The Lies and Arrogance of Evolutionists

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because he/she didn't agree with them.

Obvious judicial activism!

No doubt.

I’m just curious because the first of those Establishment Clause cases were heard by the Vinson Court.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You don't own the metaphysics of science. If your metaphysics are wrong, so is your theory.

Science is not metaphysical, it is empirical. It it religion that is metaphysical.

Yes. Science deals with the empirical. I never said it didn't. But what you apparently don't grasp is that science necessarily rests on one metaphysical presupposition or another.

Are you denying that? LOL!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The fundamentals of science curriculum should be left to the scientific community.

A meaningless statement, really.

 

[Shogun]

You don't own the metaphysics of science. If your metaphysics are wrong, so is your theory.

Science is not metaphysical, it is empirical. It it religion that is metaphysical.

Yes. Science deals the empirical. I never said it didn't. But what you apparently don't grasp is that science necessarily rests on one metaphysical presupposition or another.

Are you denying that? LOL!

uh huh... evidence sure is metaphysical like that.


I'm sure we'll hear about denying gravity next.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So you are saying that Nature is the Intelligent Designer!

No. Where did you get that from? I said that (1) metaphysical naturalism/Darwinian naturalism and (2) traditional methodological/mechanistic naturalism are not the same thing. The latter doesn't assert anything about reality beyond the empirical realm. It's the evolutionist who presupposes to know something about that which lies beyond the boundaries of scientific inquiry.

He just pretends otherwise . . . or, in the case of most laymen like you, he simply doesn't grasp the nature of scientific inquiry, the philosophy of science. The latter thinks that science, its parameters and methodology are suspended in midair, as it were, without any underlying or metaphysical foundation and structure.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Science is not metaphysical, it is empirical. It it religion that is metaphysical.

Yes. Science deals [with] the empirical. I never said it didn't. But what you apparently don't grasp is that science necessarily rests on one metaphysical presupposition or another.

Are you denying that? LOL!

uh huh... evidence sure is metaphysical like that.


I'm sure we'll hear about denying gravity next.

Dude! You're making baby talk. You still don't understand what I'm talking about at all! The substance of scientific inquiry and the philosophical foundation and structure of science are not the same thing. I understand the pertinent realities and the distinction between the two. You don't.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I posted in the other active evolution thread, I have no quarrel with Creationism and Intelligent Design, which I do not necessrily see as the same thing, being omitted from the Science curriculum. I don't see them as science, at least yet, but I think any science teacher who is actually an educator rather than an indocrinator will acknowledge that both Creationism and Intelligent Design can answer questions that theories of origins of the universe and Evolution cannot. And he will be honest that Evolution cannot, at least yet, answer all the questions about the origins and evolvement of all living organisms on Earth.

Even Einstein, who did not subscribe to a personal God, rejected the label of "Atheist". He saw an order in the universe and the living things on Earth that he easily recognized as having the potential of some kind of cosmic intelligence behind it all. Even his brilliant mind could not accept that it all results from some random cosmic accident.

We don't have to incorporate them all into science class, but there is plenty of room to allow Creationism/Intelligent Design and Science to coexist peacefully side by side.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s.

How exactly were the Warren Court’s rulings ‘arbitrary and tyrannical’?

I already touched on that. . . .

No institution, particularly one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum; either the education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or the manner in which it is administered—i.e., in the absence of universal school choice—is unconstitutional. A closed, collectivist public education system is tyranny.

The Court failed to resolve the matter accordingly. That is to say, the leftist Warren Court failed, quite intentionally by the way, to order that the public education system provide universal school choice, the only solution that would satisfy the First-Amendment requirements of ideological/religious liberty for all.

 

[edthecynic]

(By the way, intelligent design theory proper does not address the existence or non-existence of God, and creationism is a theological construct.)

So you are saying that Nature is the Intelligent Designer!

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.
- Frank Lloyd Wright

So you are saying that Nature is the Intelligent Designer!

No. Where did you get that from?

