Group assails Bible study course taught at schools. What a shocker this happened in Texas.
Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught.
Perhaps they need a reminder:
"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..." - Thomas Jefferson
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." - James Madison
"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." - 1st Amendment of the Consitution
**A great extension of this discussion is on Laura's blog: Unintelligent Design**
16 comments:
Got this from a friends blog:
Thought Police
John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/
Laura and Isabella, great comments and links by both of you.
People are just desensitized to the separation of Church and State. They take their freedom for granted and so they don't care. Mostly because they've never had to face religious adversity - most of the people who say it's no big deal are Christians. But those of us who believe differently or who have faced adversity, we know how important it is that the government be free from religion and vice versa. People just don't see the importance anymore. It's really quite sad.
Damn., this country is going to hell in a handbasket, and 2/3 of the people are either too blind or too stupid to see it.
Laura- the thought police piece just kinda says it all, doesn't it!
Don't all these bible thumpers realize that our country was set up as a secular state, as opposed to the countries of Europe at the time that had official state religions. That's what attracted a large number of our ancestors here, the freedom from religion.
The funny thing is though, the idea that evolution isn't a religious tenament is foolish. It is a basis of humanism and atheism which are truely religions in and of themselves. Thus by teaching evolution alone in schools the government already is crossing those boundaries between church and state.
The idea that an "intelligent design" created everything is a basic belief of almost every major religion in the world (including Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, and most eastern philosophies). To say that the intelligent design theory is a Christian theory is like saying that the moon revolving around the earth is an American concept.
Thus when American schools teach evolution only, mostly ignoring all of it's major flaws, it does so with a prejudice that alienates all but a few religious backgrounds. Thus it is the epitomy of intolerance.
Bringing the "intelligent design" theory into schools helps to bring back into balance a religious tendency that has been severely skewered for decades.
Do you know how the Declaration of Independence was written? Thomas Jefferson's youngest son dumped a box of letter blocks onto the floor and there it was -- perfectly spelled and punctuated.
What, you don't believe that? But you do believe that something as infinitely complex as the universe could just fall together after something called the Big Bang to be perfect down to the subatomic level without intelligent design. I'm sorry, I don't have that much faith. Take your cult elsewhere.
Calling evolution a "religious tenement" is ridiculous. Religion by its very definition requires a supernaturual power or spiritual leader ... two things humanism and atheism definitely do not have. It comforts religious people to think of them as religions, though.
And we're getting into semantics again. As I posted on Laura's blog, scientific theories and general theories are not the same thing, though religious people like to make it that way. Some of my post there:
"Part of the confusion comes from "theory" having different definitions when used in a general context and when used in a scientific context. Here's the defintion from biology-online.org:
"In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws." "
Exactly how many experiments have been done to prove intelligent design?
And Lone Ranger, do the words "opiate for the masses" mean anything to you? Just because you cannot conceive of a world without a creator doesn't mean it isn't true. But that is your prerogative.
Evolution can be accepted by religious people who do not take their gospels literally. Allegorically, evolution and the big bang are compatible with religious belief. It's the literalists who drive me nuts. No No.. 6 days. Okkkkkeee.
And teaching intelligent design in SCIENCE class and teaching, say, the Greek Myths in literature class isn't fair either. I say let's put Athena popping out of Zeus's head on equal footing with evolution too. Oy.
Religious studies has it's place in academics. Just not in science.
Ah, but Humanism and Atheism do both have a "supernaturual power or spiritual leader". In evolution the spiritual leaders are Darwin, his writings, and his disciples and the supernatural power is there it is just attempted to be explained by "science".
Humanism and atheism both view the individual, the person, the human(ism) as the supernatural power and the spiritual leader. They teach that people are in control of their own destiny, and ultimately power over their lives. So by your definition they are religions.
As to Darwin and evolution again. Even the "spiritual leader" of evolution on his death bed repented and regreted that he had ever created evolution, something that no other religious leader has done.
If science is an explanation based on "observation, experimentation, and reasoning" than evolution should not be taught as science. It is so full of holes it couldn't hold water. It continues to be taught because those who study it and see the problems are often too prejudice to be willing to concede that they may be wrong. History is full of examples of this in science.
As for loneranger's comment, he didn't say that he couldn't conceive a world without a creator he simply points out that it is absolutely impossible that as complex as the universe is, somehow it randomly came together.
Oh and sorry about my misspellings, spelling has never been my forte.
Also, loneranger, there is no cult here, and even if it was, this is her blog not yours. I agreed with what you had to say, but there was no reason to go to that measure.
He-he. You know if you ever get in a discussion about religion, everyone will have an opinion.
I appreciate all you posts.
To close my posts on the subject, I do not "worship" Darwin ... or myself, for that matter. And Darwin did not "repent". That is one of those Christian urban myths that have been circulating for years. Even Christian apologists don't believe it:
Did Darwin Repent?
We must resist the urge to use "worship" and "repent" when talking of non-religious things. But most Christians (I'm not implying you) want to fit everything into a Christian world view. Everything has to fit into its own little slot. You can't put me in a slot ... not humanism, not Christianity. I dance for no one. I think for myself.
Wow! actual dissent here. cool!
I've always found it striking that Christians who insist on a literal reading of scripture (7 days to create the earth/universe/etc.) don't seem to have actually grasped what Jesus does in the new testament. Jesus speaks in parables to the masses, because that's what they understand. When he tells the story of the prodigal son, or the good steward, he's talking about God and God's interaction with mankind. To insist that one book (Genesis) be taken literally would mean that you'd have to ignore how Jesus taught.
Even if you don't take Genesis literally, but still insist on a vast intelligence behind the machinations of the universe, who are you to limit that creator to one avenue of creation? If observable, testable evidence supports a given theory (Big Bang, evolution, etc), maybe that's the way the creator works.
In the end you're trying to bring a religous discussion into a science discussion. Science relies on reason, while religion relies on faith. You either believe or you don't. Arguing about religon is like dancing about architecture.
Wow, I just read Laura's entry and realized that she said everything I wanted to say, only better. In fact now my post looks like plagirism (sp?). None was intended. Good stuff Laura.
After this discussion i have begun a series on Why Evolution Fails looking at some of the basic problems with the theory of evolution. If you wish to discuss this more, it is there for your debate.
http://jcmasterpiece.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment