First Amendment pronouncement by O’Donnell…
by Beverly Mann
crossposted note from Annarborist
The National Review: Christine O’Donnell Wants the Koran Taught in the Public Schools
“O’Donnell stressed that preventing schools from the possibility of teaching intelligent design would violate the First Amendment clause that Congress could not prohibit ‘the free exercise thereof’ of religion. ‘He [Coons] forgot to quote [that] part,” she said.”
—The National Review, today
So Christine O’Donnell thinks that the Constitution requires that public schools teach religious beliefs and represent those beliefs as science. That, presumably, means that public schools are required to teach, say, the contents of the Koran as fact, too. Unless, of course, she thinks the First Amendment guarantees only Christians the right of free exercise of religion. In which case she forgot to quote that part of the First Amendment.
Assuming that O’Donnell went to school, I don’t see that it matters much what they teach there. No one learns anything anyway. But the “free exercise” probably does not mean you can practice your religion on my kitchen table. I always wondered why they don’t just teach intelligent design in church and home if that’s what they want to believe.
But being a shameless free thinker myself, I think any biology teacher who doesn’t use Intelligent Design as a hook to teach evolution is showing a lack of intelligent design herself. I have a sneaking suspicion that real science can stand up to a few competing ideas.
Googling to the story that has the quote you provide, makes no reference to any candidate “requiring” anything. You’re the expert on the Constitution, but preventing a body from doing [X] doesn’t strike me as the legal opposite of requiring them to do the opposite of [X].
That, presumably, means that public schools are required to teach, say, the contents of the Koran as fact, too.
Alhamdulillah! That works for me! 😉
—
as an expression of free speech
—
That’s odd; I thought science classes taught students models of the natural world based on the scientific method.
But apparently these classes are nothing more than an exercise in free speech. Astronomy, astrology… it’s all just opinion.
And I hear that some candidates believe that witchcraft isn’t beyond the realm of possibility; maybe that should be taught as well?
So Christine O’Donnell thinks that the Constitution requires that public schools teach religious beliefs and represent those beliefs as science.
What the H are you talking about?
This is a misrepresentation so egregious that it is bizarre. She just says that schools can teach intelligent design if they want to, as an expression of free speech. Is this not a fact? Presumably that applies to the Koran also.
Nowhere is there a “require”
Geez, you guys are desperate. I think people are hardwired not to think clearly when they are scared (h/t Barack Obama).
Sammy
people don’t think clearly at the best of times. but i am not sure who you mean by “you guys.”
schools are not platforms for either free speech or free religion. there is enough wrong with them without that.
i didn’t read the article. just who is preventing them from teaching intelligent design?
i think that’s a county level decision, and if X county wants its kids to be ignorant, or to have a false idea of science (science is the opposite of censorship), who am i to stop them. hell, i have tried, and have the tire tracks to prove it. but this whole “debate” doesn’t make any sense from either side. it’s just politics for the brain damaged.
it would take less than a minute to say… “some people think evolution does not explain the origin of species adequately. they prefer a theory of Intelligent Design.” And a creative teacher could assign Behe’s (?) book Darwin’s Black Box, and use it as a basis for discussion. I’d expect the Darwinians to “win” such a discussion, but not if they use the sort of arguments that sound to my ear more “religious” than scientific.
Sammy is right, and I won’t be as polite.
I am an Independent voter. I don’t have any particular interest in the Delaware Senate race. I have stayed out of most political campaign arguments this year. But not this time. The dishonesty is dripping from the post.
Beverly Mann’s post is bullshit. It is an intentional lie. There is no mistaken innocence in Mann’s post. None.
The Ann Arborist (Beverly Mann) – “So Christine O’Donnell thinks that the Constitution requires that public schools teach religious beliefs and represent those beliefs as science.”
Christine O’Donnell never said or implied that during the debate. That wasn’t O’Donnell’s point.
Moreover, O’Donnell doesn’t list the role of religion as one of her issues at her website.
Mann failed to provide a link to the article from where she stripped the quote. Mann failed to provide a transcript or video of the campaign debate. She may not have wanted readers to put the quote in context.
It’s unlikely that most readers of Mann’s flame post understand how the issue came up during the debate.
Let’s clean up some of Mann’s mess.
