is certainly teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I have to wonder when they'll get around to introducing other literal lessons from the Bible such as II Kings 2: 23-24 and Leviticus 20: 9-10.

Hitler's ideas of racial supremacy are ancient. Every conquering people and every people who have aspired to empire have believed in those ideas. They didn't arise with Darwin. Jews have talked of being the Chosen People since Abraham. Christians are so convinced they are the Chosen People that they firmly believe everyone else is going to Hell.

Hitler could not have gassed the Jews without the help of the Christians of Germany. With almost 2000 years of anti-semitic history, he found them more than willing. To blame Hitler on Darwin is obscene.

One might better ask whether Christ taught Christians enough about tolerance. In religiously charged America, we don't seem to see many Christians practicing Matthew 5: 43-48 or Matthew 19:21. Perhaps a dose of Matthew 7: 3-5 is in order.

[Zhade]

152. Of course evolution stands, it's a fact that's been shown repeatedly.

The bible is not a science (or much of an history) text.

[Ediacara]

154. Sorry, but NO

Evolution is not a religion. Period. Not only that, but there is nothing even religious about evolution. If we see evolution as religious we have to see things like germ theory and universal gravitation as religious too.

Science only "attacks" religions if the religions insist they are being attacked. Evolution has not attacked anything. Yet the fundies insist the core of their religion is being attacked (nevermind the core of their religion is actually resurrection and salvation..). Shall we also think that germ theory is religious or attacking religion because some religions don't believe in germs? Or should universal gravitation be prefaced with a passage about "doubts" because some religions believe in a flat Earth?

Fundamentalists that insist on a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible are actually rather new invention. They foam at the mouth and lie about evolution, and I'm sorry, but they can go to hell for all I care. If they wish to believe in a trickster god that plants fossils to test faith and all that other bullshit, be my guest, but I won't for one minute let them say the scientific data is on the side of the Bible.

And again, evolution attacks no religion, but if the fundies think they're being attacked, I won't stand idly by and let them lie about science.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

157. What science does is to deal religion the Harry Truman treatment

"I don't give them Hell. I tell the truth and they think it's Hell."

[Ediacara]

159. RIGHT ON!!!

One of my favorite quotes EVER, and very fitting in this case.

[hfojvt]

156. sort of a big thing that you are missing

as I have noted elsewhere.

Until the 1950s education was mostly religious. It fell under state jurisdiction rather than federal, and so, by the 9th amendment states and local school boards had the right to do it as they saw fit. Religious public schools did not violate the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment because they were not Federal schools. This was not changed by a popular vote or a new amendment to the constitution. It was changed by lawsuits and by the Federal government increasing its power over states rights. Thus one, often unelected, judge gets to outvote the majority and over-turn some 160 years of precedent.

[Robert Cooper]

165. Thank you, Hfojvt...

...I noticed your earlier contribution and appreciated it.

I was unaware of this history. But correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't this change in jurisdiction the result of segregated schools?

[Warren DeMontague]

174. Ah, I see you've found a "liberal".

Namely, someone who is pissed that 'one unelected judge' took mandatory, sectarian prayer out of US Public Schools. :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

175. So, once again, you're defending mandatory sectarian prayer

in public schools?

[hfojvt]

205. I am not defending it

I am simply pointing out a historical fact. If, as is so often asserted, prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, it is curious how the Constitution was approved in the 1780s and prayer in public schools existed until the 1950s. Until Everson vs. Board of Education in 1947 the bill of Rights did not apply to states as decided in Barron vs. Baltimore 1833. With Everson, a 5-4 majority of SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment made the first amendment applicable to the states. I am not sure how I feel about prayer in the public schools. I only note that it was taken out, not by a democratic decision of a majority of voters, but in the same manner in which Bush was selected, by a 5-4 vote of SCOTUS. Similar to the recent court decision about Dover, Pa. The court decision was redundant. The voters had already decided. But if the voters had decided the other way, one judge would have taken away their right to vote.

[Kingshakabobo]

251. WOW! There are a lot of things that were allowed to ........

happen in this country that flew in the face of the bill of rights and the constitution from the 1780's to the 1950's. Do I have to name them for you?

Why is it "interesting" that we evolved as a nation?

Damn activist judges.

