PDA

View Full Version : For those who doubt evolution....



Rational Root
11-14-2007, 03:14 AM
Again and again the argument is used that we were not there in the time of the big reptile thingies....

So for those who do not believe in evolution, please explain where the antibiotic resistant bacteria came from.

Evolution can be seen over time spans as short ac decades, you simply need a living creature with a short reproductive cycle.

Then please note that bacteria have DNA.

Please note also that we have DNA.

Please stop using the argument that we were not around in the time of the big lizard thingies as an argument against evolution.

JimD
11-14-2007, 03:23 AM
Here's some dna for ya

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000VH8M2.01-A2X3FMBNSRPS6U.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Fitz
11-14-2007, 06:54 AM
There was a 2 hour NOVA program on last night that tackled the federal Intelligent Design trial from a couple of years ago. It tried to present both sides of the argument. Interesting and worth watching if you can catch it.

Actually, I guess you can watch it on line:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Honda_Shadow
11-14-2007, 08:01 AM
You're using the fact that living organisms develop immunities to support evolution?

He he...
He he Ha ha
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

ssor
11-14-2007, 08:18 AM
And you use what to support creationism?

BrianW
11-14-2007, 08:23 AM
You're using the fact that living organisms develop immunities to support evolution?

He he...
He he Ha ha
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Ya mean like a flu shot? ;)

BrianW
11-14-2007, 08:26 AM
And you use what to support creationism?

Well, nobody has ever explained where the matter, or the energy, or the 'singularity', which produced the very first 'big bang' has come from. So in fact, evolution and creation are both based on faith. ;)

BrianW
11-14-2007, 08:38 AM
I don't know how the universe got started, how the first life forms appeared, how speciation occurred... these are all great topics for research, and worthy of curiosity, but WHY do we assign so much importance to the answers?

I agree, it's all worth studying, I'd never recommend we stop searching for answers.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
11-14-2007, 08:42 AM
...., but WHY do we assign so much importance to the answers?

Because "by their answers shall ye know them" - thus are the evil intention'd bar-stewards of the other group recognised, so that they may be burnt at the steak.

Have a nice day.

Popeye
11-14-2007, 08:49 AM
my bbq is out of gas

Ian McColgin
11-14-2007, 09:17 AM
The mystery of creation - for those who reject the advanced physics of contemporary cosmology - is not an argument against evolutionary science.

Perhaps the ultimate retreat of the ID crowd will be that the initial design of the simplest carbon based life-form was so intelligently handled that it could from there evolve into increasingly complex organisms.

But it really seems to me that intelligent design would get a better boost if it could point to an example of some planning agency that by its own design or initiative acts on organisms to solve survival problems, or perhaps that acts to the detriment of certain organisms with the design of profiting others. In short, where's the designer and what's the evidence that he she or it is intelligent?

Joe (SoCal)
11-14-2007, 09:30 AM
my bbq is out of gas

Mine too, tried to make ribs the other night and had to use my Gas broiler in the house :(

Brian Palmer
11-14-2007, 09:41 AM
You're using the fact that living organisms develop immunities to support evolution?

He he...
He he Ha ha
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Oh, brother. Go take a couple of college level immunology and genetics courses, will ya!

Antibiotic resistant bacteria are not developing immunity, they are developing drug resistance. An individual organism can develop immunity if it has an immune system. Bacteria do not. Humans do.

Bacteria species, but not individual organisms, "develop" drug resistance because some of them are naturally drug resistant, at some level, because of random genetic mutations. If you expose them to antibiotics, and you don't kill them all (usually because people stop taking their pills after they feel better, instead of finishing the whole course prescribed by their doctor), some of those with natural resistance survive. Repeat this cycle enough times and you have "naturally" selected for bacteria that are fully resistant to the antibiotic. Evolution in action.

--Brian
B.S. Biology
M.S. Ecology

Rational Root
11-14-2007, 09:46 AM
No, I'm using the fact pretty penicillin resistance has evolved in bacteria in the time frame of decades, has been documented and followed and is pretty much accepted by the entire medical community.