Here’s the debate:
Debate video
Constitution tops WDEL debate btwn Coons & O’Donnell
By Amy Cherry
Updated Tuesday, October 19, 2010 – 3:19pm
http://www.wdel.com/story.php?id=383543576631
Debate video
Debate Between Delaware Candidates for U.S Senate at Widener Law Draws Crowd
October 19, 2010
http://law.widener.edu/NewsandEvents/Articles/2010/de101910coonsodonnelldebate.aspx
Here’s the article that Mann is citing:
Exclusive: O’Donnell Clarifies First Amendment Remarks
October 19, 2010 12:51 P.M. By Katrina Trinko
http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/250293/exclusive-o-donnell-clarifies-first-amendment-remarks-katrina-trinko
Here is the AP article:
O’Donnell questions separation of church, state
By BEN EVANS Associated Press Writer
Tue Oct 19, 9:27 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101020/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate_16
Here are a couple reactions that counter the usual liberal coverage of O’Donnell and Coons.
AmSpecBlog
Coons Clueless on Constitution
By Jeffrey Lord on 10.19.10 @ 3:07PM
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/19/oons-clueless-on-constitution
FULL TEXT:
“Well. Isn’t this interesting.
As John R. Guardiano has noted below, Democrat Chris Coons and the liberal media have gotten the Constitution totally wrong.
But the question is: Out of ignorance — or deliberateness? I vote for a combination of both.
In one of the more startling moments in the recent debate between Delaware Senate candidates Coons and Christine O’Donnell, the conservative Republican opposing the left-wing Democrat, is Coons’ frightening ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.
You read that right.
In a sentiment that speaks volumes about the combination of ignorance and arrogance all too frequently coming out of Ivy League schoolings and American liberal elites, Coons said this in response to O’Donnell’s discussion of the “overreaching arm of the federal government getting into the business of the local communities.” The conservative O’Donnell said: “…our so called leaders in Washington no longer view the indispensable principles of our founding as truly that, indispensable.”
To which Coons stunningly replied: “Ms. O’Donnell, one of those indispensable principles is the separation of church and state.”
O’Donnell immediately replied: “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?”
The transcript than indicates “laughter.”
Laughter? If that is meant to mean O’Donnell was wrong, than we are in even worse shape than might be supposed.
There is no such thing in the Constitution as the “separation of church and state.” Coons, who was also unable to name the five freedoms mentioned in the First Amendment (religion, speech, press, the right of peaceful assembly and to petition the Government) simply asserted a flat-out untruth. And the media…predictably…is trying to say O’Donnell was wrong!
This is one very, very big issue. The notion that Coons was wrong is bad enough. The audience not understanding the fundamental founding document that is the U.S. Constitution?
Downright scary — and a glaring warning sign of just how far off-track the American left-wing and secularists have gotten this country.
Christine O’Donnell — she the supposed unqualified candidate — got this 100% correct.
And Coons — the Ivy Leaguer — got it wrong, and not just wrong but abysmally so.
In this one exchange Americans can see two of our big problems at work. Ignorance of the Constitution — and arrogance from self-appointed elitists about a supposed intellectual superiority they quite laughably don’t even come close to possessing.
And the third problem? The serious possibility that Coons in fact knows he’s wrong, but has every intention of deliberately violating the Constitution in an effort to keep extending federal control over every last nook and cranny of American life.
No more local control of schools. No more churches deciding what they can preach. No more First Amendment protections for talk radio or the Internet.
This exchange between O’Donnell and Coons is not just won by O’Donnell — as Guardiano says — it is a vivid illustration of just how determined the left is to grab control of America in total violation of constitutional principles.
And that is no laughing matter.”
Media misrepresenting Christine O’Donnell. Again.
American Thinker
October 19, 2010, 5:23 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/media_misrepresenting_christin.html
Naturally, the liberal media are misrepresenting the Coons-O’Donnell debate at Widener Law School earlier today. Christine O’Donnell asked Chris Coons, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?”
The liberal media are apparently both too dumb and too biased to understand that was not a reference request, but a challenge to a presumption.
USAToday’s headline reads: “Delaware candidate Christine O’Donnell questions church and state separation.”
Salon reports: “Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell of Delaware is questioning whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing religion.”
Slate says O’Donnell was “schooled on the concept of separation of church and state.”
Yada, yada, yada.
Of course, Ms. O’Donnell is right: that language is not in the Constitution.
After reading what the liberal media wrote, watch the eight-minute video here, and you can decide the context in which she addressed the issue.
Pretty different from the way it’s been reported, no?
When the Founders added the First Amendment dictate, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it did not apply to the states. The 14th Amendment, regarded by the courts as making the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, reads in relevant part, “No State shall make or enforce any […]
Now, the liberals and Manns of the world can go ape and post more of the usual one-sided garage being thrown around during this campaign cycle.
Free speech?
I do not hire teachers through my school board in a civil servcie job to speak freely, particularly when such speech might establish a religion imposed on impressionable and graded children.
If the conservatives and MGs of the world insist on their right to teach half baked claptrap as a useful explanation of the natural world in the public schools we’ve got something worth voting on.