I got that from the part of your post I cited. How could you have possibly missed it. If ID does not presuppose God is the Intelligent Designer then who or what other than Nature could possibly be the Intelligent Designer?

It was quite dishonest of you to claim that ID does not address the existence of God. In ID God and only God can be the Intelligent Designer. ID has never and will never accept even the possibility that Nature is the Intelligent Designer.

 

[edthecynic]

You don't own the metaphysics of science. If your metaphysics are wrong, so is your theory.

Science is not metaphysical, it is empirical. It it religion that is metaphysical.

Yes. Science deals with the empirical. I never said it didn't. But what you apparently don't grasp is that science necessarily rests on one metaphysical presupposition or another.

Are you denying that? LOL!

I understand your desire to turn science into a religion, but would you please list these "metaphysical" presuppositions. Hint, a scientific theory is NOT a "metaphysical presupposition."

 

[Sallow]

The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s.

How exactly were the Warren Court’s rulings ‘arbitrary and tyrannical’?

I already touched on that. . . .

No institution, particularly one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum; either the education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or the manner in which it is administered—i.e., in the absence of universal school choice—is unconstitutional. A closed, collectivist public education system is tyranny.

The Court failed to resolve the matter accordingly. That is to say, the leftist Warren Court failed, quite intentionally by the way, to order that the public education system provide universal school choice, the only solution that would satisfy the First-Amendment requirements of ideological/religious liberty for all.

Bullshit.

The Constitution provides that the Government neither advocate or suppress religious freedom.

Which our government takes great pains to do.

Which means that their are plenty of religious places to worship as one pleases.

But that should not be taken to mean that the government should allow that gibberish to be taught as science. It ain't.

 

[konradv]

This article is a bit dated…

The article isn’t alone.

Uh-huh. Cute. But of course everything in it remains pertinent. Lefty's still spouting the same nonsense today as if he owned the schools and had the right to impose his religion and morality therein by way of "politics by scientist" against the constraints of inherent rights and certain constitutional imperatives. Even if I weren't a creationist, I'd still oppose him. That's the difference between me and the pretenders of modernity.

Went through most of the posts and still don't see what "lies and arrogance" you're talking about. Care to explain? All I've see is someone trying to impose their religious beliefs on others and that would be YOU!!!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s.

How exactly were the Warren Court’s rulings ‘arbitrary and tyrannical’?

Because he/she didn't agree with them.

Obvious judicial activism!

Spoken like a true statist, well-groomed and -conditioned by years of mindless assimilation. I'm talking about universal school choice, educational freedom, ideological liberty.

If it's unconstitutional for the state to impose my worldview on you, why is it not unconstitutional for the state to impose your worldview on me?

*Crickets chirping*

All the Court did was declare, in effect, that anything traditionally thought of as being religious in nature could not be imposed by the State in the public schools.

So I disagree with the Court, eh? I do not disagree with that aspect of the Court's decision. Not at all. Oops. Wrong.

The real-world result in the absence of universal school choice, however: the secularist's/the materialist's worldview has free reign. So the First amendment means that the state can impose what millions regard to be vile and false on their children? Bull! It means no such thing. How could it?

But then leftists arbitrarily stand on the establishment clause and disregard the imperatives of the free exercise clause altogether. (frauds, hypocrites, liars, thugs, thieves, fascists)

Rather than resolve the problem constitutionally, the Court merely traded one tyranny for another and unnecessarily instigated a cultural civil war . . . and the education system has declined ever since. Today it is a cesspool of mediocrity and incessant infighting.

I told you before, that's the difference between you and me: I would oppose what the Court did even if I were an agnostic, an atheist or a non-Christian. I have always opposed the educratic tyranny of secular humanism, fully understanding the metaphysical and theological implications thereof.

Make no mistake about, the leftist members of the Warren Court understood that institutions of education, especially, do not exist in ideological vacuums. They were fully conscious of what they were doing. It was their intent to impose their worldview, to engage in a little social engineering. Judicial activism? Pfft. An afterthought.