[chicagiana]

172. I had a science teacher say "this is bullshit" ...

Yes the science teacher than tried to convince me that his opinion was more valid because he WAS a science teacher. I was told that evolution is not science.

I humbly disagreed and moved on to the fact that "intelligent design" is just cleverly disguised religion that is based 100% on proving the book of revelation. To that he retorted that there is an athiest in England who is a strong proponent of intelligent design. He smiled smugly at his retort. He seemingly disproved my assertion that intelligent design is only a fundamentalist con job.

... insert here some stuff about "probabilities of life formation" that sounded like a bunch of BS. I countered that the probability was 1.0 since there is only one universe and there is life in it. talkorigins.org kinda laid all that aside though. As I suspected, it was a bunch of BS. ....

Now lets think about this. How can you have intelligent design without a higher intelligence???? I suppose that aliens could have directed the advance of creatures on planet Earth, but than you run into a chicken/egg problem regarding alien origins.

The fact that someone could point to such idiotic data points to me is just flabbergasting. The guy undermined his own arguments TWICE and didn't even pick up on it. It undermines the difficulty in dealing with these people as they have no grasp on logic and reason.

No the students CANNOT just decide for themselves as they have no depth of knowledge in EITHER subject area. Nor are they going to gain that knowledge in a high school biology class.

[NoodleyAppendage]

181. I'm hoping that natural selection will insure that these IDIOTS die off

It is my fondest hope that these christofascists will die off and modern society's demands will be too much for their backwards-asses DARK AGES thinking. If humanity is to survive, we can only hope that progressive thinking will be proved to be biologically adaptive, while christofascism is non-adaptive.

JB

[Robert Cooper]

186. So you're hoping the Democratic Party will sponsor legislation...

...to disenfranchise them? sterilize them? seize their children? send them off to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib?

Let's not be shy about how we speak of your fellow Americans.

[NoodleyAppendage]

189. Maladaptive behavior and beliefs tend to take care of themselves

Those who choose to ignore science and scientific advances will be disadvantaged from an economic standpoint...no proactive solutions are necessarily needed to observe the impact of evolutionary forces.

JB

[Robert Cooper]

193. So you're okay with them voting for president? nt

[patriotvoice]

199. Science is the State's religion.

Humans need to understand their world, and we have two tools to help us do so:
1. testable hypotheses and natural observation (science)
2. supernatural conjecture and scripture/revelation (religion).

The State -- having accepted the responsibility of teaching children how to understand their world -- may use none, either, or both of these tools. Choosing to use neither is vacuous; no education would occur. Choosing religion solely (or both) would inevitably violate the First Amendment. That leaves Science as the only viable tool for teaching our children.

However, science inevitably will clash with one or more religions, and so state-sponsored science may seem oppressive to some (as in the case of evolution vs. fundamentalist Christian theology). There are two solutions to this clash:
1. Dispense with the state teaching children how to understand their world
2. Defend science as the best tool we have to understand our world

The first can range from total dismantling of the public school system to vouchers and opt-out programs. The second leads to legislation, either in support of science (should that be the majority's opinion) or in deference to science (again, should that be the majority's opinion). I'll leave the opinion of which is best to the readers.

Regarding the Lemon test and evolution:

"...A government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Ammendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principle or primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13."

Evolution is a theory based on observable, natural phenomena. It does not have a teleological tenet. It does not invoke the supernatural. It can be deprecated by further observations. It is both secular (def: "worldly rather than spiritual") and non-religious (ant. def: "Not having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity"). That covers #1 and #3.

Number two, which further codifies the spirit of the First Amendment, is the crucial sticking point. Elaborating on it: the primary effect must not advance (def: "promote") or inhibit (def: "hold back or suppress") (the free exercise of a) religion.

The state constantly makes claims that diverge from the teachings of one religion or another, but it does not disallow individuals from believing or not believing those claims. In other words, the state does not interfere with the individual's right to freely exercise his belief.

Some hypothetical examples of state vs. church clashes:
1. One can believe that first term abortion is murder, but the law says it isn't.
2. One can believe God made men in his image, but the law says it isn't.
3. One can believe only men should vote, but the law says otherwise.
And so on.

Though you may disagree with the law, breaking it yields punishment. So, when asked on your finals how man got here, you may say God. You will be wrong according to the state, and you will be punished with a mark.