Against actually in my case. But own your own rationalizations.
MG,
Is the following “going ape”?
I have not read the First Amendment of the 10 in the US constitution’s Bill of Rights since I was in grade school, but I have spent 30 years of my life planning and preparing to support military operations to defend them. I am a trusting ape.
This is the 150th year of Lincoln’s election and the resulting secessions that formed the Confederate States of America, I will address this quote as it is the core of my problem with tea partiers and their ilk:
” The conservative O’Donnell said: “…our so called leaders in Washington no longer view the indispensable principles of our founding as truly that, indispensable.”
I especially like the “indispensible principle[s]” that I hear, those being the “indispensible principle” of states’ rights to do things like establish and maintain the “right to property” of one man over many men and women because their skin is dark and the “indispensible principle of our founding ” that dark skins races are inferior. Replace dark skin with poor, or Muslim or uneducated, or not in my church…..
It is also an “indispensible principle of our founding” that women are subserviant to men. Their bodies are mens’ property and they cannot regulate their reproductive responsibilities [proceedings], that one man may own all the means of production and natural resources while millions starve, that the US is exceptional and can assassinate any terrorist regardless of due process or citizenship, that the safety of property, dark skinned and women is an “indispensible principle of our founding”.
I also disagree with the “indispensible principle of our founding” that taxes are counter property and that we can borrow forever to do and perpetrate US exceptionalism.
That any restrictions on these amoral, dispicable “indispensible principle of our founding” is an infringement on someones’ rights I will question the assumptions.
The “indispensible principle of our founding” are: all men are created equal, that they have the inalienable right to LIFE ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The tea party despises the Declaration of Independence and refuses to acknowledge that the “indispensible principle of our founding” were founded in the enlightenment not in their archaic vision of the rights of states and individuals’ power to infringe on the fact that all men and women re created equal.
OK, this is just silly. First, O’Donnell’s quote above is rhetorical trickery. She says that Coons “forgot” to quote a part of the Amendment that she finds convenient to quote. In comments to this blog, we have seen this trick often enough to recognize it. “What x doesn’t understand…” and “What x doesn’t know…” and “What x forgot to tell you…” is merely a way of getting an idea into the discussion while trying to erode confidence in the other guy. Usually, there is no evidence for not understand, not knowing or forgetting.
Coons had no reason to quote the point that O’Donnell says he “forgot”, because it is not the point he was making. It is not even a rebuttal to the point he was making.
The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Amendment. That’s true. It is a short-hand expression for one implication of the Amendment. The claim that “liberals” and “the media” misunderstand because they employ the short-hand is silly and dishonest. Claiming that O’Donnell meant to challenge the notion of separation of church and state, rather than that she was ignorant of the Constitution, is spin. An audience full of people seem to have taken her words as evidence of ignorance. A pundit coming to her defense claims she was challenging the implication of the short-hand, but makes the claim on no evidence.
The comments here seem to have turned this into a debate over whether intelligent design should be, and can legally be, taught in schools. That distracts from the issue of whether a woman who could not name a single recent Supreme Court decision knows the basic contents of the Bill of Rights. Creationism and its offspring can be debated, but let’s not allow that debate to become a distraction from other issues, like the qualification of a candidate to hold high office.
kharris
i agree that the present discussion is silly. but it is not quite correct to say that “x forgot to mention…” is a rhetorical trick to get an idea into the discussion. a very common method of lying is to fail to mention facts or consequences known to the liar but not likely to be thought of by the victim. MacBeth’s “no man of woman born..” is one of the more famous examples.
See, there’s that flawed thinking again. Even if it is a common method of lying to leave something out, that does not make my statement untrue. The fact that a stick can be used as a weapon does not mean it cannot also be used as a back-scratcher. It is, you see, quite correct to say that “x forgot to mention” is a rhetorical trick.
harris
and it is also not best mental hygiene to claim the other party is evidencing flawed thinking because they emphasize a different point. you scratch my back, i’ll scratch yours.
but the important point here (for me) is that the basis of the argument is foolish. the “religious” people are claiming their god is too stupid to have invented evolution. and the “science” people are claiming their science is too stupid to survive if anyone mentions Intelligent Design in a public school.
and that’s without even getting into the bizarre ideas about what the Constitution means.
I gotta go to work.
Well, I think that public schools should teach Korean. After all, South Korea is one of our best allies, while North Korea is one of our worst enemies. Besides, look at all the store and restaurant signs in Korean.
Oh, that’s Koran?
Nevermind.
Let me get this right. You said my point was wrong, even though it was not – it was simply not the point you wanted to make. Now, you want to call me on saying you were wrong, because letting you correct me is more hygienic and back-scratchy? Cut it out. If you don’t like being corrected, don’t do it yourself. If you resort to affrontery as a method of debate – as you at times do – don’t expect to be coddled.
On a separate issue, we do all know that the defense of O’Donnell that MG has repeated here, from a couple of outlets that tend to support the right, are more or less copies of what O’Donnell has been saying after the fact?
K Harris
The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Amendment. That’s true. It is a short-hand expression for one implication of the Amendment.
William O Douglas claimed to be able to see and understand the penumbra’s and emanations of the constitution and there in found a right to privacy in Griswold vs Connecticut. This is great news for those who want to kill babies with clean conscious.
When Babylonian scribes codified Jewish religious laws they reinterpreted, redacted and edited the Torah, in such a way that in some cases Halakha now now longer bears resemblance to what Moses origanally revealed to be Gods law. When discripancies are encountered Jewish relgious authorities say the Babylonian Talmud based on oral traditions and extrpolations takes precendence over Moses laws. So in essence man made law claiming to be devine trumped what was supposed to be God’s law.
So you would have Thomas Jefferson musings about the seperation of church and state, despite the fact that many of the colonies had state sponsered religions, when the words were written, have the same effect as if it where enumerated in the bill of rights. Fulminate about what ever drivel liberals do, but when you try to conjure laws expect ridicule.
God is a Space Alien!!!!!!
“OK, this is just silly” would be quite accurate if this wasn’t a serious problem, with so many people confused and intentionally misled to their own peril. First, the First Amendment does not explicitly say separation of church and state–nor does it explicitly grant us freedom of writing or publishing or blogging. Second, apparently some Tea Party members think it’s okay if some of those overpaid, underworked government bureaucrats force religious beliefs down the throats of our children, including foreign and foreign-born beliefs. (Note to public school teachers: I do not actually believe you’re overpaid, underworked, or bureaucratic.) Further, by linking their stance to freedom of speech, O’Donnell apparently argues that individual teachers can say whatever they like (2+2=5, you know) and the government can’t do anything about it–certainly not fire anyone for such speech. Many millions of Americans are seeking to twist and undermine the U.S. Constitution without realizing it, even as they claim to be defending it, and they are supporting politicians who are either like-minded or cynical exploiters. This isn’t new in our history, and it isn’t as silly as it is scary–especially when you look at the polls.
I do not understand the lack of intellectual curiosity to even contemplate the possibility of Intelligent Design.
On it’s face, just by looking at the dramatic difference between Man and the rest of the animals……… it is hard NOT to believe there is some validity.
It doesn’t explain your resemblance to a jackass.
O’Donnell’s claim is that by not teaching intelligent design, the public schools are impeding evangelical Christians’ right to freely exercise their religion. She claims that the failure of a public school to teach that religion as fact, which is how the religion views it, amounts to an impediment of evangelical Christians’ right to freely exercise their religion.
So, yes, m.jed, of necessity, by invoking the free-exercise clause, she indeed is claiming that a public school that does not teach intelligent design is violating evangelical Christians’ First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
You’ve hit on something, eightnine. The failure of schools to teach witchcraft violates the some people’s right to the free exercise of their religion, I’m sure.
“On it’s face, just by looking at the dramatic difference between Man and the rest of the animals……… it is hard NOT to believe there is some validity.”
Dramatic difference? Do you not realize that at the genetic level the lack of difference between us and primates is miniscule. The dramatic difference is all in your mind.
There is NO validity to intelligent design, unless you want to somehow try and argue that some intelligence invented evolution to design the biologic world as it is. OK, but I fail to see how that is even 1) a scientific theory 2) helpful to anyone exploring biology. One must still study the process of evolution in order to understand biology. If religious people want to think that GOD invented evolution…….. fine, let them. It changes nothing about the mechanisms behind biologic change.
The whole problem religious fools have with evolution is when it is argued that an outside force wasnt necessary to get things going. It certainly hasnt been “proven” that an outside force wasnt necessary but the evidence behind the presence of some outside force is extremely weak. As a scientist its best not to look for it and to continue to explore along the fruitful lines of the evolutionary paradigm which has yielded so much.
Actually, Sammy, she wasn’t invoking the First Amendments’ free-speech; she was invoking the First Amendment’s free-exercise-of-religion clause. And schools themselves have no First Amendment rights of any kind—not free speech, or free exercise of religion, or any other. Public schools do, though are obligated to not violate the First Amendment rights of others, to the extent that schools must do so (which is a much lesser extent than you might think). And they certainly are obligated to comply with the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
And, as I replied to another poster, O’Donnell indeed was claiming that a public school that does not teach intelligent design is violating evangelical Christians’ First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, and so the public schools are required to teach it. Her claim is that by not teaching intelligent design, the public schools are impeding evangelical Christians’ right to freely exercise their religion. She claims that the failure of a public school to teach that religion as fact, which is how the religion views it, amounts to an impediment of evangelical Christians’ right to freely exercise their religion.
