Teaching evolution -- or not?

[tallman]

Steve,

That's basically what I do. Tell 'em what we know, present the history and context, tell them that all of our "facts" have evolved over time (such as when and where people first appeared in different parts of the planet) as we "discover" new information.

I tell them that there were science texts from the 20th century that stated the atom was the smallest part and couldn't be divided.

What we know today is the result of many people's effort over a long period of time. We should have learned by now that the search for knowledge takes many paths and like riding a motorcycle, sometimes the journey is as important as the destination.

Rather than being afraid of new ideas we should be willing to investigate the possibility that there is more to all this.

What we decide to do and believe is ultimately up to each individual. I believe life has meaning. I believe that what I do is important. I know I make a difference.

Perhaps it is because I have children and have worked with children and young adults for most of my professional life, but I see in their eyes a reflection of wonder about our world. I hear in their questions a genuine interest and curiosity about the meaning of life. I see in their choices a reason to have hope for our future.

Faith or folly? Perhaps a little of both.

[R-1150-RS]

If you teach one, teach the other. It is awareness. Let the individual decide.

 

Amen.

So do you mean now we get to have Science taught at church services.......!!

 

What a great idea!!

 

I think if the ID crowd are serious, and want to demonstrate that their motives really are credible, they should be prepared and set good example by giving science equal time in church services.

 

Who knows...By playing to a wider audience, it might even up attendance some.....

 

Gary

[steve.foote]

My feeling is that no knowledge in itself is dangerous...

 

I have to disagree, Jamie. The knowledge of what I look like naked is, argueably, very dangerous. Possibly fatal.

[RFW]

If you teach one, teach the other. It is awareness. Let the individual decide.

 

Amen.

Amen Nothing! Teaching ID in science class makes about as much sense as teaching it in Math or Gym classes. It has little to do with any of these. It is a religious subject pretending to be science. Call a spade a spade. If it is decided to teach this, then at least be honest about it and simply teach it in "Religion 101".

 

Bob.

[KMG_365]

Am I not wrong on the separation of church and state thing was to say that if you did not belong to a certain church group, you did not have the right to vote?

 

Does anybody know the answer to MWS's question? I haven't seen it addressed yet here...

Remember that there were 13 different, thriving colonies here for many, many years BEFORE the uniting "Declaration of Independance" from Britain and subsequent Constitution to govern all of them. Some of the colonies were set up originally as religious states and many had instilled "religious tests" to either vote or hold public office. It was against these existing and well established transplantations of the Old World's problematic church/state structures (truly little "theocracies", mostly Anglican, Congregational, or Dutch Reformed) that the founding fathers had to fight to pass a Constitution. It did not happen without much discussion, arguing and outright fighting. We need to remember that the "Declaration of Independance" was merely the first, primitive volley in the long and protracted battle to establish a truly free society--independant from the tortured heritage of the Theocracies of Europe.

 

Religious fundamentalists will of course place more import on the Declaration of Independance as it is the earliest--and only--mention of "God" and downplay the import of successive documents like the Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court rulings that are of a more deliberately secular nature ("Laws of Nature", "their Creator", etc.). The fact is that prior to the passage of the Constitution of the United States, that was finally agreed to by all States after much rancorous debate, "religious tests for state and federal offices" were still very much in existance and were subsequently banned by Article VI of the Constitution. Even so, it took many, many years for some States to finally bring their state constitutions into compliance with the Federal Constitution and some States still have laws in their state constitutions that, although they are in violation of the Constitution, are considered uninforceable and so are quietly swept under the carpet.

 

And it's not just the right to vote! Lest you think the spectre of Thoecracies on American shores are gone for good:

 

Article 19, Paragraph 1 of Arkansas's State Constitution reads:

 

"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

 

And:

 

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of South Carolina's State Constitution contains:

 

"No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

 

Though both have been subsequently struck down by the courts, as far as I know they both remain on the books.

[Pilgrim]

But what if both are true?

 

Think that's impossible? Maybe not, what if evolution took us all the way to the higher primates living on the shores of Lake Victoria in Africa some two, maybe even five million years ago.

 

Then, we were observed by a visiting team of space explorers, advanced relativ to us in science and technology by millions of years.

Their million earth-year mission: to seek out solar systems (let's just say within our galaxy) with the potential of inhabited planets. Visit such planets and search for such planet's most advanced specy.

 

If such specy is found to have the necessary potential for rapid advancement, provide them, via genetic manipulation and intervention, with the foundation for a potentially distinguishing rise from their ancestry.

 

Observe those planets where interventions were performed and, if in time, such species reach a pre-requisite level of competence (and stewardship), re-contact them and offer an opportunity to become members of a galactic elite, dedicated to populating our galaxy (and perhaps other galaxies) with advanced intelligence.

 

Sounds far fetched? Less so then, in my opinion, what our Religions have to offer, and at the same time far less oppressive.

 

Jurgen

 

And we might come to call them God and religions spring up around them.

 

It is not impious(IMHO) to make that observation. Since He is unknowable except in his works what you posit is as likely as anything else we are likely to come up with on our own.

 

Man trying to figure out God makes as much sense as an ant's thoughts about mankind.

 

Pilgrim

[Couchrocket]

If I happen to be no more than a chance combination of molecules with no real purpose or meaning in the Universe then I can be comfortable with that

 

 

But eventually, the child grows up to find it's own way in the world (yes, colored by it's upbringing), and more are finding that they are perfectly content with the "theory/fact" that everything is "empty and meaningless".

 

 

I don't believe* our lives are objective in any way outside their own frame of reference, life has no meaning and is ultimately pointless.

 

This is quite wonderful. I always prefer clarity to agreement.

 

These quotes represent, to my mind, a trend in western thought that is very much worth thinking about and considering the implications.

[KMG_365]

If I happen to be no more than a chance combination of molecules with no real purpose or meaning in the Universe then I can be comfortable with that

 

 

But eventually, the child grows up to find it's own way in the world (yes, colored by it's upbringing), and more are finding that they are perfectly content with the "theory/fact" that everything is "empty and meaningless".

 

 

I don't believe* our lives are objective in any way outside their own frame of reference, life has no meaning and is ultimately pointless.

 

This is quite wonderful. I always prefer clarity to agreement.

 

These quotes represent, to my mind, a trend in western thought that is very much worth thinking about and considering the implications.

Of course this "trend in western thought" leaves open the very real possibility that the "Hokey Pokey" really IS what it's all about!

 

. . . and I find that strangely comforting.

[Pilgrim]

I'm afraid that I see several misstatements here.

 

Useful as science is for some purposes, it nevertheless tends to dismiss. . .

 

No, the scientific method does not dismiss as silly or irrelevant or superstitious anything for which it cannot come up with a testable hypothesis to explain. It simply relegates anything that cannot be tested to an unknown or unproven status.

 

No doubt some scientists are that honest. Like some religionists, though, others are less benign in their approach. But it is coming to me as we pursue this that any dismissiveness is irrelevant. It seems clear to me that the scientific method is not equipped to look into the existence of the unmeasurable. Or at least as the scientific method is being presented here.

 

The benefit of religion is that it defines virtue - establishes a code of conduct external to the individual.

It most certainly does not. Man interprets religious doctrine to justify his code of conduct, whatever it may be. Religious doctrine has been used to justify way, slavery, and the subjugation of entire cultures. . .

 

Well, it has certainly been so at times. But that does not alter the fact that most basic religious doctrine should lead one man to treat another well. Mankind is fallible.

