Dover trial on evolution in schools

[no1tovote4]

Teaching someone a non-scientific theory will not help them to understand science. It will only confuse them and poorly prepare them for college science.

I never said to teach them non-scientific theory. I said that while teaching the scientific process it would be helpful to give them a more full understanding of the boundaries of the process. To use certain ideas that are not within the scientific process as examples of what and how they are not part of the process can give a more full understanding of the process.

It is not my contention that the evidences of such a non-scientific theory should be taught in the science class, but that a full and real understanding of the process be taught with all available tools so that a real understanding of science can be obtained rather than a truncated and lopsided misunderstanding that leads people to think that ID is a scientific theory when it does not fit into that framework.

 

[no1tovote4]

Its a religious theory. Mentioning it would be bringing religion into public school. Duh.

It is more than just a religious theory as other answers could be discernable within the theory. It isn't a scientific theory, it isn't solely a religious theory, it isn't entirely philosophical, it isn't very easily contained in any of those particular areas.

Besides, so what. The Constitution doesn't mention anything about you getting a fair trial, either - yet your right to a fair trial is constitutionally protected.

That would be the 'establish justice' portion of the Preamble.

The government may not reflect an establishment of religion. The intent of that phrase is clear to all but those who seek to make it meaningless.

I think the religious argument is a false limitation on ID. It is not entirely a religious theory as I suggested earlier, nor is it philosophical, it is psuedoscience and not easily forced into any easily determined specific religion.

Let the scientists write the science books - not the masses.

I agree. Just as they write disortations on why ID is psuedoscience and not scientific theory.

Would you trust a book on autorepair that was written by democratic process of random people pulled off the street?

I wouldn't nor do I suggest that science texts should be written by random people. That is simply regurgitation and repitition, but it doesn't make it really salient to the point of discussion.

You could find 5 billion people to claim that ID is a testable scientific theory - unless they can come up with a way of actually testing it or potentially falsifying it - it doesn't matter.

No, you couldn't find 5 billion people who claim that ID is a testable scientific theory. Even in Dover all they wanted was the insertion of a phrase that mentions that Evolution has not been proven before the Theory of Evolution was taught. They didn't try to interject it into the classroom as a full Scientific Theory, or to have it taught as such.

 

[Annie]

It is more than just a religious theory as other answers could be discernable within the theory. It isn't a scientific theory, it isn't solely a religious theory, it isn't entirely philosophical, it isn't very easily contained in any of those particular areas.




That would be the 'establish justice' portion of the Preamble.



I think the religious argument is a false limitation on ID. It is not entirely a religious theory as I suggested earlier, nor is it philosophical, it is psuedoscience and not easily forced into any easily determined specific religion.



I agree. Just as they write disortations on why ID is psuedoscience and not scientific theory.


I wouldn't nor do I suggest that science texts should be written by random people. That is simply regurgitation and repitition, but it doesn't make it really salient to the point of discussion.


No, you couldn't find 5 billion people who claim that ID is a testable scientific theory. Even in Dover all they wanted was the insertion of a phrase that mentions that Evolution has not been proven before the Theory of Evolution was taught. They didn't try to interject it into the classroom as a full Scientific Theory, or to have it taught as such.

In my surfing today, I came upon this, which goes to show that teachers are thinking about where to deal with this, which many agree should be dealt with, just not in science. Links are at site, she has her perspective, others have theirs. I don't teach science, but as I've said numerous times, we as a school are dictated by the diocese to teach evolution in science and address ID and creationism in religion. I do teach religion.

Another kudo for Catholic high schools, all kids have 4 years of theology and at least 1 of philosophy. Ever notice how many of your atheistic professors went to Catholic schools:

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/145473.php

December 21, 2005
Intelligent Design Defeat Points To Failure Of American Education

A column in today's Washigton Post points out how the decision in the Dover case tries to differentiate between science and religion.