(Lefty is such a silly ass. He lives in a world of black-and-white sloganeering—the complexities, the nuances, the imperatives of reality flying right over his pointed head.)

 

[Foxfyre]

If it's unconstitutional for the state to impose my worldview on you, why is it not unconstitutional for the state to impose your worldview on me?

MDR has capsulized the absolute core of the thesis of this thread in the above sentence. (Noting that it was excerpted from a much longer post a few minutes earlier.)

Who is to say what any school board in any community MUST teach school children or what they MUST NOT teach school children? A good school board will of course teach all the theories of climate change AND evolution AND various others concepts that are part of the national and world debate. But a good school board will also insist that curriculum will also encourage critical thought and not close any concepts from consideration including acknowledgment that Creationism and Intelligent Design are part of that national and world debate.

It is not for the Federal government to dictate what can or cannot be included in any local school curriculum. In fact it is very dangerous to give the Federal government such power.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

How exactly were the Warren Court’s rulings ‘arbitrary and tyrannical’?

I already touched on that. . . .

No institution, particularly one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum; either the education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or the manner in which it is administered—i.e., in the absence of universal school choice—is unconstitutional. A closed, collectivist public education system is tyranny.

The Court failed to resolve the matter accordingly. That is to say, the leftist Warren Court failed, quite intentionally by the way, to order that the public education system provide universal school choice, the only solution that would satisfy the First-Amendment requirements of ideological/religious liberty for all.

Bullshit.

The Constitution provides that the Government neither advocate or suppress religious freedom.

Which our government takes great pains to do.

Brahahahahahahahaha! Naïve twit.

Freddie has Two Daddies, Amy has Two Mommies, Mother Earth (leftist, wacko environmentalism), political correctness, multiculturalism, materialism, secular humanism, paganism, Darwinism, collectivist historical revisionism, Ebonics, new math. . . .

Which means that their are plenty of religious places to worship as one pleases.

Is that before or after lefty imposes is swill on me in the schools, on my time and on my dime, you fascist thug?

But that should not be taken to mean that the government should allow that gibberish to be taught as science. It ain't.

There are two issues here: (1) the imperatives of religious/ideological liberty and (2) the merits of evolutionary theory, intelligent design theory and creationism respectively.

"But that should not be taken to mean", eh? you self-centered, self-serving little prick.

The free exercise clause of the First Amendment was intended to prohibit the government from interfering with the free exercise of religious/ideological expression. Period. There is no friggin' caveat regarding the classroom, you thick-headed, obtuse as a two-by-four lemming. There is no friggin' caveat providing for any friggin' exception to the rule whatsoever, e.g., should a consensus of scientific materialists or Sallow hold that something or another is gibberish. You idiot, you liar, you hypocrite, you thug, you punk, you dipstick!

The First Amendment is supposed to prevent the government from allowing any given faction to impose its worldview on another. Period! Like I said before, Lefty is such a silly ass. He lives in a world of black-and-white sloganeering—the complexities, the nuances, the imperatives of reality flying right over his pointed head. But of course, in truth, lefty gets it alright; he just pretends not to understand it when it comes to the public educaiton system . . . unless it is he that is being imposed upon therein. Then he cries like a stuck pig.

I'M TALKING ABOUT UNIVERSAL SCHOOL CHOICE, THE ONLY SOLUTION THAT SATISFIES THE COMMANDMENTS OF NATURAL LAW AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS! I'M NOT INTERESTED IN IMPOSING MY "GIBBERISH" ON YOU; YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE DOING ANY IMPOSING, YOU BRAINWASHED, STATIST THUG.

But maybe I've got you all wrong, just as you misunderstood me. Are you saying that you too support universal school choice, after all, understanding the only satisfactory solution and the nature of the tyranny that the Court foisted on the people?

Nah. Of course not. You're still living in that land of fantasy where institutions of education exist in ideological vacuums. LOL!

 

[Foxfyre]

And the government does not suppress religious freedom?