Excuse me, MG, but my post quotes from the National Review’s report on what O’Donnell wrote to that journal in a press release the morning after the debate. Did you not understand that, or are you disputing the National Reviews account of O’Donnell’s press release on Wednesday morning?
Gizzard,
Evolution and Intelligent Design are not necessarily imcompatible.
At every point in time. mankind thinks they “know everything” and they are always wrong.
I’m sorry, but I’m having a hard time finding the claim you assert she made in your first sentence.
“O’Donnell said that if the local school board approves, there was nothing unconstitutional about a public school teaching the intelligent design theory.” [emphasis mine]
Again, [absence of a negative] <> [positive]
Sammy,
Yes, they (intelligent design and evolution) are incompatible. One is based on science, one is based on faith.
Those who demand the insertion of the “intelligent design” concept don’t want it used as a hook, but instead want it taught as an equally valid alternative to natural selection. Woe to the teacher that doesn’t follow that dictate. I’d suggest that natural selection should be taught as a long process resulting in what one could call an intelligently designed life form.
Intelligent design, which dates back to the 1980s, is not a scientific theory, and as far as I know, it is not a religious belief that any major religion requires its members to hold as an article of faith. It is a religious belief that many religions permit its members to hold because it is not inconsistent with the religion’s other beliefs–most typically, an interpretation of the Book of Genesis. It therefore has the same status as other variants of creationism, which in its most general form has a longer history. Creationism includes variants that are at odds with each other and with other religions’ beliefs. There is no reason to teach intelligent design in public schools and plenty of reasons not to (including, of course, the Constitution).
The teaching of religious concepts in public schools is a settled legal issue with the last (as far as I know) decision being against a Pa local school board brought by parents of a student in that school system. See: http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/victory-challenge-intelligent-design What is there to add once the courts have validated the position that “intelligent design,” which is only a restatement of the concept of creationism, is a religious belief. Such teachings are barred from publlic classrooms because their insertion into a curriculum would then require some students into a position of having to learn a religious concept. That might be an acceptable part of a class focused on religious thought and presenting multiple divergent religious ideas. Espousing the religious dogma of the majority is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to prevent. The amendment excludes the government from participation in religious determinations and religious decision making.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,….” What is the uncertainty of that simple statement? How elswe can one define, respecting an establishment of religion? Case law seems to be consistent in interpreting the phrase to mean that the government shall make no laws that is sujpportive of a religious concept. That doesn’t mean that such concepts can be prohibited outside of any governmental process. That’s why there are religious instruction program all over the country, but outside of all public schools.
Intelligent Design is the latest refuge of Creationists. I found it amusing that, in a documentary, a lay proponent of teaching Intelligent Design, when asked to describe it, described Darwinian Evolution. 😉
The term, intelligent design, may be new, but the idea has been around for a long time. The Chinese philosopher, Lin Yutang, believed in intelligent design. Intelligent design requires only occasional intervention in Darwinian evolution to make things come out “right”. Just like the occasional miracle in ordinary life.
The principal argument for intelligent design rests upon the idea of irreducible complexity. (I have not followed ID, so there may be other arguments I do not know of.) The idea is that there is a finely tuned adaptation such that, if you reduce its complexity by the smallest amount, it no longer comes close to doing what it has evolved to do, or perhaps anything at all. This is taken as proof of an evolutionary leap, one that would require outside (presumably intelligent) intervention. Since it relies upon exogenous intervention, it is either supernatural or depends upon intelligent aliens. This ambiguity allows its proponents to deny that it is a religious theory. But it is intended to have a religious interpretation. Some Intelligent Being (guess Who!) occasionally intervenes in an apparently miraculous fashion in evolution.
BTW, the irreducible complexity argument has a well known refutation, one that is needed to explain parasitism. The finely tuned adaptation evolved from a more complex adaptation, one that was less finely tuned. There is no inherent directionality to evolution, although it is bounded on the side of simplicity. Evolution from simple to complex is a statistical artifact.
I think one of Jesus’s central arguements with the religious athorities of his day was, that He felt that they were attempting to supplant Moses’s written law with their oral histories.
I cited Griswald vs Ct as an example of how justices use use former court’s inturpretations as guidence. This is how law gets further afield from its original precepts.