The opinion written by Judge John E. Jones III in the Dover evolution trial is a two-in-one document that offers both philosophical and practical arguments against "intelligent design" likely to be useful to far more than a school board in a small Pennsylvania town.

Jones gives a clear definition of science, and recounts how this vaunted mode of inquiry has evolved over the centuries. He describes how scientists go about the task of supporting or challenging ideas about the world of the senses -- all that can be observed and measured. And he reaches the unwavering conclusion that intelligent design is a religious idea, not a scientific one.

This case is of great interest to me, because the issue it grapples with is an issue I have to deal with as a history teacher. After all, my course involves the origins of homo sapiens sapiens. How do you deal with that issue in a class in which a percentage of students accept the first couple of chapters of Genesis as history rather than allegory? What does one say when a student takes a stance which claims that the entire first week of your class is an assault upon their religion? Those are serious questions -- especially as a teacher whose understanding of human origins are best classified as theistic evolution.

To begin with, I take the bull by the horns. On the first day of class I state that we will be dealing with the origins of mankind from an evolutionary perspective. I acknowledge that there are other belief systems out there, but that evolution is the dominant view within the fields of history and science. I further explain that regardless of whether or not they accept the evolutionary model, they will need to be familiar with it for my class and on the college level. Understanding a point of view is not the same as accepting it. And ineveitably, some kid raises, usually without realizing it, an issue of metaphysics (which includes both the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of science as a part of its overarching mandate).

The same sorts of issue get raised again and againin my world history class. The syllabus does not give me the time to look at the philosophies of Socrates. Plato, or Aristotle in any great depth. Ditto the Renaissance humanists, or the great minds of the Enlightenment. We spend a disproportionate amount of time on Marx, but pnly because students are tested on sociaism and communism as a part of the TAKS test.. Jean-Paul Sartre? No way.

It should be obvious by now what ithink is missing in American education today -- the study of philosophy. Philosophy is a field that teaches the individual not what to think but how to engage in thought. It is a starting point for questioning, not an ending point. It helps to provide a framework for asking the questions that mankind has asked over the ages. And yes, that includes the questions of being that underlie Intelligent Design -- for such question have been asked by philosophers since at least Socrates.

So what say you, my friends -- is there a place for philosophy in the school curriculum today? I, for one, hope so.

(AN INTERESTING POST on whether this decision constitutes an establishment of atheism is found at Blogs for Bush -- and I disagree with Matt on the issue)

 

[Abbey Normal]

...No, you couldn't find 5 billion people who claim that ID is a testable scientific theory. Even in Dover all they wanted was the insertion of a phrase that mentions that Evolution has not been proven before the Theory of Evolution was taught. They didn't try to interject it into the classroom as a full Scientific Theory, or to have it taught as such.

I think I said this several pages ago. He doesn't want to hear it.

 

[MissileMan]

I think I said this several pages ago. He doesn't want to hear it.

They added a discussion of ID to a Social Studies class...case closed.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Humor me, as I've yet to stumble across your idea. Do you even agree with no1tovote4's idea as to how ID should be incorporated into science classes?

Humour you? Ok, Clinton woke up one morning to see, CLINTON SUCKS spelled out in the snow outside the window.

He called the FBI who said they would get to the bottom of this.

They came back and said, you want the bad news first or the really bad news first?

He said, start with the bad

They said, ok, its Al Gores urine

and the really bad news?
Its Hillary's handwriting.

Ok, I said there are many options. No1tovote for makes one also.
Mine include just mentioning it in science, not as a scientific theory, but as an accepted idea that has proof in the form of logical reasoning (after all, thats what PM and Tubby use to come to their conclusion God doesnt exist as the Bible describes)
and/or teach it in other required classes.

 

[MissileMan]

Humour you? Ok, Clinton woke up one morning to see, CLINTON SUCKS spelled out in the snow outside the window.

He called the FBI who said they would get to the bottom of this.

They came back and said, you want the bad news first or the really bad news first?

