Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

[david_x]

Which question? I still have absolutely no idea what you're referring to.

Judge rules against intelligent design. I'm giving an opinion.

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.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion! Okay chaoschristian?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion! Okay chaoschristian?

The ... 14th Amendment (or one of the other immediate post-Civil war amendments) has been (reasonably IMO) interpreted to mean that state and local laws and ordinances may not violate the constitution. Thus, among other examples, the state police are not allowed to search your house without a warrent, and due process must be followed in criminal and civil procedings.

When a public school board uses public funds to promote a religious belief such as Intelligent Design in a science course in a public school it is in violation of the First Amendment.

There are public statements on record by leaders in the ID movement that ID is a wedge to get creationism into the school.

In the Penn. case you had funds raised from religious sources for the books to be used (which is why the perjury case against those "good" Christians who lied about that has traction).

In the California case the teacher was a pastor's wife and the statement of one of the students indicated that despite the fact that it was billed as a "philosophy course" questions of fact were being taught (i.e. according to the student it was taught that evolution factually could not account for complexity).

ID proponants don't make predictions, nor do they provide any method for testing their claims.

In other words it is not a science.

 

[chaoschristian]

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion! Okay chaoschristian?

Not ok. You are only getting one part of its core concept.

It clearly does not state that the government cannot make laws regarding religion. If that were true, then tax codes that provide non-profit status for churches and other religious non-profits would be disallowed. Under that kind of interpretation religions that practice virgin-child blood sacrifice could not be stopped by the government. Clearly, that is not was intended and in fact it is not what is said.

What it does say is that the government cannot take action to establish religious institutions. What was specifically being guarded against was the establishment of an official national religion. It also says that the government cannot take action against the establishment of religious institutions. Take this together with the rest of the text now, and you can see that what is clearly meant is that the government cannot interfere in the establishment, expression or gathering of religious institutions when those actions are being taken by private citizens.

What is not explicitly spelled out in the text, but does exist through the extension of logic is that the 1st Amendment prevents the public use of governmental power and influence in the support of religious practices; but it also prevents the public use of governmental power and influence to prevent the expression of religion among private citizens.

You see there is in fact a clear separation between the public realm and the private realm that can be clearly seen in the text and logic of the 1st Amendment. The public realm is kept clear of religious practices exercised by the state, while the private realm is protected from government intrusion.

The entire 'separation of church and state' argument can be set aside as a Red Herring. The real issue is the separation of the public and private realms. And what the Constitution says is that the expression of religion is clearly reserved for the private realm only.

So in other words attempts by some Christians (such as I think you are doing here) to claim that the court overstepped its bounds by unduly restricting the free practice of religion are founded on either a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding of what the 1st Amendment actually says.

 

[david_x]

When a public school board uses public funds to promote a religious belief such as Intelligent Design in a science course in a public school it is in violation of the First Amendment.

If the close minded peopl of the USA would open up their minds they would stop using "religious" as a word to disenagrate the truth.

ID proponants don't make predictions, nor do they provide any method for testing their claims.

That is a bold lie. What an acusation!

1. life doesn't change, look around! Everything you see has not changed in a very long time, if it ever did.

 

[notto]

1. life doesn't change, look around! Everything you see has not changed in a very long time, if it ever did.

Is this a supposed prediction of ID? If it is, where does ID make this prediction? Please be specific.

 

[david_x]

do either predict, of cource not. They are interpretations of the past.

 

[notto]

do either predict, of cource not. They are interpretations of the past.

You really need to brush up on the subject. The theory of evolution and the predictions it makes are tested and relied upon every day in research. There are entire research journals and acedemic disciplines on the subject.

Where are the predication of ID used? What are they? Where can I see them tested with research?

You should read the court transcripts and the judges findings in this case. It becomes apparent that ID in this case was being pushed into the classroom for religious reasons and that the materials that were recommended were nothing more than poorly edited creationist materials. Furthermore, the judge uncovered the lies being told by the board and witnesses to try to cover that up.

It was a shameful display and even groups like the Discover Institute distanced themselves from it and refused to support it.

Now, let's take a look again and what you called absurd.

ID proponants don't make predictions, nor do they provide any method for testing their claims.

Can you show us what predictions ID makes and what method we can use to test the claims? What materials on ID have you read? Please be specific.

 

[chaoschristian]

1. life doesn't change, look around! Everything you see has not changed in a very long time, if it ever did.

So the worldwide concern over the avian flu is all for naught and its really all a scheme cooked up by greedy pharmaceutical companies to turn a buck?

And all those old folks and kids who stand in long lines to get new flu shots each year, we should just tell them to go home and stop wasting their time?

 

[david_x]

So the worldwide concern over the avian flu is all for naught and its really all a scheme cooked up by greedy pharmaceutical companies to turn a buck?

And all those old folks and kids who stand in long lines to get new flu shots each year, we should just tell them to go home and stop wasting their time?

exactily, the flu today has always exhisted it has just grown in numbers!

You really need to brush up on the subject. The theory of evolution and the predictions it makes are tested and relied upon every day in research. There are entire research journals and acedemic disciplines on the subject.

Yeah, like evolution just stopped then. nothing is changing!

 

[chaoschristian]

exactily, the flu today has always exhisted it has just grown in numbers!