The constitution gives no guidence about how to teach kids in school. Those who shout separation of church and state really often mean too seperate any form of Christianity from the state. In 2010 the Menorah is cool for state display but the creche is not. The leading Rabbi of the Shas party, part of the ruling government in Israel recently said that Gentiles only porpose was to serve Jews, but for Christians to teach intellegent design is too heinous too consider?
Anyone that has read Dan Simmons’ Hyperion series knows that God is an interstellar, intertemporal, multi-state-space vector Network Engineer that communicates with humans, software agents, and the next generation of outer space adapted humans thru quantum coupling, which is God’s implementation of TCP/IP protocol.
So what’s incompatible?
kharris
i didn’t say your point was wrong. i said it was not quite correct. and i don’t mind being corrected. just trying to clean up the language a bit. we could use with a little less readiness to take offense, or imagine the other guy is taking offense.
cursed
constitutionial literalism won’t work any better than biblical literalism. if some judge misinterprets the constitution, by your lights, you go to work to elect someone who will appoint a judge more to your liking. not ideal… from anyone’s point of view. but best we got.
nor do i think jesus was demanding strict adherence to what Moses was said to have said. plenty of evidence that he was saying people had to find out what “love god” means on their own (“many will come in my name…”) this doesn’t mean “nothing is wrong” only that it’s not best policy to take someone else’s word for it. you gotta work it out for yourself. doesn’t hurt to listen to other people though, even the ones who claim to be experts.
sammy
i am disposed to agree with what i think is your real position. but don’t think that it depends on man’s superiority to animals. otherwise you get yourself in the position of thinking that god cares about you because you are superior to the next person.
Gizzard
and scientists do very well when they do science. not so well when they think their science has the “validity” of a religion.
nanute… no, they are both based on faith.
science is something you DO, not a set of beliefs about ultimate reality.
pjr
the constitution is silent on evolution.
Jack
any biology teacher that can’t mention INtelligent Design in the course of teaching evolution is probably not a very good teacher. you don’t have to worry that poor little children will have their minds irreparably damaged if they hear that there are people who question evolution.
Min
the refutation is not entirely satisfying… at least i don’t see any operational test.
i don’t have any quarrel with Darwin, or evolution, and no especial brief for Intelligetn Design, but i despair when i see people who think they are defending “science” and what they are defending is their religion which they call “science.”
Coberly.
People who are intrigued by Intelligent Design theory do not dispute evolution. It’s just that evolution does not satisfactorily explain to them why one species, man, has achieved such a dramatically unique position, out of the millions of species of animals (past and present) on earth.
Why are not there other species that even come close? After all it is the same environment.
So is it evolution or intervention? Reasonable people can argue both. There are many scientists that entertain and expound the theory. It is surprising to me that liberals are so adamant in opposition. Maybe it’s because they view intelligent design-ists as their ideological enemy? It doesn’t have to be.
I don’t think Jesus was a strict constructionalist. As I understand it he did not want man made law elavated to the status of God made law. My point exactly with the constitution. Thomas Jefferson has nothing whatsoever to do with the US consitution. Yet one night deep in his cups he scribbles something Kharris likes so he/she wants to give this scribble the same wieght as what is in the constitution. What a load of garbage. When the Pharisee redefined what neighbor meant so to fit there racist ideology, Jesus denounced them as mortals masqurading as Gods.
The constitution is silent on education. It is not however silent when it comes to consititutional silence. Ergo the tenth amendent leaves this to be determined by the states.
The constitution applied only to the federal government for the first hundred years of our existance. This meant that the Federal Government could make no laws establishing religion, but the states could and did.
And exactly how should the phrase, intelligent design, be inserted into a class lesson that is seeking to explain a scientific principle? Should it be presented as a revision of the concept of creationsism and taht it is the result of God’s work? The issue is not what any good teacher is capable of explaining. The issue is that religious concepts are private and personal precepts that are not to be supported by government institutions and are not to be prohibited by government actions. Those who want to discuss their religious beliefs are free to do so, but not within a context that requires others to have to participate in such discussions.
Consider the following from History (Religion in America) in 1840 Bishop Hughes of NY observed that the public schools were teaching protestant religion. He first asked for the students to be able to learn either Catholic or Protestant religion, but did not get it thru the NY legislature. So the next year he turned the issue on its head and got the NY legislature to ban any teaching of religion in the schools. It is interesting that the European option was rejected back then (schools run by various religions funded by the state) Note that at that time the 1st amendment did not apply to the states (pre 14th amendment) only to the federal government, but I don’t know what the state constitutions bill of rights said.