That is the nature of the state; to codify the rights and responsibilities of all citizens and to effectively handle those who take from the rights of others or shirk their responsibilities. You may either work to change the rules of society so as to align more closely with your beliefs or you may continue to accept the state as it is; that's the democratic process.

(on edit: clarification)

[Robert Cooper]

201. about that 1st Amendment...

"Evolution is a theory based on observable, natural phenomena. It does not have a teleological tenet."

Everything is teleological for Christian literalists. Their religious beliefs consist of fore-knowledge of a plan designed by God. They are witnesses to others of God's existence.

That they are not perfect in their keeping of all the instructions invalidates neither their faith nor their religion. There are very few religions that limit membership to perfect people ;-)

They cannot disassociate science from their religious beliefs.

Where Evolution is of interest to those of us who do not subscribe to the literal truth of Genesis, they have no need for it because they already know where we came from: it's in Genesis starting with Adam and Eve. When science class starts telling their kids we came from apes how can they not see it as a direct attack on their religious beliefs?

"It does not invoke the supernatural."

Science -cannot- invoke the supernatural, by definition. And therein lays another problem for the Christian literalist. Any study that denies the existence of the supernatural is in denial about the existence of God and God's plan as delineated in the Bible.

"It can be deprecated by further observations. It is both secular (def: "worldly rather than spiritual") and non-religious (ant. def: "Not having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity"). That covers #1 and #3."

And to the Christian literalist there are no such animals as "secular" and "non-religious". There is "righteous" and "unrighteous".

Righteous knowldege leads to God. Unrighteous beliefs lead away from God.

If you want me to do the leg-work to dig up the half dozen or more biblical quotes to back this up I will. Let me know.

"Number two, which further codifies the spirit of the First Amendment, is the crucial sticking point. Elaborating on it: the primary effect must not advance (def: "promote") or inhibit (def: "hold back or suppress") (the free exercise of a) religion.

"The state constantly makes claims that diverge from the teachings of one religion or another, but it does not disallow individuals from believing or not believing those claims. In other words, the state does not interfere with the individual's right to freely exercise his belief." - hypotheticals skipped for the sake of brevity.

Let me point out that in all the hypotheticals you are dealing with adults.

At issue is whether there is "free exercise of a religion" when we're dealing with "impressionable" children whose participation is "involuntary". Especially when the state grades their perfromance by how well they ignore their religious beliefs and regurgitate the state-sponsored messages.

It seems to me more than a little likely that through the reward and punishment system inate in public education that these children are coerced into providing answers their religious beliefs do not accept. Bear in mind these are "impressionable" children whose presence is "involuntary", according to SCOTUS. How can you claim they have free exercise of religion under these conditions?

"Though you may disagree with the law, breaking it yields punishment. So, when asked on your finals how man got here, you may say God. You will be wrong according to the state, and you will be punished with a mark."

Interesting comparison. So claiming God created humans is akin to breaking a law.

What happened to "the primary effect must not ... inhibit (def: "hold back or suppress") (the free exercise of a) religion."?

If a child answers "God made humans" and is punished, the "primary effect" of the punishment is to " inhibit (def: "hold back or suppress") (the free exercise of a) religion".

"That is the nature of the state; to codify the rights and responsibilities of all citizens and to effectively handle those who take from the rights of others or shirk their responsibilities. You may either work to change the rules of society so as to align more closely with your beliefs or you may continue to accept the state as it is; that's the democratic process."

Except there is this little thing called the First Amendment that stipulates the state shall not inhibit the free exercise of religion. Regardless of what the state wants, it is encumbered by the necessity to respect that right and limit itself to accomodate that right.

[bread_and_roses]

203. No, the First Amendment does not say "inhibit"

It says:
<Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof>

Prohibit, not inhibit. And again, the First Amendment does not protect "beleif" - no law could possibly do that. It protects the "free exercise" of religion. And teaching science in no way "prohibits" the free exercise of religion.

<Principle or primary effect> has already been addressed numerous times in this thread.

This has been entertaining but I'm done now...

[Zhade]

204. Indeed.

The premise is inherently dishonest (I am no longer surprised at this), because as you say, teaching demonstrably true scientific facts (and yes, they're facts, regardless of how much some ignorant literalists fervently wish they weren't) does not prohibit belief - literalists, stupid as they are to deny reality for impossible fantasy, are still free to deny facts and believe their bullshit mythical creation stories are true.