Some random variation in some bacteria made it more resistant to penicillin. Overuse of Penicillin kills off the other bacteria, and the one that is resistant gets to thrive in the absense of competition. And other bacteria get the resistant gene through dna swapping.

AKA evolution.

Do please explain how you believe penicillin resistance has become common place. Do you think that they just learned it from their parents ?

Or do you think that DNA is rubbish too ?

Your ball.

D


You're using the fact that living organisms develop immunities to support evolution?

He he...
He he Ha ha
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

ahp
11-14-2007, 09:54 AM
The Big Bang originated from a singularity created by a grad student in another universe. He was getting even with the thesis review panel for rejecting his thesis advancing intelligent design.

Keith Wilson
11-14-2007, 09:58 AM
Well, nobody has ever explained where the matter, or the energy, or the 'singularity', which produced the very first 'big bang' has come from. So in fact, evolution and creation are both based on faith. This is spectacularly wrong in several regards. First, that's not what evolution is about. Evolutionary theory does not explain where matter came from, any more than it explains how volcanoes form, why polymers have certain interesting properties, the origin of life on earth, the electromagnetic spectra of stars, how to heat-treat tool steel, how a computer works, or how to rebuild the engine of an MG. Nor should it. It explains how living organisms change and diversify over time. That's all.

Second, evolution is based on evidence, evidence acquired through observation and experiment. The only "faith" required, for any science, not just evolution, is that the world is not deliberately deceptive. There is much we don't understand. Someday we may understand it - or maybe not. Admitting that we don't know enough to explain something has nothing to do with "faith"; it fact, it's the exact opposite.

The facile assumption of equivalence between science and religion - the idea that science is really just another religion - because they're both supposedly based on "faith", is simply false. They are very different enterprises, and seek to answer very different kinds of questions. One does not have to choose one or the other. The trouble between them comes when either science or religion tries to answer questions that are legitimately in the other's area.

Uncle Duke
11-14-2007, 10:09 AM
The only "faith" required, for any science, not just evolution, is that the world is not deliberately deceptive.
Love that phrase - thanks!

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-14-2007, 10:52 AM
Because "by their answers shall ye know them" - thus are the evil intention'd bar-stewards of the other group recognised, so that they may be burnt at the steak.

Have a nice day.

Here is an extract from a once popular volume, concerning Mrs Alice Driver, a farmer's wife from Grundisburgh, a village some three miles from my house, being examined before the Chancellor of Norwich on the question of transubstantiation:



Chaun. Woman, woman, what saiest thou to the blessed sacrament of the aulter? doest thou not beleue that it is very fleash and bloude after the wordes be spoken of consecratiion?

Diuers wife vnto those woordes helde her peace, and made no aunswere. Then a great chuffe headed priest, that stode by, spake and asked her why she made not the Chauncellor an answer. Wyth that, the sayde Driuers wife loked vpon him austerely, & said. Why priest, I come not to talke with thee, but I come to talke with thy maister: but if thou wilt, I shal talke with the. Commaund thy master to hold his peace: and with that the priest put his nose in his cappe, and spake neuer a woord more. Then the Chauncellor, bad her make answer to that he demaunded of her.

Dry. Sir, said she, pardon me though I make you no āswer. for I cānot tel what you mean therby: for in al my lyfe, I neuer heard nor red of any such sacrament in all the scripture.

Chaun. Why, what scriptures haue you redde I pray you?

Dry. I haue (I thanke God) red gods booke.

Chaun. Why, what maner of booke is that you call gods booke?

Dry. It is the new testamēt. what cal you it?

Chaun. That is Gods booke in dede, I cannot deny.

Dry. That same booke haue I red through out, but yet neuer could find any such sacrament there: and for that cause I cannot make you answere to that thinge I know not. Not withstanding yet for all that I wyll graunte you a sacrament, called the lords supper: and therfore seing I haue graunted you a sacramēt, I pray you shew me what a sacramēt is.