 

When society is free to do as it will, you get - America today.

 

America today... far from perfect, . . . If we had a theocracy America might indeed not be 'what it is today', but do you think it would be better?

 

I don't believe that a general acceptance of religion in public life presupposes a theocracy and the ills that attend one. I do believe that religion in public life has a general beneficial effect. But maybe not.

 

From Eebie (I think)

Saying that "science is just another way of looking at things and my way is equally valid" is just another expression of the moral relativism that so many pundits decry for destroying our country.

 

Naw, not moral relativisim. It flows from excessive democratization. One man may be as entitled to his opinion as another, but that doesn't mean his opinion is as good as someone else's, or entitled to as much deference.

 

But that's hardly an acceptable opinion nowadays.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

Laws of Nature and of Nature's God . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . Supreme Judge of the world

 

I don't know what this says about the Founders' religious faith, but it sounds pretty Deistic or Unitarian to me. It certainly doesn't prove that they intended to found a Christianity-based nation, because being smart guys, they knew how to write that in there if they wanted to. . .

 

The Declaration of Independence is a conceptually more important document than the Constitution

 

"Conceptually" always gets you into trouble. "Conceptually" if you find a watch in the forest you posit that there must be a watchmaker, and "conceptually" that proves Intelligent Design. It's just when you look at the data that "conceptually" falls apart.

 

Whatever the Founders were thinking when they wrote the Declaration, when they got around to writing the Constitution, when they actually created the basic governing document of the nation*, they didn't include any references to G-d. Instead, they explicitly forbade an establishment of religion. Whatever the conceptual importance of the Declaration, it's not the legal document governing the nation, the Constitution is.

 

And when you say "I am not trying to make a case that government should promote religion. I'm not, and it shouldn't. But all this business about a wall of separation between church and state is arrant nonsense", if there is no wall of separation, but government cannot "promote" religion, what is the middle ground? (Eebie, this requires such a complex answer that I am simply not prepared to even think about it now, much less formulate a coherent response. As to your specific mentions below, yes and no, sort of, maybe, and sometimes. ) What, exactly, would you say is an acceptable level of government involvment with religion? Funding the operations of religious schools with taxpayers' money? Leading students in prayer at mandatory assemblies? Teaching students that the complexity of organisms proves that there is a Creator?

 

* The prior governing document, the Articles of Confederation, only refers in passing to "the Great Governor of the World"

 

Eebie and Seth (and Jamie, a late addition after I read his latest post), it appears to me that we may not be arguing about the same thing.

 

You argue against the idea that the Founders intended to create a Christian nation, it seems. OK, but if that's the case you'll have to argue with someone other than me because I make no case at all that they intended to create a Christian nation. They didn't, at least not in the sense of there being a formal state religion of any sort, as in Britain or France at the time - or even in some of the states. Whether they were Deists (as some were) or Christian (as others were) or Zen Buddhists is immaterial; they wanted no laws establishing or prohibiting any religion, and they said so. As you so aptly note, they were smart guys who knew how to write, and what they wrote only addressed two words that have now, and had then, simple meanings - establish, and prohibit.

 

And that is all they said. There is no evidence, direct or otherwise, that they intended a government utterly free from religious activity, or even religious influence, to the extreme that we see now - that is a creation of the courts alone. In fact, I think they'd have been shocked at the idea, because they were all at the very least Deists, and even Deists acknowledge a supreme being who involves himself in the affairs of man in many ways. For instance (as I said before) granting the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

For some reason you want to address the Constitution without reference to the Declaration of Independence, as though it had appeared in a vaccum. Obviously, it did not. Eebie, I have tried to make sense of what you said about getting into trouble with "conceptually" and watchmakers, but I can't, so I'm going to treat it as a non sequitur and proceed.

 

You're right when you say the Constitution is the legal document governing the nation, and I certainly would not try to say otherwise. But it is not the document in which we announced mankind's rights and founded the nation. It not only declared our independence from Britain, but it posited the granting of rights by a Creator who also created men. Because the source of those rights was God no man was entitled to abridge them - not even a king.

 

Jamie, there is nothing primitive (to use your description of it) about the Declaration. No, the Declaration was seminal, far more important to our existence than any blueprint for government will ever be, for without the Declaration there would never have been the rights we enjoy. That is why the Declaration is so important, and why the Constitution by comparison is essentially just well thought-out paperwork. As to the courts' decisions since then, I see nothing there but confusion. The courts have a place in our lives, of course, but it should not be to the extent they have assumed. Certainly the guys who wrote the Constitution never foresaw it, so they did not build into the Constitution a check or balance against them.

 

I did not bring up the Declaration of Independence in an attempt to use it as a legal justification for religion in public life. What I believe should be understood (and what the Declaration demonstrates) is that the leaders of the day were religious men in a way we seldom see today. To think that they would create a government intended to function without reference to God (as opposed to Christianity) to the degree we see today is just not a reasonable conclusion. I think they said exactly what they meant: no laws regarding establishment, or prohibition, of religion. It took courts to muddy that language.

 

In that general connection, Seth said:

. . . regardless of one's precise interpretation of the history behind the establishment clause it seems more important that we consider the current real-world implications of diluting its meaning.[/i]

Well, I'll interpret that to mean the real world effects of diluting the meaning as we have had it imposed on us by the courts - and that last part is the crux of the matter for me. Certainly, times and social needs have changed. The original language of the Constitution on the subject is still clear, but it may not be expansive enough for today's America.

 

Well, there is a mechanism for dealing with issues like that, and it's not the courts, it's the amendment process. And to take that thought further would probably lead us into a political minefield that would give the moderators a swivet, so I won't. Except to say that I damn well object to having unelected officials of frequently questionable intelligence decide such major issues. If cretins are going to tell me how to behave I prefer that they be elected cretins.

 

Sam said:

[/i]Sorry pilgrim, I'm just not buying your 'evidence' of ESP. All the evidence comes from interested parties with hearsay claims. [/i]

Sam, at the risk of sounding like I'm backing water here, I'm going to drop the word "evidence" and substitute "indications" or "observations". The word "evidence" is more properly used to denote material that tends to prove something, and we don't have anything like that yet with respect to ESP and ghosts. UFOs? Well, there are some pretty good photos here and there, and lots of credible witness reports. I've seen stuff that would be usable in court.

 

But my question remains: at what point does a widely-observed but unexplained phenomenon become worthy of scientific curiousity? The reports of all three phenomenon extend throughout the world, over centuries, and modern reports are often made by credible individuals with no axe to grind. I would not intend that science set out to prove the existence of supernatural beings in white sheets, for instance, but that it try to find out what the phenomenon is in fact. Is there a portion of our brain that generates the ghost? OK. That's a possible answer. Let's find out. And while we're at it, see if we can't find out why several people at once see it.

 

Man, oh man, what a wide-ranging, challenging thread this has become.

Pilgrim

[russell_bynum]

Man, oh man, what a wide-ranging, challenging thread this has become.

 

No kidding. This thread is awesome!

[Urban Surfer]

This is one of the best write ups I have ever read on the net. What a wealth of imformation, and educated opinions, some of which is way over my head.

If I could judge of all this imformation I would conclude that religion would be akin to riding boxer twins. It's obsolete, primitive,and certainly has no way of competing in the modern world of tecnology and science.

But god do I love my RT

[DavidEBSmith]

If you teach one, teach the other. It is awareness. Let the individual decide.