When a school holiday scheduled around Christmas can't be called Christmas break any more?

When students can no longer be exposed to the wonderful music of the great masters than contain any religious concept or include more than token traditional Christmas carols in the winter concert?

When students cannot read a passage from the Bible at show and tell?

When the traditional generic prayers at football games and school assemblies that many of us grew up with are no longer allowed?

When the ACLU is allowed to sue to remove a piece of art with religious symbolism from a courtroom or remove a tiny cross depicting religious heritage from a village seal or take down a historic old creche from a courthouse lawn that it has graced every Christmas for more than a half century?

Tell me again how the government is not suppressing the free exercise of religion?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I got that from the part of your post I cited. How could you have possibly missed it. If ID does not presuppose God is the Intelligent Designer then who or what other than Nature could possibly be the Intelligent Designer?

No. You didn't get that from me. I wrote: ''. . . intelligent design theory proper does not address the existence or non-existence of God. . . .'' Fact.

You just fished that out of your mind; you got that from evolutionist propagandists. Perhaps you got that from Wikipedia's summation of ID, a stream of ignorance and stupidity. Your mind just can't wrap itself around the proscriptions of traditional methodological naturalism, the underlying apriority of science prior to Darwin.

It was quite dishonest of you to claim that ID does not address the existence of God. In ID God and only God can be the Intelligent Designer.

YOU BRAINWASHED TOOL. Scientific intelligent design theory DOES NOT address the existence or non-existence of God. BONG. ERROR. WRONG. FALSE. INCORRECT.

Intelligent design theory is not creationism. MANY OF ITS PROFESSIONAL PROPONENTS ARE AGNOSTIC, NON-RELIGIOUS.

Are the lights on yet? Did you find the switch?

ID has never and will never accept even the possibility that Nature is the Intelligent Designer.

Well, by definition, nature would not be an intelligent designer, now would it?

Nevertheless, intelligent design theory does not necessarily preclude the possibility of evolutionary processes.

And by the way, given that you're so painstakingly trying to disguise the ultimate nature of your worldview, the metaphysics underlying your science, such as it is, that which causes you to interpret the empirical evidence in the manner in which you do, is showing. You might want to zip that up. LOL!

 

[Toro]

I already touched on that. . . .

No institution, particularly one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum; either the education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or the manner in which it is administered—i.e., in the absence of universal school choice—is unconstitutional. A closed, collectivist public education system is tyranny.

The Court failed to resolve the matter accordingly. That is to say, the leftist Warren Court failed, quite intentionally by the way, to order that the public education system provide universal school choice, the only solution that would satisfy the First-Amendment requirements of ideological/religious liberty for all.

Bullshit.

The Constitution provides that the Government neither advocate or suppress religious freedom.

Which our government takes great pains to do.

Brahahahahahahahaha! Naïve twit.

Freddie has Two Daddies, Amy has Two Mommies, Mother Earth (leftist, wacko environmentalism), political correctness, multiculturalism, materialism, secular humanism, paganism, Darwinism, collectivist historical revisionism, Ebonics, new math. . . .

Which means that their are plenty of religious places to worship as one pleases.

Is that before or after lefty imposes is swill on me in the schools, on my time and on my dime, you fascist thug?

But that should not be taken to mean that the government should allow that gibberish to be taught as science. It ain't.

There are two issues here: (1) the imperatives of religious/ideological liberty and (2) the merits of evolutionary theory, intelligent design theory and creationism respectively.

"But that should not be taken to mean", eh? you self-centered, self-serving little prick.

The free exercise clause of the First Amendment was intended to prohibit the government from interfering with the free exercise of religious/ideological expression. Period. There is no friggin' caveat regarding the classroom, you thick-headed, obtuse as a two-by-four lemming. There is no friggin' caveat providing for any friggin' exception to the rule whatsoever, e.g., should a consensus of scientific materialists or Sallow hold that something or another is gibberish. You idiot, you liar, you hypocrite, you thug, you punk, you dipstick!