Chaun. It is a signe: and one Dr Gascoigne, being by, confirmed the same, that it was the signe of an holye thing.

Dry. You haue sayd the truth syr, sayd she. It is a signe in dede I must nedes graunt it: and therfore seing it is a signe, it cannot bee the thinge signified also. Thus farre we doo agre. For I haue graunted your own saying.

Then stod vp the sayd Gascoine, and made an oration with many fayre wordes, but lytle to purpose, but offensyue and odiouse to the myndes of the godly. In the end of which long take, he asked her if shee dyd not beleue the omnipotency of god, and that he was allmighty, and able to performe that he spake.

She answered yes, and sayd: I do beleue that God is almighty, and able to performe that hee spake and promised.

Gascoine. Very wel. Then he sayd to his disciples, take, eate, this is my bodye: ergo it was his body. For he was able to performe that hee spake. For God vseth not to lye.

Dry. I praye you, did hee euer make anye such promise to his Disciples, that hee would make the breade his body?

Gasc. Those be the words. Can you deny it?

Dry. No, they be the very wordes in dede I cannot deny it: but I praye you, was it not bread that he gaue vnto them?

Gascoine. No, it was his body.

Dry. Then was it his body that they dyd eate ouer night.

Gascoin. Yea, it was his body.

Dry. What body was it then that was crucified the next daye.

Gascoin. It was Christ his body.

Dry. How could that be, when his Disciples had eaten him vp ouer night: except hee had two bodies, as by your argument he had: one they did eat ouer night, & another was crucified the next day. such a doctor, such docrin. Be you not ashamed to teach the people, that Christ had two bodies? In the. xxii. of Luke, he toke bread, and brake it, and gaue it to his Disciples, saying: take. &c. and do this in the remembraunce of me. Saint Paule also sayth i. Cor. xi. do this in the remembraunce of me: for as often as ye shall eate thys bread, and drynke this cup, ye shal shew the Lords death till he come: and therfore I maruell ye blushe not before all this people, to lie so manifestly as ye do.

With that Gascoin held hys peace, & made her no answer. For as it semed, he was ashamed of hys doinges.

Then the Chauncellor lifte vp his head of on hys cushion and commaunded the Gaoler to take her away.

For that bit of repartee, she was burned at the stake in Ipswich, two weeks before Mary Tudor died.

willmarsh3
11-14-2007, 11:16 AM
I saw the PBS Nova show last night. I thought it did a good job of portraying what evolution was and how it is supported by the available evidence. I also saw in the show how the Discovery Institute which was pushing intelligent design changed its tune. It showed how some of the arguments that they presented such as "irreducible complexity" were shot down by counter examples. I thought the mouse trap as bow tie analogy was cute.
But evolution does not answer how the universe got started.

Gonzalo
11-14-2007, 11:19 AM
But evolution does not answer how the universe got started. Nor does it attempt to. See Keith's post #19 above. Every science has a relatively narrow scope, and the origin of the universe is outside of the scope of evolutionary theory.

Osborne Russell
11-14-2007, 12:04 PM
Who cares about ID vs. evolution? Only those who take seriously their commitment to liberty as defined in the Bill of Rights. If it’s science it can be taught with my tax money; if not, then teaching it with my tax money is a violation of my individual liberty and therefore of human rights in general. It’s not “just” a situation where each individual makes an individual decision. It’s an aspect of the relations between the individual and the group or groups that would overpower the individual if they weren’t restrained.

Teach what you like with your own money. Mine comes with strings attached.


If religion only related to the individual, and was a question between God and the conscience, it would not be wise, nor in my opinion equitable, for human authority to step in. But when religion is embodied into faction, and factions have objects to pursue, it will and must, more or less, become a question of power between them.

--- Edmund Burke, Speech on the Relief of the Protestant Dissenters

As shown by Andrew's excellent example from the facts of history. It's all good fun until they burn someone alive.