 

If the issue wasn't teaching ID as an alternative to evolution, but teaching communism as an alternative to capitalism, would you feel the same way? If we were in Utah, should we teach both polygamy and monogamy and let the individual decide? Or, to take an example from the sciences, should we teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy and let the individual decide?

[beemerman2k]

This is one of the best write ups I have ever read on the net. What a wealth of imformation, and educated opinions, some of which is way over my head.

If I could judge of all this imformation I would conclude that religion would be akin to riding boxer twins. It's obsolete, primitive,and certainly has no way of competing in the modern world of tecnology and science.

But god do I love my RT

 

What a great sentiment! That's golden!!!

[DavidEBSmith]

What I believe should be understood (and what the Declaration demonstrates) is that the leaders of the day were religious men in a way we seldom see today. To think that they would create a government intended to function without reference to God (as opposed to Christianity) to the degree we see today is just not a reasonable conclusion. I think they said exactly what they meant: no laws regarding establishment, or prohibition, of religion.

 

I think some of the leaders of today are religious men of a type and to a degree that we have seldom if ever seen in the past. Bush, Ashcroft, Lott, Santorum, Coburn in government, and Falwell, Robertson and Dobson whispering in the ear of the government, are right-wing evangelicals who fundamentally believe that what government there is should be used as a tool of their religion (in contrast to "true" conservatives who believe that government should intrude upon the private lives of individuals as little as possible). There have no doubt been government leaders in the past who were as strongly religious as those of today, but few - certainly not enough to constitute a movement or make a difference - acted with a primary impetus of incorporating their religious beliefs into government policy.

 

The Founders had a good reason for keeping religion out of government. They had first-hand experience with state religion and religious wars. They were people who had themselves fled religious wars or were only a generation or two removed from people who had fled religious wars. Within their recent memory, Catholics and Anglicans and Presbyterians and Congregationalists had been killing each other in England and Ireland and Scotland and the Continent, and many of those people who had been killing each other had fled to America and were now trying to live side by side. Keeping religion and government strictly separated was necessary for the survival of the nation. It was one of the fundamental concepts that made America different from the flawed nations that the new Americans had come from. (It may well be that the vague mention of a monotheist Creator in the Declaration is the best consensus of a reference to G-d that the various factions could agree on, and had they had some Hindus or Buddhists at the Continental Congress, they might have even left that out so they could get everybody to agree). If we had had a state-Congregationalist Massachusetts and a state-Episcopal New York and a state-Quaker Pennsylvania and a state-Catholic Maryland and a state-Presbyterian North Carolina in 1789, all of whom hated each other, this nation probably would not have survived.

 

As for your attempt to distinguish "references" to G-d from laws "establishing" religion, I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Laws either command behavior or they don't. Government either coerces behavior or it doesn't. Having a Christian prayer as part of a public school activity establishes religion - it forces people who may not be Christians to either conform or avoid the activity. Giving taxpayers' money to religious schools coerces taxpayers into furthering the religious activities of those schools. Putting the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall vests that particular religious tenet with the authority of the state and the legal system.

 

There are some cases in which courts have allowed government "reference" to religion to stand - the phrase "In G-d We Trust" on money and on government buildings, and the invocation at the start of a session of Congress. Ironically, those "references" were allowed to stand because the various courts concluded they had become devoid of religious significance and were of merely patriotic or ceremonial character. If that's all you want, I'm not sure how it will make much difference in anyone's life, but I guess that's OK.

 

No, the Declaration was seminal, far more important to our existence than any blueprint for government will ever be, for without the Declaration there would never have been the rights we enjoy. That is why the Declaration is so important, and why the Constitution by comparison is essentially just well thought-out paperwork. As to the courts' decisions since then, I see nothing there but confusion. The courts have a place in our lives, of course, but it should not be to the extent they have assumed. Certainly the guys who wrote the Constitution never foresaw it, so they did not build into the Constitution a check or balance against them.

 

Do you have a semester free for a Constitutional Law class? (Note that no law school that I have ever heard of teaches a Declaration of Independence Law class.) The Constitution supersedes the Declaration. The Constitution is what our leaders and our troops swear to uphold and defend, not the Declaration. The Constitution creates three branches of government, one of which is the judiciary, and each has checks and balances on the other. Specifically, the power of the judiciary is checked by the executive's power to appoint judges, and the legislature's power to control the jurisdiction of the lower courts, the funding and structure of the courts, the power to confirm judicial nominees, the power to impeach judges, and the power to amend the Constitution. All that is written into the Constitution.

 

The whole "courts are exceeding their authority" argument is a red herring. What it really means is "courts are doing things we don't like, and we can't build enough of a political consensus to do anything about it". Too bad. If a political faction can't build a consensus, maybe it's because most people don't agree with them. They either need to figure out how to get people to join their side, or STFU. Intelligent design is just another of these red herrings - they can't build a political coalition to get religious teaching in public schools (basically, they need to gut the Bill of Rights to do that), so they dress it up with a new name and find a few people with PhDs and sneak it in the back door.

 

When you advocate putting religion in government, always consider - what happens if someday your group is not in the majority? If you establish the principle that government can reference G-d, how would you feel if someday a Muslim majority decided that government should reference Allah? How would you as a minority Christian feel about your children being required to face Mecca five times a day? (And so there's no misunderstanding, this is not meant in any way as an anti-Muslim comment, but to illustrate how they must feel in this majority Christian country).

[SteveHebert]

If you teach one, teach the other. It is awareness. Let the individual decide.

 

If the issue wasn't teaching ID as an alternative to evolution, but teaching communism as an alternative to capitalism, would you feel the same way? If we were in Utah, should we teach both polygamy and monogamy and let the individual decide? Or, to take an example from the sciences, should we teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy and let the individual decide?

 

I guess I stirred the pot a little with several of you. Great, that is what debate is all about. If I remember correctly Eebie, we did learn all about communism and socialism in high school. It was in the World History class.

 

One response was to call it Religion 101 and teach it that way. What a great idea that is. I would love to have a class like that offered. Teach a little bit about every religion for public awarenesss.

 

I am a christian and know what I believe in, but I can see the other points raised here. Where would we stop with the alternatives as stated by Eebie.

 

I believe in science very much as well. Did we crawl out of a pri-mortal sludge pit, turn into a tadpole, grow legs and eventually hang from tress before walkikng? I don't know about that, but certainly we have grown taller and larger as a species over the years, so we have evolved in some ways.

 

This is a very powerful topic and passionate. Some take it WAY to far.

 

Thanks for participating.

[Bakaboy]

One response was to call it Religion 101 and teach it that way. What a great idea that is. I would love to have a class like that offered. Teach a little bit about every religion for public awarenesss.

 

 

 

My 8 year old gets taught the various religions and their holidays in grade 3. It's a great idea. 50% of his class here are first generation Canadians. They don't get taught ID in this Social Studies class but they don't get taught Evolution either. Call religion beliefs what they are and teach them as such with as many referenced as possible.

[Whip]

If you teach one, teach the other. It is awareness. Let the individual decide.

 

If the issue wasn't teaching ID as an alternative to evolution, but teaching communism as an alternative to capitalism, would you feel the same way? If we were in Utah, should we teach both polygamy and monogamy and let the individual decide? Or, to take an example from the sciences, should we teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy and let the individual decide?

 

Communism, Capitolism, monogamy,polygamy,astrology,and astronomy are all explained in school.....not ID!!!!

