Darkness falls ...

[David Gould]

It begins - a massive ID push in Australia, very likely funded heavily by US fundamentalists.

We have separation of church and state written into our constitution in identical words ( I think). But the difference is that in Australia this section of the constitution is basically ignored, not used and not even discussed. For example, an Anglican Archbishop was made Governor-General. No court challenge was mounted. When I was in primary school - public school - prayer and religious instruction were standard. No-one ever thought to challenge it - after a while, it died a natural death, mainly because churches could not agree on which of them should teach, and parents decided that rather than risk their child being taught by a catholic, or a protestant, or an orthodox teacher, they would get rid of the whole deal and teach religion at church.

But the ID movement is something different. Australian apathy towards such issues plays right into their hands. Scientists may speak out, but unless there is strong political and legal opposition to this movement there is a real risk that the movement will take hold.

I am feeling very angry, sad and helpless at the moment.

 

[Praxiteles]

It begins - a massive ID push in Australia, very likely funded heavily by US fundamentalists.

We have separation of church and state written into our constitution in identical words ( I think). But the difference is that in Australia this section of the constitution is basically ignored, not used and not even discussed. For example, an Anglican Archbishop was made Governor-General. No court challenge was mounted. When I was in primary school - public school - prayer and religious instruction were standard. No-one ever thought to challenge it - after a while, it died a natural death, mainly because churches could not agree on which of them should teach, and parents decided that rather than risk their child being taught by a catholic, or a protestant, or an orthodox teacher, they would get rid of the whole deal and teach religion at church.

But the ID movement is something different. Australian apathy towards such issues plays right into their hands. Scientists may speak out, but unless there is strong political and legal opposition to this movement there is a real risk that the movement will take hold.

I am feeling very angry, sad and helpless at the moment.

There's a bit of a difference, though. We're much less religious that the Yanks, so the soil is not so fertile.

Incidentally, all of the mainstream media that I've read about it here is either hostile to ID, or just laughs at it.

 

[David Gould]

There's a bit of a difference, though. We're much less religious that the Yanks, so the soil is not so fertile.

Among young people, that is changing. Fundamentalist churches have in the last five years experienced massive growth in numbers. The Sydney Anglican diocese is incredible conservative, and is the fastest growing diocese in the country.

If Australians do not care - in other words, if people start teaching ID in public schools, and no-one really mounts a protest - it will not matter about religion. Children of liberal Christians, agnostics, atheists, buddhists et cetera will learn about ID.

With apathy on one side and millions of dollars and high levels of motivation on the other, I am afraid that the battle is a foregone conclusion.

Incidentally, all of the mainstream media that I've read about it here is either hostile to ID, or just laughs at it.

Which is the exactly what happens in the states, too. The only thing keeping ID out of public schools in the states is the Supreme Court.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

We have separation of church and state written into our constitution in identical words ( I think).

We do? Do you have a reference for this?

 

[David Gould]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/backing-for-intelligent-design/2005/10/27/1130400311078.html

This is the article that started my depression.

As to the constitution:

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

 

[David Gould]

Not identical, but pretty darn close. The fact that almost no-one knows that we have this in our constitution indicates how often people have bothered to worry about this issue in Australia.

 

[TeddyKGB]

On the bright side, ID is currently getting its figurative ass handed to it in a US court. It is the closest thing to a 'put up or shut up' moment that ID has experienced thus far, and they are blowing it something spectacular.

If you blokes follow us Yanks, as per usual in the ID-context, expect ID to have a hard time in the near future.

 

[David Gould]

On the bright side, ID is currently getting its figurative ass handed to it in a US court. It is the closest thing to a 'put up or shut up' moment that ID has experienced thus far, and they are blowing it something spectacular.

The court system is doing a good job in the US, but it is doing it based on legal precedents stretching back decades and decades. Without those precedents ...

If you blokes follow us Yanks, as per usual in the ID-context, expect ID to have a hard time in the near future.

From who? We have never had a test case in the High Court, unlike you guys. Our establishment clause means nothing simply because it has no precedent behind it. And apathy means that it is unlikely to be tested in the near future. If the ID guys are clever - and their experience in the US means that they have lots of information to draw in now - they will push it in religious schools only for the time being. Then, when they have a big enough following, they will set-up a test case school at the time of their choosing.

In other words, the High Court cannot test the law until it is called into question. As such, the ID guys can make sure they do their homework and push it when they think they are ready.

 

[Tenka]

I guess that full page open letter by Australian scientists stating in no uncertain terms that ID is a faith based belief with no standing in science, which appeared in national papers last week went unnoticed?

www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/during_my_visit

www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1487354

 

[David Gould]

I guess that full page open letter by Australian scientists stating in no uncertain terms that ID is a faith based belief with no standing in science, which appeared in national papers last week went unnoticed?

www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/during_my_visit

www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1487354http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1487354

It seems to have gone unnoticed by most people. I read the letter. It was not very well-written, in my opinion.