Good thing the creators of the United States had some understanding of English law and history, unlike the rabble then and now. Otherwise the Puritans would have their Sharia state over here in the woods and we'd be their subjects.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-14-2007, 12:11 PM
Well said, Osborne.

Osborne Russell
11-14-2007, 12:14 PM
From the PBS show:


Attorney ERIC ROTHSCHILD: If you could highlight the second full paragraph from Darwin's Black Box on page 138?

What you say is, "We can look high or we can look low in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system."

Witness MICHAEL BEHE: And in the context that means that the scientific literature has no detailed testable answers to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection.

I don't get it. Why couldn't the immune system have arisen by random mutation and natural selection?

1. Attack is experienced.
2. Many reactions are produced in many individuals.
3. Those individuals producing effective reactions out-compete the others.
4. The most effective reaction is systematic. Those individuals producing effective reactions systematically really out-compete the others.

Kaa
11-14-2007, 12:16 PM
Who cares about ID vs. evolution? Only those who take seriously their commitment to liberty as defined in the Bill of Rights. If it’s science it can be taught with my tax money; if not, then teaching it with my tax money is a violation of my individual liberty and therefore of human rights in general.

Oh please. Teaching religious dogma with tax money is forbidden because of the separation of church and state, not because it's a violation of human rights "in general".

Your tax money pays for rendition flights to far-off countries, for arms shipped to unsavory characters, for the biggest industrial-prison system in the Western world. That sound to me a bit more worry-worthy.

Kaa

Joe (SoCal)
11-14-2007, 12:21 PM
WOW !!! excellent point kaa.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
11-14-2007, 12:25 PM
...
Your tax money pays for rendition flights to far-off countries, for arms shipped to unsavory characters, for the biggest industrial-prison system in the Western world. That sound to me a bit more worry-worthy.

Kaa

Ahh - eloquent, given limited funds should you:

A. Torture the political opposition.

or

B. Brainwash their children.


Perhaps there should be a poll.

Osborne Russell
11-14-2007, 12:26 PM
From the PBS show:


Attorney ERIC ROTHSCHILD: If you could highlight the second full paragraph from Darwin's Black Box on page 138?

What you say is, "We can look high or we can look low in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system."

Witness MICHAEL BEHE: And in the context that means that the scientific literature has no detailed testable answers to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection.

I don't get it. Why couldn't the immune system have arisen by random mutation and natural selection?

1. Attack is experienced.
2. Many reactions are produced "randomly" in many individuals, in the sense that the reaction was not provided for ahead of time for the purpose.
3. Those individuals producing effective reactions out-compete the others.
4. The most effective reaction is systematic. Those individuals producing effective reactions systematically really out-compete the others.

There is a range of responses. Some are better. Time will tell. It takes a lot of individuals and a lot of time. Is that a problem?

I would note that if reactions were designed, then fault may be found with the design, and, it must be said, with the designer. Allergies? Swelling around a wound? Sometimes the reaction is worse than the cause; or at least, not without costs. The organism's adapation isn't perfect -- but why would you expect it to be? Then everything would be immortal, but our theory is, it's not. Does religious biology require us to re-examine that theory as well?

Keith Wilson
11-14-2007, 12:27 PM
"We can look high or we can look low in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system."And here it is; the argument from ignorance expressed in its clearest form. It's fallacious, of course. There's a tremendous number of things we don't know, but that tells us nothing. Ignorance is evidence of nothing but ignorance.

Osborne Russell
11-14-2007, 12:29 PM
Teaching religious dogma with tax money is forbidden because of the separation of church and state, not because it's a violation of human rights "in general".

Why is establishment forbidden?

What may be more worry-worthy is irrelevant.

S/V Laura Ellen
11-14-2007, 12:39 PM
I agree, it's all worth studying, I'd never recommend we stop searching for answers.