 

That's the problem.......To teach someone the definition...should not be a crime.

 

Larry

[sideways]

1) I’d like to echo the sentiments about what a great thread this is - who’d a thunk that a bunch of bikers could be so articulate and knowledgeable, and um, calm? Not the general public I suspect! This thread alone makes me glad I got back into motorcycles and wound up with a Beemer. So, Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to all, however you choose to celebrate!

 

2) If you’ve followed this thread closely, you’ll note that I’m reneging from my pledge not to participate further, having let my feelings get away with me early on.

 

My emotions are indeed raw when it comes to religious beliefs, owing to a long string of serious personal difficulties which were the consequence of irrational behavior directly spawned by belief in God. The most recent instance of which, for one of NUMEROUS examples, was this: Following a serious and dangerous surgery (in which it’s fair to say that science saved her life), my mother spent an ADDITIONAL three weeks in hospital intensive care, after she had decided to refuse all medical and therapeutic intervention. Every physician who saw her agreed that her surgery had been completely successful and that there was no imaginable reason why she shouldn’t be out of the hospital altogether, if only she would cooperate even a little. My mother’s rationale for putting her life at additional risk, tormenting my family, and blocking hospital resources needed by others? God had called her - she was ready to go, in her words, to “paradise.” Eventually, my mother agreed again to take medication for her pain. We began slipping her industrial strength anti-depressants (thank you, science), telling her that those were also pain pills. She’s recovered, and is now home, having decided to postpone her trip to paradise. I won’t assail you with other examples, but perhaps, in a spirit of forgiveness (taught as a virtue in asian philosophical traditions long before Jesus), you’ll understand my earlier outburst.

 

In any event, I study the subjects under discussion constantly. Therefore, I hope I’ll be able to add something useful from time to time. I’ll take great care to be concise, and non-inflammatory in my contributions.

 

Here’s my first attempt to contribute, in the wonderful spirit of the thread:

 

 

 

[

One response was to call it Religion 101 and teach it that way. What a great idea that is. I would love to have a class like that offered. Teach a little bit about every religion for public awarenesss. ...

 

... Did we crawl out of a pri-mortal sludge pit, turn into a tadpole, grow legs and eventually hang from tress before walkikng? I don't know about that, but certainly we have grown taller and larger as a species over the years, so we have evolved in some ways.

.

 

As noted by posters above, many schools, in grades as early as primary school, have some sort of comparative religion class content. It is taught as part of history, social studies, and/or philosophy - NOT SCIENCE.

 

The entire thrust of the ID movement, clearly, and as demonstrated so well in the Dover case, is to deny the vast amount of evidence, actually useful to human progress, supporting the theory of evolution. Even if one can't fathom the idea of humans evolving over eons from much simpler creatures (and it is an intellectually challenging idea), consider a couple of current day events:

First, consider the fact of simple viruses that mutate faster than medicine can create vaccines, thereby creating such phenomena as multi-drug resistent TB.

Isn't that evolution?

Second, look at what humans (some of whom aren't the sharpest tools in the shed) have done with selective breeding of animals and plants in a very few generations. If those sorts of changes (go to a dog show and look) can be made in a few years, what about pro-survival traits over hundreds of thousands of years? It's these sorts of things that the ID movement seeks to deny and or suppress, so as not to "pollute" their childrens' minds with concepts that might challenge belief in an unprovable deity.

Accordingly, the likelihood that Europe and Asia will surpass the U.S. in vital scientific advances over time is increased with every ID victory.

[smiller]

Except to say that I damn well object to having unelected officials of frequently questionable intelligence decide such major issues. If cretins are going to tell me how to behave I prefer that they be elected cretins.

 

I don't think any judge has ever told you how to believe, and cretin is kind of a strong word to describe members of the judiciary. Although I'm sure you don't mean all of them as I would expect that those whose decisions you agree with would not fall into that category. And that's what can get so tiresome with respect to all this criticism of the court system - a decision in 'your' favor no doubt reveals a level-headed, right-thinking judge and the 'wrong' decision reveals a... cretin? One of the most unfortunate results of the culture war is the categorization of ideas (in a distinctly fundamentalist cast) of either being correct or idiotic with no ground in between.

 

And I do absolutely shudder to consider the idea of some of our elected officials acting as judges, and I'm guessing so did the Framers as they had this absolutely crazy notion to make the judiciary a separate branch of government. Those who want to meld them may eventually get their way, however, as trying to 'elect' judges by way of politicizing appointments does seem to be all the rage these days by our elected officials, or at least those who are cretins.

[Pilgrim]

Before I do anything else I want to thank several people for this thread.

 

Ken for kicking it off.

 

Mitch for adding real depth to the thought processes right off the bat.

 

The usual suspects (you know who you are) for provoking worthwhile thought as we go along.

 

And finally, and most of all, the moderators, who have doubt spent a fair amount of time on the edges of their chairs as they debated whether or not to let it go on.

Pilgrim

[Couchrocket]

. . . and I find that strangely comforting.

Jamie, I love your honesty. I also believe that when you're bringing someone back from death's door, literally, as a medic -- that you probably don't look into your patient's eyes and think... well here's another ultimately meaningless biological unit, one obviously not as fit for survival as most, that I've spent the community's resources and my life's career choice "saving" when it is, after all, pointless.

 

Having shared that career with you, and knowing "how it is" a bit... I think your career choice, and your "embraced position" demonstrate pretty clearly that even when we embrace such a position, we don't live out the real implications of that position consistently.

 

I take this as a prioi evidence of something "bigger" than us whose mark is on us even when we deny it.

 

Grace, peace, and honor to you as you continue live inconsistently and with such beauty!

[Couchrocket]

And finally, and most of all, the moderators, who have doubt spent a fair amount of time on the edges of their chairs as they debated whether or not to let it go on.

Second.

[Hermes]

And we might come to call them God and religions spring up around them.

=========================================================================================

Pilgrim, you got my point.

And since we are discussing 'ID', we ought not to limit such discussion to our blue marble alone nor to our cosmic 3 second time frame of human consciousness. Out there, in the Universe lie the answers.

Mankind has just begun to scratch the surface of what is knowable. In a thousand years we may be better equipped to get closer to an answer. Until then, those who feel the need, had better hang on to their disparate beliefs for they haved served mankind well enough (warts and all).

 

At the time of enlightenment, all our beliefs may pale in the face of of the greatness of the truth..... and it may have absolutely nothing (nada) to do with God or ID.

 

Tonight is a good time to look up into the Milky Way (our own insignificant Galaxy amongst billions) and ask that age-old question. But I urge you to ask it as if you really don't know of an answer, e.g ask it without the usual presumption that your God had a hand in it.

 

 

Jurgen

p.s. as for the subject of this discussion:

 

I don't care, teach whatever you like but because Religion is so multifaceted (and dare I say controversial) teach it in the privacy of your home, church, mosque, tent or what have you.

 

In the meantime pursue mankinds quest for the real answer(s)in those institutions that ought to be free of presumptions e.g. in Schools, Colleges, Universities, Think Tanks

[tallman]

If you teach one, teach the other. It is awareness. Let the individual decide.

 

If the issue wasn't teaching ID as an alternative to evolution, but teaching communism as an alternative to capitalism, would you feel the same way? If we were in Utah, should we teach both polygamy and monogamy and let the individual decide? Or, to take an example from the sciences, should we teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy and let the individual decide?