You, and many others, nailed this, and I'd say the argument is over, and the OP lost resoundingly. Good show!

[Jim__]

232. "Everything is teleological for Christian literalists."

I think this goes to the gist of your argument. And, based on your interpretation of the Lemon test, in an extremely broad number of issues, when the state delivers a message, it will either advance or inhibit such a religion. Clearly it was neither the intent of the founders, nor of the authors of the Lemon test, to prohibit the state from speaking on such a broad category of issues.

[Robert Cooper]

246. I don't think the founders expected...

...this kind of problem. I certainly doubt they expected it to take on these proportions. Religion was much more a part of everyday life for a larger percentage of the population than it is today.

As for SCOTUS, I don't know what they had in mind when they included the proviso about "inhibiting religion". The case wasn't about inhibiting religion. Perhaps they intended it to be a catch-all which they'd define further as the need arises.

I'm not sure how much protection adults need, compared to school-age children. I suspect the standards would be lower for adults than kids (adults are not "impressionable" and their participation is not "involuntary", terms used by SCOTUS to describe children in school).

[patriotvoice]

236. The right to say "no": that is freedom

I shall put myself in the shoes of a Christian fundamentalist and answer the question you pose ("how can they not see it as a direct attack on their religious beliefs?"): faith. Faith is the proof to supernatural conjecture. Parents teach their children faith, and children have their faith tested inside and outside of school. When one has faith in what God says, no assault is an attack; God keeps one and his children safe.

"Science -cannot- invoke the supernatural, by definition. And therein lays another problem for the Christian literalist. Any study that denies the existence of the supernatural is in denial about the existence of God and God's plan as delineated in the Bible."

Science neither denies nor accepts the supernatural. Even to Christian literalists, science that agrees with God's scripture is acceptible, because it's part of God. Any part of science that disagrees with God is in error, prima facia to literalists, and must be rejected on the proof of faith.

"And to the Christian literalist there are no such animals as "secular" and "non-religious". There is "righteous" and "unrighteous"."

No need to do the leg work; I do know where these quotations lay. Literalists know that men stray from God, toward the unrighteous. They have their faith tested often, and from many different sources. State-sanctioned dogma is handled, for the Christian literalist, in the same way as it was handled under Caesar: "give unto Caesar that which is his, but unto God your faith; for only the righteous will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

"It seems to me more than a little likely that through the reward and punishment system inate in public education that these children are coerced into providing answers their religious beliefs do not accept. Bear in mind these are "impressionable" children whose presence is "involuntary", according to SCOTUS. How can you claim they have free exercise of religion under these conditions?"

The state defines them as impressionable, the church does not. The Christian literalist knows that his children's faith will be tested, and so the literalist protects the child with prayer, worship, and mission. The state does not, and must not, interfere with the parent's or the child's ability to pray, worship, and proselytize. But the state can mandate the common opinion and require the populace to conform with that popular opinion.

"Interesting comparison. So claiming God created humans is akin to breaking a law."

Correct. The law of the common opinion is that evolution is correct, because it is the most robust and sound scientific theory we presently have. Answers outside of science are, ipso facto, incorrect.

"What happened to "the primary effect must not ... inhibit (def: "hold back or suppress") (the free exercise of a) religion."? If a child answers "God made humans" and is punished, the "primary effect" of the punishment is to " inhibit (def: "hold back or suppress") (the free exercise of a) religion"."

Nothing happened to it; the child may still exercise his belief by giving an answer that diverges from the State's answer. What the state cannot do is prevent the child from answering "God." And I think there is a deep chasm along the thin line that separates being free to answer "God" and being unable to answer "God."

"Except there is this little thing called the First Amendment that stipulates the state shall not inhibit the free exercise of religion. Regardless of what the state wants, it is encumbered by the necessity to respect that right and limit itself to accomodate that right."

First Amendment: "prohibit", Lemon test: "inhibit." According to the First Amendment, the State cannot, by authority, declare "you cannot believe God created the universe", however the state can say "God did not create the Universe." In other words, the State can take a position on the subject, but it cannot prevent citizens from taking a different position. The Lemon test elaborates that by saying the state cannot make it difficult for you to exercise your beliefs. So, in summary, the state cannot dictate your beliefs, nor can it encumber you with hurdles to express your belief.