And that is what the crux of the matter was. If ID (Intellegent Design) is regarded as science, then the study will end. If Intelligent Design can be used to as a scientific explanation for things there is no longer a reason to continue looking for answers. But since ID is not science (is not bound by the scientific methods) it is not a valid answer and we must continue to study the natural world around us.
The only group that has a problem with Evolution are the people that have a bnelief in a literal translation of the Bible (you have to ask yourself what has been lost in the translation). I personnaly do not and do not see a problem with Genesis and Evolution co-existing.

S/V Laura Ellen
11-14-2007, 12:44 PM
Oh please. Teaching religious dogma with tax money is forbidden because of the separation of church and state, not because it's a violation of human rights "in general".

Your tax money pays for rendition flights to far-off countries, for arms shipped to unsavory characters, for the biggest industrial-prison system in the Western world. That sound to me a bit more worry-worthy.

Kaa

The most important fight was not if creationsism should be taught in schools, but that it should not be confused with science. If Creationism is mixed with science the scientific method that is used will be destroyed. Remember that the same widening of the definition of science that allows Creationism to be considered science would also allow Astrology and other psuedosciences.

Kaa
11-14-2007, 12:50 PM
The most important fight was not if creationsism should be taught in schools, but that it should not be confused with science. If Creationism is mixed with science the scientific method that is used will be destroyed. Remember that the same widening of the definition of science that allows Creationism to be considered science would also allow Astrology and other psuedosciences.

Huh? Creationism confused with science by whom? Most intelligent people won't fall for it, and most bible literalists already think of creationism as science.

It's not like there's a High Council of Elders which decides what is science and what it scientific method, and then everyone is required to follow their pronouncements.

Imagine that the ID proponents manage to find somewhere in the Bible belt a judge or a jury which would declare creationism to be science. So what? Will it lead to the scientific method being destroyed? Nope, people will just point and laugh.

Kaa

S/V Laura Ellen
11-14-2007, 01:04 PM
Huh? Creationism confused with science by whom? Most intelligent people won't fall for it, and most bible literalists already think of creationism as science.

It's not like there's a High Council of Elders which decides what is science and what it scientific method, and then everyone is required to follow their pronouncements.

Imagine that the ID proponents manage to find somewhere in the Bible belt a judge or a jury which would declare creationism to be science. So what? Will it lead to the scientific method being destroyed? Nope, people will just point and laugh.

Kaa

The whole court case in question (Kitzmiller et al vs. The Dover Area School Board) was about the school board initially wanting to replace evolution with creationism in the science curiculum , later softened to creationism being given equal time to evolution in the science curiculum, and again softened to a statement read to the Science class that evolution is not fact and has many gaps that have not been anserwed and that there are other equally valid alternative theories such as ID.

So here is one school board that did find it acceptable to allow scientific method to be discarded in the interests of pushing a religious mandate. If it had of been successful it would have been the beginning of a return to the dark ages.

BTW, I'm not agaist teaching religious theology in the school system as long as all religions are given an equal treatment.

Kaa
11-14-2007, 01:11 PM
If it had of been successful it would have been the beginning of a return to the dark ages.

I don't think so. Nothing important would have happened -- do note that the school board members who initiated the suit were ALL voted out at the next elections.

Just because there are stupid people with money and time does not mean the whole society is ready to go backwards.


BTW, I'm not agaist teaching religious theology in the school system as long as all religions are given an equal treatment.

As long at the Flying Spaghetti Monster is given His rightful place, I'm all for it :D

Kaa

Popeye
11-14-2007, 01:31 PM
ok , so , it's all settled

Osborne Russell
11-14-2007, 02:21 PM
Huh? Creationism confused with science by whom?

By the President of the United States, the GOP, the defendants in Kitzmiller et al vs. The Dover Area School Board, all of their witnesses, the Discovery Institute, and the innumerable ignorant rabble.


Most intelligent people won't fall for it . . . Imagine that the ID proponents manage to find somewhere in the Bible belt a judge or a jury which would declare creationism to be science. So what? Will it lead to the scientific method being destroyed? Nope, people will just point and laugh

These are insufficient guarantees of my liberty. On that basis, we can repeal the entire Bill of Rights because it's superfluous.