He said, start with the bad

They said, ok, its Al Gores urine

and the really bad news?
Its Hillary's handwriting.

Ok, I said there are many options. No1tovote for makes one also.
Mine include just mentioning it in science, not as a scientific theory, but as an accepted idea that has proof in the form of logical reasoning (after all, thats what PM and Tubby use to come to their conclusion God doesnt exist as the Bible describes)
and/or teach it in other required classes.

One last time for anyone with any doubts as to what ID is really about.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

THE WEDGE STRATEGY
CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE
INTRODUCTION

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.

THE WEDGE STRATEGY
Phase I.

Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity
Phase II.

Publicity & Opinion-making
Phase III.

Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
THE WEDGE PROJECTS
Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication

Individual Research Fellowship Program
Paleontology Research program (Dr. Paul Chien et al.)
Molecular Biology Research Program (Dr. Douglas Axe et al.)
Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making

Book Publicity
Opinion-Maker Conferences
Apologetics Seminars
Teacher Training Program
Op-ed Fellow
PBS (or other TV) Co-production
Publicity Materials / Publications
Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences
Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training
Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities
FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").

Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication

Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making

Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.

Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.

GOALS
Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES
1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

4. Significant coverage in national media:

Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek
PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly
Regular press coverage on developments in design theory
Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media
5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God
6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

7. Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US
Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities
Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view
Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory
ACTVITIES
(1) Research Fellowship Program (for writing and publishing)

(2) Front line research funding at the "pressure points" (e.g., Daul Chien's Chengjiang Cambrian Fossil Find in paleontology, and Doug Axe's research laboratory in molecular biology)

(3) Teacher training

(4) Academic Conferences

(5) Opinion-maker Events & Conferences

(6) Alliance-building, recruitment of future scientists and leaders, and strategic partnerships with think tanks, social advocacy groups, educational organizations and institutions, churches, religious groups, foundations and media outlets

(7) Apologetics seminars and public speaking

(8) Op-ed and popular writing

(9) Documentaries and other media productions

(10) Academic debates

(11) Fund Raising and Development

(12) General Administrative support

THE WEDGE STRATEGY PROGRESS SUMMARY
Books

William Dembski and Paul Nelson, two CRSC Fellows, will very soon have books published by major secular university publishers, Cambridge University Press and The University of Chicago Press, respectively. (One critiques Darwinian materialism; the other offers a powerful altenative.)

Nelson's book, On Common Descent, is the seventeenth book in the prestigious University of Chicago "Evolutionary Monographs" series and the first to critique neo-Dacwinism. Dembski's book, The Design Inference, was back-ordered in June, two months prior to its release date.

These books follow hard on the heals of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) which is now in paperback after nine print runs in hard cover. So far it has been translated into six foreign languages. The success of his book has led to other secular publishers such as McGraw Hill requesting future titles from us. This is a breakthrough.

InterVarsity will publish our large anthology, Mere Creation (based upon the Mere Creation conference) this fall, and Zondervan is publishing Maker of Heaven and Earth: Three Views of the Creation-Evolution Contoversy, edited by fellows John Mark Reynolds and J.P. Moreland.

McGraw Hill solicited an expedited proposal from Meyer, Dembski and Nelson on their book Uncommmon Descent. Finally, Discovery Fellow Ed Larson has won the Pulitzer Prize for Summer for the Gods, his retelling of the Scopes Trial, and InterVarsity has just published his co-authored attack on assisted suicide, A Different Death.

Academic Articles

Our fellows recently have been featured or published articles in major sciendfic and academic journals in The Proceedings to the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, The Scientist, The American Biology Teacher, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Biochemirtry, Philosophy and Biology, Faith & Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Analysis, Book & Culture, Ethics & Medicine, Zygon, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, Relgious Studies, Christian Scholars' Review, The Southern Journal ofPhilosophy, and the Journal of Psychalogy and Theology. Many more such articles are now in press or awaiting review at major secular journals as a result of our first round of research fellowships. Our own journal, Origins & Design, continues to feature scholarly contribudons from CRSC Fellows and other scientists.