 

I guess I stirred the pot a little with several of you. Great, that is what debate is all about. If I remember correctly Eebie, we did learn all about communism and socialism in high school. It was in the World History class.

 

One response was to call it Religion 101 and teach it that way. What a great idea that is. I would love to have a class like that offered. Teach a little bit about every religion for public awarenesss.

 

I am a christian and know what I believe in, but I can see the other points raised here. Where would we stop with the alternatives as stated by Eebie.

 

I believe in science very much as well. Did we crawl out of a pri-mortal sludge pit, turn into a tadpole, grow legs and eventually hang from tress before walkikng? I don't know about that, but certainly we have grown taller and larger as a species over the years, so we have evolved in some ways.

 

This is a very powerful topic and passionate. Some take it WAY to far.

 

Thanks for participating.

 

Steve,

This is one of the ironies of life as an educator. Religion used to be taught in public schools. My mother was certified to teach nine subject areas, one of which was bible. Comparative religion is taught as was noted above.

This is a great thread.

I wonder if in 50 years someone will look back and question our sanity based on new discoveries that invalidate (for the time being) what is now considered as

true/factual/gospel?

I know that I've seen enough examples in my lifetime.

How many planets are there?

What is a planet?

How many elements are there?

We constantly adjust our reality based on science. I wonder what would happen to our sense of reality if science proved there is a god?

[sgendler]

. . . and I find that strangely comforting.

Jamie, I love your honesty. I also believe that when you're bringing someone back from death's door, literally, as a medic -- that you probably don't look into your patient's eyes and think... well here's another ultimately meaningless biological unit, one obviously not as fit for survival as most, that I've spent the community's resources and my life's career choice "saving" when it is, after all, pointless.

Only if you think the existence of a god is the only thing to give a life meaning. I'd argue that the existence of an afterlife is the last reason why a medic should be trying to save someone in this world. After all, they'll only be going to a 'better place,' right?

 

A life has meaning because of the accomplishments and legacy of that person - everything from kids and intellectual legacy to jus being able to get up in the morning and have a little fun sometime during the day. I'm sure that the last thing most medics think of while treating a critical patient is whether god has commissioned them to save a life. In fact, I'd argue that discovering a picture of a couple of small children in a wallet is a LOT more likely to inspire a few extra minutes of CPR or other extraordinary measures than a crucifix around the neck of a victim. That's just a hunch, though. I'm sure any medic would legitimately say that they try as hard as possible to save every victim.

 

--sam

[Bob Palin]

you continue live inconsistently and with such beauty!

It is not the least bit inconsistent to save other people's lives and still believe that life is ultimately pointless (and I'm not sure Jamie said that, but I did). Life is not pointless within it's own frame of reference, in fact staying alive is the main point if there is nothing else. Life savers get their reward from helping others to live, no supernatural power is needed to make it rewarding. The tendency to help each other is almost certainly an evolutionary effect, it enabled the species to survive, after all we are pretty pathetic as individuals in the wild.

[Ken/OC]

I wonder if in 50 years someone will look back and question our sanity based on new discoveries that invalidate (for the time being) what is now considered as

true/factual/gospel?

 

Thanks Tallman -- you finally got us back to the original point of this thread. What should we teach our children as "fact?" ID versus evolution was just an example -- there are plenty of others!

[russell_bynum]

I wonder if in 50 years someone will look back and question our sanity based on new discoveries that invalidate (for the time being) what is now considered as

true/factual/gospel?

 

Thanks Tallman -- you finally got us back to the original point of this thread. What should we teach our children as "fact?" ID versus evolution was just an example -- there are plenty of others!

 

The most important thing to teach is "Never stop questioning."

[EffBee]

And finally, and most of all, the moderators, who have doubt spent a fair amount of time on the edges of their chairs as they debated whether or not to let it go on.

Second.

 

No frikkin kidding! I think I have a permanent chair crease across my gluteus maximus (maximus being the operative word these days).

 

Kudos to all for an absolute marvel of civil discussion; deep, passionate, thought-proviking, religious at times and even political (but not politicized).

 

Now, I think I need to go out and do some shopping. Christmas is coming up pretty soon, isn't it?

[KMG_365]

I wonder if in 50 years someone will look back and question our sanity based on new discoveries that invalidate (for the time being) what is now considered as

true/factual/gospel?

 

Thanks Tallman -- you finally got us back to the original point of this thread. What should we teach our children as "fact?" ID versus evolution was just an example -- there are plenty of others!

 

The most important thing to teach is "Never stop questioning."

The hook here is the phrase "fact". I would almost always go with theory over fact as it would be hubristic to think we know very much at all as "fact" (though it is sometimes easier for many day to day things to simplify it: If I'm standing barefoot in a puddle of water and grab that bare high-tension wire it's likely a "fact" that I'm going to be very, very sorry afterwards. ). The set of things you know that you know (a fact) is very small compared to those things you know that you don't know (things as yet unlearned, yet are "knowable"), but they all pale in comparison to the vast body of knowledge that you have no idea that you don't know--the world of all possibilities!

 

 

Scott, please do not misconstrue "meaningless" (which by my definition is a POSITIVE thing that opens up the field of all possibilites not restricted to one or more narrow definitions of "meaning") for "pointlessness" the NEGATIVE thought that goes through the suicidal persons mind before they pop the pills or pull the trigger (we've both been on our share of those folks as well, I'm sure).

 

I found that I was called to my profession because I truly enjoy helping people and using the skills I have amassed up to this point in my evolution to help make a bad situation for someone better, and make the world a better place in some very small (some would say insignificant) way by my having been here. How does that statistic read: It wasn't until the late nineteenth century when a visit to the doctor was likely to do you more good than harm! When I respond to a sick or dying person's aid my concerns are not with what god might have planned for them--if their god does indeed have something planned for them, great, but who am I to say? My concern is SOLELY to do my job to the best of my ability, to be sure that all the best level of current medical training and technology is available to them in a timely fashion in their time of need. The rest is up to them.

 

As you and other EMS types here well know we are more often than not unable to keep our pt's from whatever awaits us after this world once breathing and heartbeats cease, but it is not for me to impose my personal belief system on the ending of someone else's life. Precisely because I do not insert "my meaning" into their life plan (i.e. it's completely empty and meaningless AFAIC) leaves them fully open to have that "near-death experience" that might change their life and cause them to go on to do great works in this world. I'm perfectly fine with that possibility!

 

Even if it is only buying time on a ventillator in the ICU for a few hours or days so that family members can come and pay their last respects and have the comfort of "closure" that they were able to say "goodbye" before their loved one finally passed away, I can take pride in doing my job to the best of my ability, treating people with respect and maintaining my professionalism. There are so many things that I enjoy doing, yet could NEVER excel at (ask the Death Valley Recon Riders about my Karaoke singing, for example! ), that it was very gratifying to finally find a niche where I felt like I could be a force for good and go home at the end of a shift knowing that I might have made a difference in someone's life. I am very lucky in that I work in a small town and I get to run into my pt's again and get the sort of positive feedback that most in my profession never get. I have quite a few stories of my intervening in someone's time of need causing a change in their lives for the better, and those buoy me up.

 

But it doesn't even have to be big life-saving things--even the small seemingly insignificant things add up--and that's one of the reasons I love this place so much. When I consider all the value the time I've spent here has added to my life over the years, I feel greatly indebted and do my best to repay the love in kind.