Your arguments were made and rejected in 1787.

Kaa
11-14-2007, 02:34 PM
These are insufficient guarantees of my liberty. On that basis, we can repeal the entire Bill of Rights because it's superfluous.

Your arguments were made and rejected in 1787.

Huh? What are insufficient guarantees of your liberty? Which arguments in 1787?

I don't understand the point you're making.

Kaa

Osborne Russell
11-14-2007, 02:47 PM
One of the remarkable aspects of the case is the showing that that some ID proponents are willing to decieve and lie, even under oath in litigation, which obstructs justice. Apart from revealing their character, it has a direct bearing on the legal issues.

To teach ID in public school science class you have to show that it's not religion. This is a requirement, not an option.

To show that ID is not religion for these purposes you have to show (among other things) that teaching it has a valid secular purpose. This brings the motivation of the proponents into issue.

To lie about how the ID biology books got into the biology classroom undercuts the proposition that there was a valid secular purpose, because if there were, why hide your purpose with lies?

They lied.


NARRATOR:
Both Buckingham and Bonsell had sworn in their depositions that they did not know who donated the 60 copies of Pandas to the high school.

But by the time Buckingham took the witness stand, a different story emerged.

BILL BUCKINGHAM: I stood up in front of our church one Sunday morning. We had to come up with, I think it was like $1100 to buy these books, I said, "I'm not asking anybody for a dime, I'm not telling you I want anything," but we believe in the power of prayer in that church, I said, "just pray that the money comes in."

NARRATOR: Buckingham's prayers were answered, with donations from members of the church.

BILL BUCKINGHAM: So I deposited the money in our personal checking account my wife and I have and I wrote a check to be passed on to whoever's gonna buy the books. It was my understanding at that time that a businessman in the community had agreed to take the money and buy the books and donate them to the school. At that time I didn't know who it was.

NARRATOR: But at the trial, Buckingham admitted he had given that check to Alan Bonsell—and that the unknown businessman who bought the books had been Alan Bonsell's father.

This contradicted statements Bill Buckingham and Alan Bonsell had originally made in their sworn depositions.

STEVE HARVEY: Lying under oath is a serious crime. We impeached a president about it. And people go to jail for it all the time. It seemed to us that there was testimony that demonstrated clear inconsistency. I can't see into their hearts and know you know the extent of the falsehood but I do know that when asked questions that should elicited that information and they didn't provide that information.

LAURI LEBO: And, and it was almost like this weird feeling that, you know, when you've watched a nature show and you know that the gazelle's about to get it from the lion. You know I remember actually thinking oh God, Judge Jones is going to kill Alan Bonsell. I don't think, I can't look. And then Judge Jones, his face had gotten bright red at this point and he goes 'you tell me why you didn't say where that money came from to buy Of Pandas and People?' and Alan Bonsell finally under Judge Jones' grilling started to get a little nervous and he started flapping his hands and he started stammering and he completely had lost this self assured composure that he had earlier. And, er, finally he just said 'well I misspoke'.

ALAN BONSELL: Never in a million years did I ever think that we'd you know I'd be in a federal lawsuit when I was on the school board or have the school district in something like that. Over a one minute statement. A one minute statement.

johnw
11-14-2007, 03:05 PM
Why is establishment forbidden?

What may be more worry-worthy is irrelevant.

Establishment of religion is forbidden because our forefathers had experienced it. You couldn't be a lawyer or an officer in the British military unless you were Anglican. And, as in the case cited above, civil authorities sometimes executed the death penalty to enforce religious dogma. The idea behind the first amendment is that to be free to practice our own religion, we must be free from being forced to practice anyone else's religion. And the people pushing for ID to be taught in Dover were very clear that they wanted this because it was their religious belief that life was created, not evolved.

Osborne Russell
11-14-2007, 03:09 PM
Huh? What are insufficient guarantees of your liberty? Which arguments in 1787?

I don't understand the point you're making.