Television and Radio Appearances

During 1997 our fellows appeared on numerous radio programs (both Christian and secular) and five nationally televised programs, TechnoPolitics, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Inside the Law, Freedom Speaks, and Firing Line. The special edition of TechnoPolitics that we produced with PBS in November elicited such an unprecedented audience response that the producer Neil Freeman decided to air a second episode from the "out takes." His enthusiasm for our intellectual agenda helped stimulate a special edition of William F. Buckley's Firing Line, featuring Phillip Johnson and two of our fellows, Michael Behe and David Berlinski. At Ed Atsinger's invitation, Phil Johnson and Steve Meyer addressed Salem Communications' Talk Show Host conference in Dallas last November. As a result, Phil and Steve have been interviewed several times on Salem talk shows across the country. For example, in ]uly Steve Meyer and Mike Behe were interviewed for two hours on the nationally broadcast radio show ]anet Parshall's America. Canadian Public Radio (CBC) recently featured Steve Meyer on their Tapestry program. The episode, "God & the Scientists," has aired all across Canada. And in April, William Craig debated Oxford atheist Peter Atkins in Atlanta before a large audience (moderated by William F. Buckley), which was broadcast live via satellite link, local radio, and intenet "webcast."

Newspaper and Magazine Articles

The Firing Line debate generated positive press coverage for our movement in, of all places, The New York Times, as well as a column by Bill Buckley. In addition, our fellows have published recent articles & op-eds in both the secular and Christian press, including, for example, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Times, National Review, Commentary, Touchstone, The Detroit News, The Boston Review, The Seattle Post-lntelligenter, Christianity Toady, Cosmic Pursuits and World. An op-ed piece by Jonathan Wells and Steve Meyer is awaiting publication in the Washington Post. Their article criticizes the National Academy of Science book Teaching about Evolution for its selective and ideological presentation of scientific evidence. Similar articles are in the works.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Ok, I said there are many options. No1tovote for makes one also.
Mine include just mentioning it in science, not as a scientific theory, but as an accepted idea that has proof in the form of logical reasoning (after all, thats what PM and Tubby use to come to their conclusion God doesnt exist as the Bible describes)
and/or teach it in other required classes.

So you would be ok with it not being in a science class, but in another non-science class...

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So you would be ok with it not being in a science class, but in another non-science class...

You seem to selectively read what I post.

My stance is to leave it up to the local school boards.

I also think school choice should be available to EVERYONE.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You seem to selectively read what I post.

My stance is to leave it up to the local school boards.

I also think school choice should be available to EVERYONE.

Ok, so then you wouldn't have a problem with whatever the schoolboard decides, including completely banning any discussion of ID anywhere in the curriculum?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ok, so then you wouldn't have a problem with whatever the schoolboard decides, including completely banning any discussion of ID anywhere in the curriculum?

absolutely not a problem whatsoever.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You should try READING SLOWER.

We already know your basis, and our posistion

ISNT FUCKING BASED ON THE IDEA THAT IT IS SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!

GET IT????

Well I think that's reall, just stupid, expecting something that isn't science to be taught in a science class. Its rather ridiculous, and a complete waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It doesnt answer it specificallly, but unless you want to claim that NOBODY was representing people in court to defend civil rights, then it doesnt matter. YOU go find out who that someone is. THEY EXIST because it has occured. If you dont think so, then you are simply whacked out.

I'm not asking who represented people in civil rights cases in the past - before the ACLU.

In fact, there were FEWER civil rights cases back then, which might explain why certain groups of people had fewer civil rights.

You claim that if the ACLU weren't here, there would be someone to represent people's civil rights in court, pro-bono. I just want to know who that would be. I'm not going to just assume they exist because you say so!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yet just another case where you prove your inability to put information together in a choherent way.