So, you are actually denying that flu strains mutate and change over time, and that populations, human or otherwise, are impacted upon by these changes. You are asserting that the flu hasn't adapted or changed in any way, but that it's always been there and now there is just more of it to go around.

Justify your assertion. Back up your claims. I want to see your positive proof, which means present your evidence within the framework of a logical explanation that makes your hypothesis the best one to describe what we observe happening.

If what you are saying is true, then billions and billions of dollars are being wasted by the governments of the world on public health programs and I for one want to see that kind of waste put to a stop.

 

[Dannager]

exactily, the flu today has always exhisted it has just grown in numbers!

Okay, I'm calling parody. There's no way you can be serious about this. You're trying to tell us all that the flu doesn't actually mutate? Despite the fact that multiple pharmaceutical companies, the government and dozens of scientific research bodies spend a good portion of every single year tracking the new mutations in the flu bug? Are you saying that every one of these organizations are participating in the biggest coverup the world has ever seen, and they're doing it for flu vaccinations?

This is getting ridiculous, david_x.

 

[notto]

Yeah, like evolution just stopped then. nothing is changing!

How absurd. You have basically put your head in the sand and obviously really need to brush up on the subject.

Evolution in action.

 

[chaoschristian]

Okay, I'm calling parody.

I'm not quite sure about this, at least not yet. I think he's claiming that all variations of the flu have always existed and that some are now just growing more numerous and therefore infecting more people. I'm sure he'll add something about transient populations moving isolated flus around to other populations who would otherwise be protected from them. Since we didn't actually see any of these so-called mutations occur on Fox News, then we can't have proof that its not true that they've always existed from the beginning of time.

 

[gluadys]

I'm not quite sure about this, at least not yet. I think he's claiming that all variations of the flu have always existed and that some are now just growing more numerous and therefore infecting more people. I'm sure he'll add something about transient populations moving isolated flus around to other populations who would otherwise be protected from them. Since we didn't actually see any of these so-called mutations occur on Fox News, then we can't have proof that its not true that they've always existed from the beginning of time.

You don't need to provide him with pseudo-arguments.

According to his profile he's a 17-year-old kid. I expect he just doesn't know what he is talking about and is not putting any real effort into making sense.

 

[david_x]

I'm not quite sure about this, at least not yet. I think he's claiming that all variations of the flu have always existed and that some are now just growing more numerous and therefore infecting more people. I'm sure he'll add something about transient populations moving isolated flus around to other populations who would otherwise be protected from them. Since we didn't actually see any of these so-called mutations occur on Fox News, then we can't have proof that its not true that they've always existed from the beginning of time.

Close, i'm saying that differnt "strands of the flu virous were always around. When i vaccine kills off virouses it does not effect that one virous that has a trait to defend it's self.

According to his profile he's a 17-year-old kid. I expect he just doesn't know what he is talking about and is not putting any real effort into making sense.

"Don't let anyone look down on you because of your age." now that's biblical! Besides you are the one not paying attention and judging that which you have no clue about!

 

[chaoschristian]

You don't need to provide him with pseudo-arguments.

I'm just pointing out how absurd the unexamined claim is. I knew as soon as I typed it that that post could possibly be used against my case. But it also says something about the person who would use it.

 

[gluadys]

"Don't let anyone look down on you because of your age." now that's biblical! Besides you are the one not paying attention and judging that which you have no clue about!

Sorry, at my age, all 17-year-olds are inexperienced kids. I don't mean to look down on you. I know teenagers who have spent hundreds of hours studying something that fascinates them and I would put their knowledge of that subject up against that of an octogenarian who hasn't studied it.

But does evolution fascinate you? Have you spent hundreds of hours studying it on your own, in addition to the 2-3 hours of instruction your high school gave you?

What have I not paid attention to? What is it you think I have no clue about?

There are many things I don't have a clue about--auto mechanics, current music and film stars, calculus--to name a few, but I don't think those gaps are relevant to this discussion.

 

[david_x]

What have I not paid attention to? What is it you think I have no clue about?

me, your post proves it! you just skipped over everything i said!

Sorry, at my age, all 17-year-olds are inexperienced kids. I don't mean to look down on you.

you just contridicted yourself in the first two sentences.

You make it sound as if the subject is complex. It's not that hard. Sure if I were simple I may have spent hours on it, however i would much rather work on my relationship with Christ and others.

 

[gluadys]

me, your post proves it! you just skipped over everything i said!

Everything? Or is there something in particular I didn't answer that you think I should have.

You make it sound as if the subject is complex. It's not that hard. Sure if I were simple I may have spent hours on it, however i would much rather work on my relationship with Christ and others.

Evolution is complex. At least as complex as an internal combustion engine. But it is not that hard. I have no doubt you can understand evolution if you want to try. But it is complex enough that it does take some effort to understand it. A few hours in a crowded high school science curriculum are not enough.

Would you expect to be able to play a Schubert piano concerto with less than ten hours spent on learning how to play the piano? Same with science. It takes study and practice.

If you choose not to put your energy into it, then you have no real basis for your criticisms and doubts.

 

[david_x]

Evolution is complex.

Like I ment, for some people it may be.

Everything? Or is there something in particular I didn't answer that you think I should have.

Close, i'm saying that differnt "strands of the flu virous were always around. When i vaccine kills off virouses it does not effect that one virous that has a trait to defend it's self.