Kaa

The Bill of Rights were insisted upon by many as a go/no-go condition of their support of the proposed constitution, which would replace the Articles of Confederation.

The Articles of Confederation were generally seen to be insufficient to govern the former colonies because they provided for a federal government that was too weak. So the majority was in favor of a stronger federal government, but a minority within that group worried about a setting up a new federal government that would be too strong.

In the press of circumstances, rather than over-quibble the mechanics of the main body of the constitution -- bicameral legislature, three branches, etc -- the Bill of Rights was added in the form of ten amendments to be adopted at the same time as the main body.

So the Bill of Rights is integral to the constitution, not an afterthought.

At the time, arguments were made that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary because "everybody knows" that freedom of religion, press, speech, right to trial by jury, etc are among the rights of man, not just of Englishmen. That was a major part of the rationale of the revolution, i.e. that George 3 was wrongly restricting these rights to non-colonial Englishmen. The premise of the United States is that individual liberty is universal and "unalienable" as they put it in the Declaration of Independence, earlier, in 1776.

So, what "everybody knows" is an insufficient guarantee of individual liberty. In 1787, when the constitution was enacted, it was on condition that it contain explicit guarantees, which it does. They might have put in more of them, or written them better, had they not been in a hurry. But that doesn't indicate that they were some kind of afterthought or higher level of detail -- it indicates that they were considered essential, and so were insisted upon. If anything, more essential than anything else in the constitution, because they give the government moral legitimacy.

Subsequent events have shown the wisdom of that insistence. In any case, a deal's a deal. It's the law. The arguments against a Bill of Rights were made and rejected in 1787.

Keith Wilson
11-14-2007, 03:10 PM
The Thirty Years War (religious wars in Germany that resulted in the death of about 1/3 the population) was as about distant from the writers of the US Constitution as the American Civil War is from us. They had a very good idea of what could happen if one didn't separate church and state.

Kaa
11-14-2007, 03:15 PM
Subsequent events have shown the wisdom of that insistence. In any case, a deal's a deal. It's the law. The arguments against a Bill of Rights were made and rejected in 1787.

It seems to me that you think I argued that the Bill of Rights is unnecessary and that the freedoms it provides are obvious and do not need codification.

I don't think I did any such thing. Quotes, please?

Kaa

Osborne Russell
11-14-2007, 03:21 PM
Establishment of religion is forbidden because our forefathers had experienced it. You couldn't be a lawyer or an officer in the British military unless you were Anglican. And, as in the case cited above, civil authorities sometimes executed the death penalty to enforce religious dogma. The idea behind the first amendment is that to be free to practice our own religion, we must be free from being forced to practice anyone else's religion.

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. It's a right possessed by individuals. It's a matter of conscience and the conscience is individual. If common sense doesn't suggest it, ask the Protestants -- they're keen on that point. In any case, it's a core moral principle of the United States, in theory; and if that's not enough . . .

Freedom from religion is not merely a matter of expedience, i.e., we forbid establishment not just because it prevents bloody civil conflict, which it does. If you could prove that if the government of the United States could create a Federal Church and no bloodshed would result, you would still not have touched the foundation of the establishment clause, let alone removed it.

Keith Wilson
11-14-2007, 03:28 PM
Osborne, I think you're misunderstanding Kaa. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't think that Dover PA should teach "intelligent design" in biology classes, merely that we have worse problems. Unfortunately, we do. That doesn't mean its worth ignoring.

Osborne Russell
11-14-2007, 03:32 PM
It seems to me that you think I argued that the Bill of Rights is unnecessary and that the freedoms it provides are obvious and do not need codification.

I don't think I did any such thing. Quotes, please?

Kaa

I may have misunderstood.


Oh please. Teaching religious dogma with tax money is forbidden because of the separation of church and state, not because it's a violation of human rights "in general".

Your tax money pays for rendition flights to far-off countries, for arms shipped to unsavory characters, for the biggest industrial-prison system in the Western world. That sound to me a bit more worry-worthy.