It all depends as I pointed out earlier on which postulates you use. If you use the uniformitarian postulate, i.e no supernatural intervention then you get evolution. Darwin observed processes and from them derived a theory. If you accept supernatural intervention, then all bets are off, anything goes because God can do anything he wishes.
If you look at it this way its much like having an arguement over how many lines parallel to a given line can pass thru a point. In this case there are 3 answers 0, 1 and many. Each leads to a self consistent geometry and each is equally logically valid.
Likewise if you assume no supernatural intervention you get to one system, and if you do you have a more faith based system as you derive ideas from the postulate of supernatural intervention.
“Evolution and Intelligent Design are not necessarily imcompatible. “
Only IF you are saying that evolution is the mechanism God chose to design life are they compatible.
But if thats the case you are essentially saying nothing useful to our understanding of life. Evolution is a MECHANISM by which a seemingly mindless process creates mindful organisms. You want to say there IS a mind behind it……… fine. Find it! I’ll continue to operate from the notion that there is no mind behind it, that the mechanisms which we already understand are quite capable of producing everything we see. The mechanisms have already proven to be quite capable of creating adaptive life. Organisms evolve before our eyes all the time. We even know the vector BY WHICH they evolve…… genetic material!! We are on the verge, with our human genome project, of an explosion in our capabilities regarding genetic engineering.
Read Francis Collins’ “Language of God” to get an idea of how “compatible” ID and evolution are.
“indispensible principle of our founding”
The list:
Creation is the way it happened, about 6000 years ago.
Gays are not equal to real men and woman who live up to “indispensible principle of our founding”.
Muslims are not equal to real men and woman who know the “indispensible principle of our founding”.
Okay I will get positive:
Know Nothings are the source of “indispensible principle of our founding”.
The source of intolerance and divisiveness are “indispensible principle of our founding”.
Defined by folks who want to argue the dots and crossed ‘t’s of the US constitution and whether it separated church and state so that bigotry and intolerance is an “indispensible principle of our founding”.
ah, cursed
that is your view. and no one on earth can tell you it’s wrong. but about 300 million people will have a different view, and the only way we have to resolve the argument is elections… or revolutions… and that of course does not end the argument but only changes the odds.
so if you wanna claim “the constitution says (or jesus says)” well, welcome to the club. but i am just saying don’t take yourself too seriously. heck, i think jesus said that.
Jack
“biologists have found the idea of evolution by natural selection useful in understanding the relations between organisms and how species change over time. Some people object that natural selection cannot explain what they call ‘irreducible complexity.” these people propose that species were created separately by an “intelligent designer,” by which they mean “god.” We can look at some evidence for irreducible complexity, and examine the arguments against it. This is as good a way as any to motivate our study of organisms.”
that’s more or less “exactly how.”
your concept of “scientific principle” is indistinguishable from “religious priniciple” the way you use it.
as long as the school does not pretend to offer ID as “the truth” and collect taxes to support it, it meets the constitutional separation of chuch and state.
it is sad that humans are apparently so constructed that you can’t teach science without turning it into religion.
sammy
we are on the same page on this. except that i don’t agree with you about the superiority of man ovre animals. you’d have to understand that from a martian point of view all earthlings look alike.
and “it’s all the same environment” suggests you don’t really understand natural selection, which kind of cripples your argument (but not perhaps your point) the same way science fundamentalism cripples the argument of the people who think they are “for science.”
Coberly
How can a guy who takes council with chickens take himself too seriously? My father tells me no more with the self effacing humor and buffoonery, yet online I am an insufferable twit.
You ready for another pup? The dam only bites chicks on bikes, whereas the sire witll bite anyone. 3/4 boxer 1/4 pit. 5 weeks old this Sunday. I have a van heading up the I-5 cooridoor next week. Mybee I’ll have a chance to talk to your nieghbor and give him a little love.
“…but i despair when i see people who think they are defending “science” and what they are defending is their religion which they call “science.”” COBERLY
That’s an oranges and apples analogy. Science makes the effort to be based upon observable and measured phenomenon. A “scientific method” is reasonably spelled out for the purpose of providing a structure within which participants (the people we call scientists) can do those measurements and observations and report them to one another. The quality of that work is reviewed repeatedly. Errors of fact and errors of assumptions are brought to light and often lead to corrections of those observations and the interpretations of the data collected as a result of those observations. Religious thought only reaches the level of philosophical argument. While those arguments and thoughts can be based upon currently observable phenomenon, religious concepts make an effort to link those phenomenon to unobservable antecedents. That’s where religion must revert to faith and goes beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
“People who are intrigued by Intelligent Design theory do not dispute evolution. It’s just that evolution does not satisfactorily explain to them why one species, man, has achieved such a dramatically unique position, out of the millions of species of animals (past and present) on earth. “
Well evolution isnt intended to explain to everyone, to THEIR satisfaction, anything at all. Plenty of people will never understand it or accept it. Thats fine. The TRUTH is every scientist doing any important work in genetics or biology is operating out of the evolutionary paradigm. It works, it is explanatory AND it allows them to make predictions about what they will see OR wont see. ID does none of that. The problem with ID is that when you bring an all knowing outside creator who can DO ANYTHING there is nothing to predict or understand. Its all at the capricious whim of some really smart really old guy.