When it comes to answering the question "How did we get here," it's easy for a child to exercise his belief: "God". When asked, subsequently, "What proof do you have," it's easy for a child to exercise his belief: "faith."

(on edit: typo)

[FreedomAngel82]

206. With me personally

I am a Christian but I also believe in science and evoultion and all that. I understand what it is and know that it can be changed and updated etc. I love science and all that. And the thing to remember is that with the whole six days thing was it six days according to nontime or to our time? :shrug: Because in the other realm(s) in the afterlife there is no such thing as time(s). Plus, there are two creation stories in the Bible if you read through Genesis chapters one and two. With the Bible it's all about faith. With science it's about seeing with your eyes etc.

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

216. Nothing like a bit of satire to start out the day!

The weak-minded might almost think you sincere.

[ProfessorGAC]

225. So Might Some Of The Strong Minded

The Professor

[Bridget Burke]

228. Well, I was just trying to be nice....

I'm afraid you might be correct.

[NMMNG]

213. Enough of this pandering garbage

The purpose of a school is to teach children. Evolution is supported by scientific evidence. Just because that conflicts with the religious beliefs some people choose to hold does not mean that it should not be taught in the schools. If we were to bow to true Biblical literalism the schools would have to outlaw poly-cotton blend clothing, shellfish, gold jewelry and braided hair on females, shaving by men/boys, pork products and a whole host of other things that are improper or "abominations" according to the Bible. Once again though, the Literalists are using their cafeteria plan when choosing what to get all pissy about.

[ProfessorGAC]

223. In Addition, Buff. . .

. . .the OP believes he is outclevering people here, despite the fact that he has been slammed to the turf by at least 3 dozen other posters. And every time that occurs, he chooses to claim their point is irrelevant. That's so convenient as to completely dilute any intellectual value of the post.

The original post is a false premise apropos of nothing. And the OP actually thinks he's smart.

Wrong and wrong.
The Professor

[Bridget Burke]

226. Watch out! He's collecting offensive posts.

We evil Liberals who persecute the religious are also persecuting him.

In his mind.

[ProfessorGAC]

230. That's Fine

I don't spend much time concering myself over the paranoid delusions of others.
The Professor

[Bridget Burke]

233. I'm not exactly trembling in fear...

It's a bit like a wreck on the highway. You know you should look away, but you just can't.

[Nobody]

238. The train wreck of 2005

has got to be that idiotic stupid-fest known as the War On Xmas. Look out, Santa Clause vs the Martians! Go Mars!

[Bridget Burke]

242. The "War on Christmas" is only a skirmish on the "War on Christianity"

Used by the small minority of Christians who want to grab political power. No, they don't represent most Christians--but they sure are loud!

[Robert Cooper]

239. I got news for you...

...I'm not exactly trembling with fear either...

the days when liberals don't care about the state persecuting religion will be the days we'll understand Germany '33 a whole lot better.

[Ediacara]

247. Well if you'd bother to have read my actually very insightful posting

You'll see that evolution (and "the state") aren't persecuting anyone. If certain religions choose to hold idiotic views that oppose reality, it's not the state's responsibility to muzzle the teaching of reality.

As another poster put it so simply, evolution gives fundies the Harry Truman treatment: "I don't give 'em Hell, I tell the truth and they think it's Hell."

And don't you dare for one second imply that the teaching of evolution will give rise to liberal Naziism! No one is persecuting anyone, and you fucking know this!

[Robert Cooper]

235. neither do I nt

[ProfessorGAC]

241. I Wasn't Speaking To You (eom)

The Professor

[Robert Cooper]

243. welcome to an open forum...

...you want privacy, there's PM.

[Nobody]

237. Book recommendation time

Gardner Dozois has an anthology called "Galileo's Children". This is sci-fi and deals with science vs superstition. Several classic stories, and some new ones.

I read this on the plane this past week. Not only did I carry this subversive book, I also carried with me a copy of the Bill of Rights in case someone called Homeland Security on my choice of reading material.

As for theories to replace and / or supplant evolution, if there are testable, repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that are logically sound, I'm open. If you have to skip steps and not be able to prove anything using the scientific method, it is not science.

I'm all for ID being taught in a religion class. It's not science, it should stay out of science class.

[Avalux]

256. Locking.

This thread has turned into one personal attack after another. Please be advised that this behavior is against DU rules. Use the alert and/or the ignore button.