WHo ever said science class isnt about teaching science?

COnsidering you wish non-science to be taught in science class, well, you.

Dont you think that by making a class more interesting AT TIMES, that students are more apt to learn the SUBJECT matter? Even if that means at times of bringing in off topics for a bit?

Not if it means suggesting to them that doing science involves considering non-scientific alternatives. Which is what you are suggesting.

Look, theres little johhny in the corner. Johnnies parents are very religious. They teach him the idea of evolution is bonkers, and dont listen to the teacher, so johnny pretty much closes his mind to what the teacher has to say.

Then he'll do poorly on the test, and it will be nobody's fault but his own.

So now one day, the teacher mentions ID, a creator, oh, Johhny suddenly perks up, and starts asking questions, the teacher alarmed at this unusual behavior from an otherwise lackluster student, gets into a discussion for a few minutes and lets Johny know where he can find some material to compare the two ideas.

The two ideas are NOT comparable on a scientific basis! That's the point. You can't compare the two. If little Jonnhy wants to talk about problems with the theory of evolution, on a scientific basis - that's one thing, and in fact children should be encouraged to bring up SCIENTIFICALLY based doubts if they have them. What they should not be encouraged to do - in SCIENCE class - is to say "well I don't like your scientific theory, so lets talk about non-scientific alternatives" - the teacher ought reply "We are here to talk about science". If little Johnny wants to say "well what about transitional gaps in the fossil record" thats GREAT and a good teacher would WELCOME such SCIENTIFICALLY based doubts on what they are teaching.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

luvR did make a valid point...there are numerous past and present Contitutional attorneys providing this service...some are even Christians!

There is no one group of attorneys who has accomplished as much for civil rights as the ACLU. Period.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

We can already prove that DNA changes can be implemented by intelligent design, we do it ourselves.

Not to make new species.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

In my surfing today, I came upon this, which goes to show that teachers are thinking about where to deal with this, which many agree should be dealt with, just not in science. Links are at site, she has her perspective, others have theirs. I don't teach science, but as I've said numerous times, we as a school are dictated by the diocese to teach evolution in science and address ID and creationism in religion. I do teach religion.

Another kudo for Catholic high schools, all kids have 4 years of theology and at least 1 of philosophy. Ever notice how many of your atheistic professors went to Catholic schools:

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/145473.php

I agree with the column. Philosphy should be taught in High School. This would be a great forum for discussing all views of origins, both scientific and non-scientific.

This is the real problem. The debate between theistic and scientific views IS an important one that young students should think about. It just doesn't belong in a scientific class. It belongs in a philosphy class. Sadly enough, our high schools don't teach philosophy. But that's no excuse to pervent science education.

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm not asking who represented people in civil rights cases in the past - before the ACLU.

In fact, there were FEWER civil rights cases back then, which might explain why certain groups of people had fewer civil rights.

You claim that if the ACLU weren't here, there would be someone to represent people's civil rights in court, pro-bono. I just want to know who that would be. I'm not going to just assume they exist because you say so!

So you think that those people who dedicate their time to fighting violations of civil rights would all just disappear if the ACLU wasn't there?

It isn't because "I say so" it is because people with a cause exist regardless of whether the ACLU exists.

 

[no1tovote4]

Not to make new species.

In the future we will. This assumption that we will not is only that, an assumption, and it ignores the reality of advancement. In time with that advancement there may be ways to determine if DNA was Intelligently Designed or Evolved simply by comparison to activities of our own to naturally evolved organisms. It may be that in time we will be able to determine whether it was all Evolution or only parts, etc.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So you think that those people who dedicate their time to fighting violations of civil rights would all just disappear if the ACLU wasn't there?

It isn't because "I say so" it is because people with a cause exist regardless of whether the ACLU exists.

So the ACLU shouldn't be lauded for protecting civil rights, because someone else would do it if they weren't doing it?