[Whip]

Jamie

 

Very well said

 

I can feel the love

 

I'm not sure I agree with your other posts on this subject.

 

Look forward to meeting you in DV.

 

Larry

[KMG_365]

Kudos to all for an absolute marvel of civil discussion; deep, passionate, thought-provoking, religious at times and even political (but not politicized).

I have to second that as well.

Now, I think I need to go out and do some shopping. Christmas is coming up pretty soon, isn't it?

Well, I have to get back to work sorting out almost 200 wrapped Christmas presents and laying them out on a grid of the city on the apparatus floor for the 15 Rotarian "Santas" that will be dressing up and making some other children's eyes pop open wide in amazement and wonder! I do love working in a small town--it's almost as good as being a volunteer!

 

But as an example of the kind of "love" to be found around this place (and I could list probably hundreds of examples): a while back I posted a great old pic here of Leslie's mother and grandparents on their old Indian motorcycle taken near here in ca. 1915. Ken/OC (the guy who started this whole mess! ) saw it and asked me for a high-def original scan which I gladly sent. He blew it up into an amazing 8x10, cleaned it up in Photoshop, printed it out on nice photo stock and mailed it to us a few weeks ago--and wouldn't accept any payment for his efforts. I'm blown away by such generosity of spirit.

 

Needless to say, when I had it nicely framed and a plaque engraved with their names mounted below it, and gave it to her as a "Solstice" present, she was reduced to tears. Not to mention all the "husband points" I could hear ringing up in the background! "Cha-ching! Cha-ching!"

 

Truely, some of the little things we do every day might not seem like much in the big scheme of things, but you often never know the difference they can make in others' lives!

 

Thank you again, Ken!

 

Oliver Charles ("O'See", "Fletch") Fletcher, Ruth Helen Becker nee Fletcher, Medora "Grammy" Fletcher

1913 (14?) Indian "Big Twin" motorcycle, San Diego County ca. 1915

 

[/hijack] oops, sorry!

 

 

[Edit: shrunk big pic. Ooops again! ]

[Pilgrim]

Eebie, I can feel this thread winding down finally, so I'm going to abbreviate my response to most of the points. There are probably ten other avenues in this thread that could be lit off, but they'll have to wait for another time, huh?

 

What I believe should be understood (and what the Declaration demonstrates) is that the leaders of the day were religious men in a way we seldom see today. To think that they would create a government intended to function without reference to God (as opposed to Christianity) to the degree we see today is just not a reasonable conclusion. I think they said exactly what they meant: no laws regarding establishment, or prohibition, of religion.

 

I think some of the leaders of today are religious men of a type and to a degree that we have seldom if ever seen in the past. Bush, Ashcroft, Lott, Santorum, Coburn in government, and Falwell, Robertson and Dobson whispering in the ear of the government, are right-wing evangelicals who fundamentally believe that what government there is should be used as a tool of their religion . . .

The politicians on your list don't worry me at all in terms of a shift of power of some sort. And the pulpit thumpers, while noisy, will never have enough political influence to significantly shift things around - unless, of course, they develop enough of a following to change things. But that's democracy, isn't it?

 

The Founders had a good reason for keeping religion out of government.

Yep. Everything you said about the provenance of their thoughts was true. It's why they didn't want an official state religion -see "establishment".

 

As for your attempt to distinguish "references" to G-d from laws "establishing" religion, I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Laws either command behavior or they don't. Government either coerces behavior or it doesn't.

How 'bout no laws on the subject at all? Any religious (or even atheistic) group that can put together a reasonable plan for, say, a school can feed at the government trough on an equal basis, with the plan be judged on its merits rather than its source? Prayers at a game? No one who doesn't want to join in need not do so - they can even stand around and snicker tolerantly at the fools around him. I concede the point on the Ten Commandments in the courthouse - that cuts a little too close to the bone, calling into question the court's impartiality.

 

There are some cases in which courts have allowed government "reference" to religion to stand - the phrase "In G-d We Trust" on money and on government buildings, and the invocation at the start of a session of Congress. Ironically, those "references" were allowed to stand because the various courts concluded they had become devoid of religious significance and were of merely patriotic or ceremonial character. If that's all you want, I'm not sure how it will make much difference in anyone's life, but I guess that's OK.

A neat mental trick on their part, and a perfect example of why I am basically in contempt of court as a general thing - they were intellectually dishonest in their decision. (Seth, are you paying attention? Here's an outcome I approve of, but I disapprove of the means.)

 

No, the Declaration was seminal, far more important to our existence than any blueprint for government will ever be, for without the Declaration there would never have been the rights we enjoy. That is why the Declaration is so important, and why the Constitution by comparison is essentially just well thought-out paperwork. As to the courts' decisions since then, I see nothing there but confusion. The courts have a place in our lives, of course, but it should not be to the extent they have assumed. Certainly the guys who wrote the Constitution never foresaw it, so they did not build into the Constitution a check or balance against them.

Do you have a semester free for a Constitutional Law class?

Eebie, I was a federal cop for over 30 years. I spent a whole lot of time listening to judges, U.S. Attorneys, and lawyers. I deliberately read legal decisions in their entirety until my nose bled from the rarified atmosphere. I made it a point to digest the Federalist Papers one summer while I sat watching the border. I am not a constitutional scholar, but I'd venture to say I have a pretty good understanding of the document and how it came to be. I understand where the judiciary fits in the overall scheme of things.

 

And based on my understanding, insufficient and flawed though it may be by lack of formal legal education, that the provisions for the appointment and confirmation of Court judges, be they in the Supreme Court or the inferior courts, is intended to protect the integrity of the judiciary, and to keep it on a more or less even keel, not to curb its exercise of power. The judiciary operates without check, particularly once they abandon the original intent of the Constitution to enable them to reach the decision they want - see Kelo v. New London, the eminent domain case, or Jenkins v. Missouri, where a federal judge overturned state law governing tax rates, then a ordered a tax increase.

 

The whole "courts are exceeding their authority" argument is a red herring. What it really means is "courts are doing things we don't like, and we can't build enough of a political consensus to do anything about it".

There is no red herring here, it's a very real issue. Witness Kelo, where the court simply substituted one word they liked for one in the Constitution that they found binding. That decision brings about a fundamental change in the meaning of "ownership" of property in this country, overturning a concept that was clear dating back to English common law. Or Jenkins; where's the representation justifying that tax increase? But the second part of your statement is true. Congress does not have the gumption to tell them to knock it off, although they made an abortive run at it recently.

 

When you advocate putting religion in government, always consider - what happens if someday your group is not in the majority? If you establish the principle that government can reference G-d, how would you feel if someday a Muslim majority decided that government should reference Allah? . . .

As long as there's no law establishing Islam as the state religion, as long as long as everyone who wants it gets equal time, and no one must join in, I can live with that.

 

 

Seth said

I don't think any judge has ever told you how to believe, and cretin is kind of a strong word to describe members of the judiciary.

Cretin is a strong word, and intemperate on my part, of course. I'll retract it.

 

But my contempt for much of the judiciary does not come about because I disagree with their findings - I have read any number of decisions that I didn't like, but had to concede were reached reasonably, and others that went my way that were bogus on their face.

 

Part of it arises on personal grounds. For instance, the federal judge in Cheyenne, Wyoming in 1985 who told me, as I testified in open court in a criminal trial, that he had spent three years in Europe during WWII hunting down men like me and killing them. When the U.S. Attorney came to my defense the judge threatened to throw him into jail with me for contempt. Or the judge who, through a writ of habeas corpus, took under his judicial wing a convicted doper I was trying to deport, released him without bond, and found a job for him at his (the judge's) brother's ranch.