Huh? Creationism confused with science by whom? Most intelligent people won't fall for it, and most bible literalists already think of creationism as science.

--------------
Imagine that the ID proponents manage to find somewhere in the Bible belt a judge or a jury which would declare creationism to be science. So what? Will it lead to the scientific method being destroyed? Nope, people will just point and laugh.



Not a violation of human rights? Other things are more worry-worthy? So what?

ID and fundamentalism generally pose a serious threat to our freedoms, a much-cheapened phrase, but the threat is still serious. I got the impression that your position is that the freedoms don't exist, or if they do, the threat isn't serious.

Whereas I labor to assert that the freedom exists, is important, and the threat is serious. That makes three issues, I guess.

Kaa
11-14-2007, 03:50 PM
Well, that's where the whole thing started:


teaching it with my tax money is a violation of my individual liberty and therefore of human rights in general.

I think this is useless grandstanding and word inflation. You claim YOUR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY is being violated every time some idiots get a court case going and soon enough these words won't mean anything any more.

Nothing terrible happened in the Dover case. Nothing terrible would have happened even if the creationists won -- new dark ages wouldn't have started and the scientific method wouldn't have magically disappeared. I remind you again that *all* the school board members who were behind this case were voted out at the next elections.

The sky is not falling and threats to you individual liberty are coming from a different side.

Kaa

S/V Laura Ellen
11-14-2007, 06:35 PM
I think, a bit more correctly, that there's no problem teaching religion in the context of a social studies curriculum; you know, comparative religion, historical influences, and the like. One would hope that it would be taught without a bias toward any particular religion.

Absolutely, Theology should be part of the social studies curriculum (if included at all) not part of the science curriculum. Exposing people to as many religious as possible can only help people understand and accept the diversity that exists.

Ian McColgin
11-14-2007, 07:09 PM
Unfortunatly the same mob pushing ID - rightwing pseudo-fundamentalists and any real evangelicals they can dupe - resist teaching the Bible as literature on the grounds that that's blasphemy and object to teaching comparitive religion on the grounds that children should not be exposed to satan's deceptions.

Osborne Russell
11-14-2007, 07:15 PM
You claim YOUR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY is being violated every time some idiots get a court case going and soon enough these words won't mean anything any more.

Why is establishment of religion prohibited by the Bill of Rights? Whose rights are we talking about, if not mine?

BTW, you should know that the people you call idiots were biology teachers who refused to teach ID.

The outcome of the election is irrelevant. Elections are an insufficient guarantee of liberty. Do I need to explain that as well?

Osborne Russell
11-14-2007, 07:32 PM
Nothing terrible happened in the Dover case. Nothing terrible would have happened even if the creationists won -- new dark ages wouldn't have started and the scientific method wouldn't have magically disappeared.

That's not what the judge said. Rendering the scientific method culturally impotent, on religious grounds, was exactly the defendant' stated purpose, and taking them at their word -- which you seem reluctant to do -- a major reason why he ruled that the board's action was unconstitutional, i.e., that it was religion attempting to harness the coercive power of the state to displace science from culture by force, and replace it with religion, by force.

Introducing ID into biology class is only the thin edge of what is intended to be a very big wedge, as the defendants say when they talk to each other, whatever lies they tell the gentiles:



Dramatic evidence of ID’s religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the “Wedge Document.” The Wedge document, developed by the Discovery Institute’s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter “CRSC”), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM’s goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement . . . The Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” . . . As posited in the Wedge Document, the ADM’s “Governing Goals” are to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document’s goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones . . . ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of
Christianity.

-- Judge Jones’ opinion (emphasis added)

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf


I think I'll go ahead and worry about it if it's OK with you.

Tanbark Spanker
11-14-2007, 07:50 PM
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread12787/pg1

skuthorp
11-14-2007, 08:34 PM
Way to go Tanbark, I note the Nostradamus WW3 book, that the one George and Dick are reading? Do they think it's a script? Way their going it's even possible.