The First Amendment is supposed to prevent the government from allowing any given faction to impose its worldview on another. Period! Like I said before, Lefty is such a silly ass. He lives in a world of black-and-white sloganeering—the complexities, the nuances, the imperatives of reality flying right over his pointed head. But of course, in truth, lefty gets it alright; he just pretends not to understand it when it comes to the public educaiton system . . . unless it is he that is being imposed upon therein. Then he cries like a stuck pig.

I'M TALKING ABOUT UNIVERSAL SCHOOL CHOICE, THE ONLY SOLUTION THAT SATISFIES THE COMMANDMENTS OF NATURAL LAW AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS! I'M NOT INTERESTED IN IMPOSING MY "GIBBERISH" ON YOU; YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE DOING ANY IMPOSING, YOU BRAINWASHED, STATIST THUG.

But maybe I've got you all wrong, just as you misunderstood me. Are you saying that you too support universal school choice, after all, understanding the only satisfactory solution and the nature of the tyranny that the Court foisted on the people?

Nah. Of course not. You're still living in that land of fantasy where institutions of education exist in ideological vacuums. LOL!

So you'd support publicly funded religious schools then?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Went through most of the posts and still don't see what "lies and arrogance" you're talking about. Care to explain? All I've see is someone trying to impose their religious beliefs on others and that would be YOU!!!

Oh? So universal school choice, the imperatives of the free exercise clause constitute an imposition of my worldview on you?

You're out of your friggin' mind.

Simultaneously, you pretend not to understand that imposing the gibberish of Darwinism, political correctness, multiculturalism and so on, for example, on me in the schools is not unconstitutional?

We're not the ones incessantly obstructing school choice, insisting on a collectivist, one-size-fits-all paradigm that advances a constitutional doctrine that conveniently and arbitrarily gives the government free reign to officially impose your worldview in the schools, that which is hostile to me, and blocks the free expression of mine. That's lefty all day long, not us.

Well, here's the thing, since thugs like you will not concede the reality of what you're doing in the schools, will not allow for educational freedom, for school choice, for ideological liberty, in the meantime, should we shove our worldview down your throat when and where we can as a matter of self-defense, so be it. Hypocrite, punk, liar, fascist thug.

Indeed, we are coming to a time, the schools getting worse and worse because of the constant watering down of curriculum, generally, so as not to offend in the straight-jacketed, collectivist system you idiots foisted on us, when millions of fed up parents might just have to show you thugs the business end of loaded guns to back you off their fundament rights of ideological liberty and free-association. But that's just me getting' all Jeffersonian and such in the face of "a long train of abuses and usurpations".

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I understand your desire to turn science into a religion. . . .

No. You don't understand anything. You don't grasp the distinction between the ultimate substance of scientific inquiry (empirical) and the philosophy of science (metaphysical), and your understanding of intelligent design theory is confused and erroneous.

But would you please list these "metaphysical" presuppositions.

You still don't know? I've already told you what the Darwinist's metaphysical presupposition for science is. Aren't you an evolutionist? Don't you know what you're metaphysical presupposition is? LOL!

Hint, a scientific theory is NOT a "metaphysical presupposition.

Are you stupid or something? (A little Forest Gump lingo.) Hint: there is nothing profound about the observation that scientific theories are applied to empirical phenomena. There is nothing profound about the observation that the ultimate substance of science is empirical. And in anticipation of any more idiocy along this line, there is nothing profound about the observation that the scientific method is an empirically objective process governed by specific rules. Notwithstanding, scientific theories DO NOT necessarily escape metaphysics. But more to the point, the philosophy of science is purely metaphysical; ergo, scientific inquiry is based on one metaphysical apriority or another. Hint: these observations are not mutually exclusive, and every one of them is self-evident. Hint: only know-nothing amateurs or fools don't understand that.

ARE YOU STILL DENYING THIS?

AND IF AND WHEN YOU'RE DONE DENYING THIS, TELL US WHAT YOUR METAPHYSICAL PRESSUPOSITION IS.