 

No, my dislike flows from the fact that power corrupts, etc. and no one in the United States has more power to effect how I have to live than a federal judge (well, except my wife ) - and he's beyond reach, unaccountable.

 

Pilgrim

[Ken/OC]

Pilgrim, not to respond to the above (although it *is* related) but to an earlier post of yours, here compressed:

 

What I will confess is that be it politics, or the law, or entertainment, or even social norms, I am increasingly disgusted by what I see around me… Yes, I still feel a tremendous affection for my native land and its people. But the teary-eyed love I once felt I now reserve for the abandoned ideals.

 

I suspect a lot of people here would agree with you. IMO, this country has moved toward a "prove it" mentality with respect to traditional morality, increasingly depending on laws to govern behavior as moral self-governance decreases. This is a symptom of the underlying cause, which is that our shared beliefs and values have become very diffuse.

 

Unfortunately, morality is not susceptible to proof -- an appeal to authority, which logically must be religious, is required. Even the founding fathers, some of whom were pretty radical in their religions, found it necessary to point to a "creator" as the source of man's inalienable rights.

 

Absent the moral system that was once so pervading that it was like water to a fish (i.e., taken totally for granted as a basis for social interaction), laws necessarily become every more complex and onerous, and judges more powerful and capricious.

 

None of this says that our (rapidly disappearing) moral system was "right," only that it worked for us for a while and that we liked it. Of course, everybody likes their moral systems, no matter how different from ours they may be!

 

I believe that the tendencies you note indicate that our society is becoming less survivable, perhaps quickly. The religious right wants to reverse this by any means it can, but its only possible avenue of action is establishment of a state religion, however disguised. Also, the religious right is increasingly discredited by the highly visible lack of traditional morality among many of its own adherents. Logic, or traditional liberal thought, won't do much good either. Maybe a new "real" religion? Any volunteers?

 

And Jamie, thanks for the kind words and I'm glad that Leslie liked the photo!

[Couchrocket]

make the world a better place in some very small (some would say insignificant) way by my having been here

Jamie,

 

I happen to believe that you make the world a much better place in perhaps the most noble way, not only by what you do, but in the "heart" of why you do it.

 

My philosophical disagreement is precisely because I cannot accept that the good you do is in an absolute sense, meaningless (I'll concede not pointless, though if there is no "real" meaning to existence I suspect that becomes hair-splitting!). It isn't "good enough" for me to be able to look at the good you do, the motives for doing it, and the outcomes and say to myself, "Well, that's nice for him, and perhaps fortunate for those he helps, but ultimately, whether he helps them, ignores them, hastens their death, or even kills them, it ultimately means "nothing" in any real sense other than what groups may have "invented" to assist survival, or what he feels is worth doing (what does "worth" mean if all is in an absolute sense 'meaningless'?) or what his group believes is a worthy metanarative, or 'fill in the blank.'"

 

 

In my mind, Jamie's spirit of helpfulness, Bob's sensitivity and ability to capture the beauty of nature and his ability to "see it as beautiful" and worth sharing with us through his photos, and all the other incidences of creativity, personality, expression of values, sense of fairness, sense of honor that is evident here on a daily basis - are all evidence of the existence of "real meaning" in life that is imprinted into us, and is a reflection of the one who imprinted it.

 

I'll rest my case here, and wish all on the DB here a great Holiday, and a New Year filled with "meaning."

[DavidEBSmith]

The judiciary operates without check, particularly once they abandon the original intent of the Constitution to enable them to reach the decision they want - see Kelo v. New London, the eminent domain case

 

Actually, Kelo is an example that proves my point. The legal reasoning on Kelo was sound - nothing in the prior cases interpreting the language of the takings clause prevented the taking in that case. The Court said, in essence, that the U.S. Constitution creates a pretty low bar for restrictions on takings. In other words, whether or not we think this taking is a good thing, the Constitution doesn't stop it. They went on to say that it would be entirely appropriate for states to set greater restrictions on takings if they wanted them. The subsequent uproar from people who got their information about the case from the media ("Government can take away your house and give it to a rich developer and there's nothing you can do about it!") has created a movement that's resulted in many states implementing more stringent restrictions on takings.

 

Kelo is really a model case for the principled conservative. The Supreme Court interpreted the law in line with prior cases (all the way back to English common law), and didn't engage in "activism" to force a particular desired outcome. Moreover, in the great tradition of federalism, the Court devolved the responsibility for enacting controls on takings from the Federal government to the state governments. Furthermore, in those states where people care, the Supreme Court's decision has essentially been overruled by public opinion and the legislative process - where people cared enough to enact their own more restrictive regulations, the taking in Kelo can't happen in the future.

 

Prayers at a game? No one who doesn't want to join in need not do so - they can even stand around and snicker tolerantly at the fools around him.

 

This is a great idea in the abstract, but doesn't work in the real world. If you're the only kid in your high school who doesn't bow in prayer at the football game, you'll be subjected to treatment ranging from ostracism to physical attack. Making a kid "different" because of his or her religion tends to coerce that kid away from his or her religion, and if it's the government that's doing it, it's wrong. The First Amendment says "no establishment", not "a little establishment is OK". It's not equal treatment to tell students they can just opt out of participating in the activities that all the other students participate in.

 

And on somebody else's point - I would have no problem with public schools teaching comparative religion classes if they could do it in an even-handed manner, without advocating or denigrating any belief. In the real world, I don't think that can happen. There are too many people who would object to their religion not getting more emphasis, or their religion not being held out as being the one true religion, or somebody else's religion not being held out as a false religion. People freaked out a while back when some college put the Koran on its freshman reading list - they were offended that they had to read it, and they were offended that it wasn't being cast in a totally negative light in the class. That's the kind of close-mindedness that leads to Intelligent Design.

[russell_bynum]

This is a great idea in the abstract, but doesn't work in the real world. If you're the only kid in your high school who doesn't bow in prayer at the football game, you'll be subjected to treatment ranging from ostracism to physical attack.

 

That was not my experience.

[smiller]

Actually, Kelo is an example that proves my point.

 

Indeed, and I have difficulty understanding the conservative backlash against this decision in that it (as David points out) represents a perfect example of a strict 'it's not in there' reading of the Constitution. If we don't like the resulting decision the proper response is to enact laws restricting the use of eminent domain and not expect the courts to 'make law' (to use a popular phrase) in order to do it for us. The Schaivo case was similar in that the law itself was very clear (so much so that 24 court hearings came to the same unanimous conclusion) yet the courts were castigated for not making up new law to suit the situation. It would seem that many who make a sport of criticizing the judiciary (referring to the conservative movement and not you Pilgrim) would like to have their cake and eat it too.

 

If you think that the state or extended family should be able to override a spouse's decision concerning critical care, change the law. If you think that public school teachers should lead prayers (or teach biblical creation) and the Ten Commandments should hang in a courtroom and religious beliefs should govern reproductive rights then change the law. Problem is, the majority of the electorate seems to sense the wisdom of the status quo vis-a-vis the separation of church and state and do not want to change things. This fact may greatly bother some people but blame on the courts is misdirected.

[tallman]

"That's the kind of close-mindedness that leads to Intelligent Design"

 

David,

While I respect your intelligence and usually well reasoned responses, I disagree with the statement above.