DONT mistake me for some ardent atheist either. I think there IS an argument to be made that much of the universe appears to be operating according to an algorithm, a code of sorts. Where did the code come from? Theres plenty of mystery to the universe to keep all of us busy for a while. What we dont need are people who think the issue is settled and all we need to do is really understand some ancient writings, which will reveal the answers to all lifes mysteries if we just know how to read them.
The ironic thing is its the ID folks who are making the unsubstantiated broad claims like “Evolution cant explain irreducible complexity”. Oh really? We’re not DONE using evolutionary theory. Our understanding and tools for exploration grow by the month. Its not a static thing, Evolutionary theory and the work being done with it is an evolutionary process ITSELF.
Behe in his latest book (unless he’s done one in the last few months) even had to admit that the theory of common descent was “proven”. He now says we and apes did have a common ancestor, which is a huge admission form that camp. We were not uniquely created at some point but we BECAME from something LOWER. Its not evolutions job to explain WHY we inhabit the unique position in the biosphere that we do, it is only to explain HOW it cam to be. The process is one of slow steady genetic change which reacts to its environment in subtle yet profound ways. The key is a very plastic compound, DNA. All it takes is an information transmission system and LOTS of time.
Jack
i left this argument after reading Behe’s book and some responses by science-ists. It was the latter who hysterical, arguing “woulda, coulda, shoulda… one day we will explain the complexity.
maybe by now they have, but they sure sounded like fundamentalists then, and nothing i have heard here makes me think anyone here has more than a religious faith in something they call science.
i don’t mind that, but i think if you are gonna “believe in” science, you ought to know what you are doing.
“Free trade” is required teaching in MA.
Beverly Mann – “And schools themselves have no First Amendment rights of any kind—not free speech, or free exercise of religion, or any other.”
Can you cite one or more U.S. Supreme Court decisions by case name and number which support your broad statement?
I have reviewed U.S. Supreme Court decisions at Cornell Law and Find Law and have yet to find one that supports your contention that schools as institutions, board members, administrators, and teachers as institutional instructors have no First Amendment free speech rights. Moreover, you failed to distinguish between K-12 public and private schools, and public and private post K-12 schools (colleges and universities, technical schools, el at) in your sweeping statement.
Are you certain that you want to stick with that statement?
In a context of teaching comparative economic theory “free trade” is appropriate as one of several approaches to the structure of an economic system. Is free trade theory taught in MA as an exclusive economic theory? If so those students are being short changed, but they are not being subjected to the religious views, views having to do with a supreme being we refer to as god, of others. That is not the case with the teaching of religious concepts. They are not competing theories of life. They are ideas accepted on faith because they are not subject to objective observation and analysis. There is a huge difference. In addition the history of man includes some very tawdry behavior once religious concepts are introduced into public discourse.
If you want to continue to defend the religious zealots’ right to proselytize in public schools, you do so at the risk of your childrens’ own intellectual development. It is expressly stated that “government shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion.” Tell me another way to interpret that simple statement.
Rdan gets the point, I think.
Jack
another way to interpret that statement is that the government can’t tax you to support a church. extending that idea to forbidding christmas displays in public spaces, or gagging biology teachers who might think Behe a useful way to get the kids to start thinking… is the sort of stretch that courts always make to fit “the law” to “the times.” (and in general there is no way they can avoid such stretching, but there is always an issue about any particular stretch.)
your willingness to accept a “theory” about money but not to accept a theory about biology suggests to me that you have a deep dislike of “religion” which you are entitled to. but it clouds your thinking.
Behe at least was not demanding anything be accepted on faith (neither did Jesus). he showed some examples of complexity which would be hard for this simple person to account for in terms of evolution. i have no doubt that one day someone doing real science will be able to account for them… in terms of evolution. but protecting kids from hearing about it (as if) is hardly science.
and you will get mer wrong here if you think i am “defending religion.” i am defending science.
meanwhile “religious concepts” are always a huge part of public discourse. we are better when we know we are talking about religion that when we think we are talking about “truth.”
Jesus said judge a tree by its fruit. sounds like “objective observation and analysis” to me.