Scientists may care. But the Australian public in all likelihood will say, 'Why not teach both sides'? And the only way to prevent it being taught in public schools is:

1.) to get the High Court to rule that the establishment clause means that religion is not allowed to be taught in public schools; and
2.) to get the High Court to rule that ID is religion.

I do not think that there will be any difficulty with 2. It is 1 that I think is problematic.

 

[ebia]

It seems to have gone unnoticed by most people. I read the letter. It was not very well-written, in my opinion.

Scientists may care. But the Australian public in all likelihood will say, 'Why not teach both sides'? And the only way to prevent it being taught in public schools is:

1.) to get the High Court to rule that the establishment clause means that religion is not allowed to be taught in public schools; and
2.) to get the High Court to rule that ID is religion.

I do not think that there will be any difficulty with 2. It is 1 that I think is problematic.

I think this is a bit pessimistic. School curriculums here are not set by the public, but by educators. The public simply has no way of getting public (or Catholic) schools to teach ID, or getting the VCAA and equivalent to include it in exams.

While the Australian public might be apathetic about ID, I suspect they could be motivated to stop "religious nutters trying to gain the power to interfere in and ruin our school system".

 

[drunkard]

If Australians do not care - in other words, if people start teaching ID in public schools, and no-one really mounts a protest - it will not matter about religion. Children of liberal Christians, agnostics, atheists, buddhists et cetera will learn about ID.

With apathy on one side and millions of dollars and high levels of motivation on the other, I am afraid that the battle is a foregone conclusion.

I'm a little ashamed to admit this, but I'm feeling some conflicting emotions here.

On the one hand, it is horrible to think that any nation's children might be forced to learn IDiocy in their science curriculum.

On the other hand…
If Australia introduces ID into its schools while the movement gets slapped down in the US courts, then you guys will supplant us as the industrialized world's laughing stock in science education.

Hmmmm…….

I feel a tad guilty.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

It begins - a massive ID push in Australia, very likely funded heavily by US fundamentalists.

Hopefully, Australian scientists will learn from American mistakes and will not ignore this movement while it gains momentum. Fortunately, a few dozen scientists here in the US (mainly the NCSE) had kept an eye on these clowns for over 10 years, so a few months ago when the science community really needed to act together there was a catalyst in place. But had mainstream science been paying more attention the ID movement here might never have gained any momentum at all.

 

[Tenka]

NSW teacher's journal Education featured a full page essay about the ID agenda, including a good background into it's 20 year wedge strategy (now in it's final phase) and creationism's lack of success in the US court.
It also made sure to dispel the oft chanted creationist mantra that there are "2 sides".

 

[Dragar]

David,

If it bothers you this much, do something. Write letters, get some organisation from the scientific community to alert the public to this.

 

[Aggie]

If there’s anything I can do to help with this, I’d be happy to try. I’ve already offered members of a different forum web space on my domain to use for anti-creationist material, and that offer is open to anyone at this forum also. It’s fairly fast, has no ads, and I can provide some help with the design process if you need it.

 

[David Gould]

I think this is a bit pessimistic. School curriculums here are not set by the public, but by educators. The public simply has no way of getting public (or Catholic) schools to teach ID, or getting the VCAA and equivalent to include it in exams.

They do, actually, because the P and C of the school choose the text books. I know that this will only be at the lower levels (it won't be in the state exams or anything) but it will still have an impact.

While the Australian public might be apathetic about ID, I suspect they could be motivated to stop "religious nutters trying to gain the power to interfere in and ruin our school system".

Hmmm. It depends on how the ID movement plays it. I think that if I were running the ID movement, I could get it into schools given a few million dollars and a loyal base of followers.

 

[RightWingGirl]

What interests me is this; Separation of church and state is said to come from the second amendment. (American) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Which has been interpeded to say that the State should make no mention of religeon, and act as though it never existed. THis, I am told, is what the founding Fathers wished.

However, the Founding Fathers said

, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

etc.

 

[nvxplorer]

What interests me is this; Separation of church and state is said to come from the second amendment. (American) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Which has been interpeded to say that the State should make no mention of religeon, and act as though it never existed. THis, I am told, is what the founding Fathers wished.

However, the Founding Fathers said

, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

etc.

What religion does Nature’s God refer to, and how is its inclusion in the Declaration an establishment of religion?

 

[Aggie]

What religion does Nature’s God refer to, and how is its inclusion in the Declaration an establishment of religion?

Probably the same type of god that I believe in, since that was written by Thomas Jefferson and he (like me) was a Deist. Deists generally don’t think God has been directly involved in the universe since He created it, so they base their understanding of Him on what can be gleaned from the physical nature of the world.

I’m not sure whether or not it proves anything that the U.S. was founded on Deist principles, but it definitely doesn’t prove anything in favor of creationism or ID theory. If anything, the principles of Deism would suggest that we should base our theories about life’s origins purely on physical evidence, and not assume God must have been involved in the aspects of it that are difficult to understand.