I would not categorically label or imply that anyone who supports the concept of Intelligent Design is necessarily close-minded. Nor would I say that anyone who believes in evolution is close-minded.

While there certainly may be closed-minded individuals on either side of this discussion, it is not a pre-requisite IMO.

As to the study of religion in schools, that would depend on the type of school; private, parochial, public, the source of funding, and the community. Again there would be so many variations that I don't think it would be an absolute certainty that bias would prevail. Assuredly some schools would emphasize a particular dogma or creed just as some theocracies around the world do today.

The beauty of our pluralistic society is that it encourages open discussion among people with dissimilar beliefs and allows freedom of expression for those who share a common belief.

Best wishes.

[Ken/OC]

While I respect your intelligence and usually well reasoned responses, I disagree with the statement above. I would not categorically label or imply that anyone who supports the concept of Intelligent Design is necessarily close-minded. Nor would I say that anyone who believes in evolution is close-minded.

 

Interesting viewpoint! Is it legitimate to ask the question in science classes, "Could certain structures found in life forms have arisen through the evolutionary process?" Or do we carefully avoid asking this question???

[Bob Palin]

Is it legitimate to ask the question in science classes, "Could certain structures found in life forms have arisen through the evolutionary process?" Or do we carefully avoid asking this question???

I would think that is the very best thing an evolutionist could ask. Why do I feel a trap being set here?

[Ken/OC]

Why do I feel a trap being set here?

 

Hee hee hee! And why the hell am I even typing this on Christmas Eve??? Best holiday wishes, Killer in Mormon-land!

[Bob Palin]

Bob's sensitivity and ability to capture the beauty of nature and his ability to "see it as beautiful" and worth sharing with us through his photos

No meaning, it just makes the chemicals in my head feel good (A bit like Guinness does, I think I'll go and hunt for some)

[KMG_365]

. . . the Declaration was seminal, far more important to our existence than any blueprint for government will ever be, for without the Declaration there would never have been the rights we enjoy. That is why the Declaration is so important, and why the Constitution by comparison is essentially just well thought-out paperwork. As to the courts' decisions since then, I see nothing there but confusion. The courts have a place in our lives, of course, but it should not be to the extent they have assumed. Certainly the guys who wrote the Constitution never foresaw it, so they did not build into the Constitution a check or balance against them. [ . . . ]

Pilgrim

Though it seems that even Pilgrim is running out of steam and this horse might be breathing its last, I feel compelled to make a final point about the Declaration of Independance vs. the actual running of an evolving, growing country that attempts to live up to its lofty goals in any "meaningful" way. (That was for you, Scott! )

 

(Pilgrim, I hope you'll forgive the history lesson, but perhaps others will benefit from it. )

 

The D-of-I was the seminal event it's true, but I still consider it a relatively "primative" event--as in primary, crude, simple: akin to the "primordial" ooze from which (it is theorized) we all came. I consider it something akin to the heated argument wherein the rebellious teenager finally tells his parents off, storms out of the house and slams the door. Okay, fine. Now you're free to do what you want. You can stay up until all hours of the night, you can choose NOT to eat your vegetables, etc. but eventually reality sets in and you realize that your righteous indignation at the shabby way your parents treated you doesn't go far in putting a roof over your head. You wake up to the reality that you'd better come up with a plan to house, feed and clothe yourself 'cause winter's coming and you're getting hungry and cold. That said, I think it is a very "inspirational" way to go about life: "throw your hat over the wall FIRST, and THEN figure out how you're going to get it back!"

 

The Founders were all pretty much in agreement that they were getting the shaft from King George (Hmmmmmmm . . . . ), and it didn't take too much coercion to get the colonial representatives to all sign off on the initial Declaration (not that they thought they'd get it without a fight), but when it came to hammering out the nitty-gritty details of how the heck to run a country composed of such disparate "faiths" it got a lot tougher. Granted, there were probably proportionately few Muslims or Hindus or even Atheists in the early colonies, but by their bold "Declaration" and putting the idea out there that "All MEN are created equal" they ended up starting something that would become much bigger that they ever imagined--or even intended.

 

Remember that their narrow definition of "All MEN" really meant all white, male, freeborn, landed gentry. It took many forward thinking people--including some sitting on those courts that you despise so much--to finally, painfully slowly bring that "Creator-granted" ideal into the form it has today.

 

The pagan native peoples living here for generations before the Europeans took over by force had no rights to anything--even mere existance--and were butchered by the millions (not to mention the tens of millions who died from the imported diseases).

 

The abomination of slavery was a non-issue to the Founders, it took almost 100 years, but the slaves were eventually freed (13th Amendment 1865) at the cost of (by some estimates as high as) 700,000 lives (and not including the uncounted numbers of lynchings) and a lingering resentment that is still felt today.

 

The incredible lack of equal suffrage for women was also a non-issue and believe it or not it has been a mere 85 years since that was finally rectified (19th Amendment 1920).

 

The early attempts at "equality" viv-a-vis the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments as well as the tumultous period of "Reconstruction" (1865-1877), were still so ineffective that it was not until the modern Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's that some semblance of these lofty "Creator-granted" rights were finally enjoyed by a larger cross-section of the populace.

 

What started out as a dream for persecuted religious sects (Protestants, Episcopalians, Quakers, Mennonites, etc.) to finally live in relative freedom and for disenfranchised "second-sons" who stood no hope of inheriting anything but personal property (i.e. no land, the law of Primogeniture being the norm across the Pond at the time), has blossomed into what we have today due largely to unforseen "inspiration" of that "Declaration", but the above background and timeline should chasten those who long for "the good old days" and of the lofty and noble intentions of the Founders.

 

Just as every teenager must rebel against his parents and the various individuals' outcomes meet with varying degrees of success, "it is theorized" that every genomic and/or socio-political mutation will either thrive and continue to propagate or die off based on it's ability to respond (and if needed, adapt) to it's environment. It's that innate drive that forwards the growth and development of our species--and that which gives me hope in our future.

 

( . . . but it's still meaningless! And I mean that in the best possible way! )

[Ken/OC]

Jamie, I can't believe you're doing this on CHRISTMAS EVE ferchristsake...points well-taken, of course.

[smiller]

I hope everyone is enjoying their Christmas hiatus from this thread.

[David]

And in that spirit, here are the lyrics to a beautiful song by Vienna Tang:

 

The Atheist Christmas Carol

 

it's the season of grace coming out of the void

where a man is saved by a voice in the distance

it's the season of possible miracle cures

where hope is currency and death is not the last unknown

where time begins to fade

and age is welcome home

 

it's the season of eyes meeting over the noise

and holding fast with sharp realization

it's the season of cold making warmth a divine intervention

you are safe here you know now

 

don't forget

don't forget I love

I love

I love you

 

it's the season of scars and of wounds in the heart

of feeling the full weight of our burdens

it's the season of bowing our heads in the wind

and knowing we are not alone in fear

not alone in the dark

 

Listen to it if you get a chance.

[Scarecrow]

I really enjoyed this thread.

 

appropos of nothing... a Harley is a complex machine, but does it really represent intelligent design?

 

(sorry, couldn't resist )

 

To All,

A Safe, Healthy Holiday Season

[Couchrocket]

just makes the chemicals in my head feel good (A bit like Guinness does, I think I'll go and hunt for some)

Bob, Bless your heart, this makes me laugh and cry at the same time! Have a wonderful holiday and New Year!