The application of the Establishment Clause to state governments wasn’t done by the Warren Court; it was done back in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.
Well, as long as we’re building strawmen, I don’t think state or local governments should be able have all dissenters from the Established Church of Polk County burned at the stake, or for that matter send all critics of the county government to the re-education camps.
Where the fuck do you get that? Are you honestly saying that the State of Florida has the right to establish a state religion, outlaw the practice of any other religion, and outlaw even the discussion of any other religion?
Are you saying the the authors never intended the constitution to apply to the states? What else doesn’t apply? Article 1 section 8? Does your brain dead interpretation of the tenth amendment mean that Gov. Crist can declare war on Cuba unilaterally?
Christ, jtgain, arguing that the Constitution doesn’t apply to the states has got to be one of the stupidest viewpoints I’ve ever read on this board. May you be stranded in the stacks of a law library and have to consume your own feet for sustenance before being rescued. You’ve already put your foot in your mouth a couple of times in this thread, you might as well do it again.
What textbook would they use? Are there any science texts that even begin to entertain the concept of ID? Chick tracts maybe…
Since we’re discussing Florida, I have to say that that was just so… Dave Barry. Well done.
Probably something like Of Pandas and People. Read the Wikipedia link. It’s pretty interesting what this book espouses and how it tries its damndest to disprove evolution without every actually coming out and saying it directly. It’s the text most frequently used in these things, most recently in Dover, Pennsylvania as detailed in the link that stuffy posted.
As an aside, I can think of a way how intelligent design could be taught in a science class, but it sure as hell isn’t what the people of Dover or Polk County were wanting. Years ago, in my biology class we had to learn the history of evolutionary theory as well as the nuts and bolts. This not only included the work of Gregor Mendel and the like, but also the dead ends of spontaneous generation and the Lamarkian hypothesis. Both concepts were held as valid by a large portion of people at one time. I think ID could possibly be taught in a similar fashion. Something like “though Darwinian theory and it’s offshoots are overwhelming accepted by the scientific community, there are those who disagree on religious grounds. Creationism and “intelligent design” both posit that a theological entity is the driving force behind species change. As the existence of God falls outside the scope of the Scientific Method (see chapter # pg #) this viewpoint has the advantage of neither being able to be proved nor disproved.”
To be fair here, the Bill of Rights originally did NOT apply to the states; they were only limitations on the federal government. Over time, the courts have ruled that, thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, almost all of the Bill of Rights applies to state governments as well as the federal government.
Which I say is a damned good thing, not some evil liberal plot by “the Warren Court”. I don’t want some podunk state or local government infringing on my rights as an American citizen any more than I do the jack-booted federales.
That’s true, but the irony is that tdn’s beloved tenth amendment is located…
Jtgain, Constitutional issues aside, I’m sure you’ll agree that ID is not science and that is therefore foolish to tell children that it is. Are we agreed on that?
Also, could you please explain what evolution has to do with either atheism or liberalism? Thank you.
I am bemused by the suggestion that those responsible would think this a negative.
You know we’re talking about religious fundamentalists here, right? I find it strange that you are surprised that they can swallow a gnat, given that you must know that they regularly swallow camels.
I think that one approach cIDists tend to use is to try to persuade their audience that there are “holes” or “problems with” evolutionary theory. These alleged flaws in the ToE are completely phony, of course, but generally they depend on their audience not being educated enough to tell bullshit from fact. If they want to move their dog and pony shows into classrooms, they might be forced to drop the patent falsehoods and demonstrable lies (as well as the overt preaching) which leaves them with nothing but Irreducible Complexity, something which has never actually been found in nature and is really nothing but the teleological argument in disguise. The entire “theory” of ID essentially boils down to the tautological and meaningless statement that if we can find something that could not have evolved naturally (i.e. something that is “irreducibly complex”), then it couldn’t have evolved naturally. True enough, but utterly vacuous in light of the fact that no such thing has ever been found. There’s certainly nothing scientific about it. I really don’t know what kind of curriculum they have in mind except for their usual whining and lying.
That, of course, should be jtgain not tdn, who is a different poster entirely. I have no idea how I mixed that up.
Apologies, tdn
I think the preferred term is “gaps”. For some reason they like to use that word. Get with the program here, Dio, or we’re going to have to send you to a re-education camp! 
Ooooh - I’m your worst nightmare because I’m a liberal atheist. :eek:
Just to clarify things for you:
ID is religion, not science.
Science involves looking at the evidence, constructing theories, testing them and making predictions. If new evidence emerges, you change your theory and move on.
Religion is where you believe something passionately, despite there being no evidence. You never change your mind about your faith.
If something good happens to you, then it was because of to God. If something bad happens to you, it was the Devil (or God is testing you).
More and more people seem to be talking about science in exactly those terms. In a recent thread, someone questioned an astronomical finding, and someone else responded that if it was good enough for the university scientists, then it was good enough for him.
FYI, this made me laugh out loud. We do get the smotings down here, that’s the truth. Why does God hate Florida???
In what other way is a layperson supposed to interpret scientific theories? I’m no evolutionary biologist, I don’t understand half the evidence, nor do I particularly wish to, but I believe in evolution, precisely because experts in the field told me that it is correct.
When this orthodoxy starts affecting how other experts interpret data, then there’s a problem.
We need to round up the pirate bretheren, and educate the Polk County School board in the truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
I agree 100%. And I also agree with the above poster that ID isn’t science.
But in a free society, it is dangerous for nine old men in black robes to simply declare something (the BOR applies to the states) instead of using the amendment process in the constitution.
He isn’t. Why would he? He isn’t qualified to interpret them.
Then you’re taking your science on faith. It isn’t a bad thing to do; it is, in fact, the *only * thing you can do. The only problem with it is when you or I, as lay people, beat other lay people over the head with shit we haven’t tested for ourselves.
I don’t mean to trivialize scientific consensus. It’s as important a part of the philosophy of science as anything else is. But it’s important to remember that the scientific method is about disproof, not proof. There have been many examples of scientific consensus being controversial or unreliable, from continental drift to punctuated equilibria to string theory. And that’s not to mention the influence of politics, ethics, bias, and a host of other things that humans do.
I’m not saying that science isn’t for the layperson; I’m just saying to keep your wits about you and have some perspective. Watch out for buzzwords like “proof” (proof only happens in analytic systems, like logic). Watch out for political expediency (better to be published and have tenure than languish in obscurity). But most of all, watch out for claims about “truth” (when a scientist won’t change his mind). Science has no more to do with truth than religion has to do with gravity.
Ah, the legendary ‘more and more people’!
More and more people are being abducted by aliens.
More and more people are being born.
More and more people are falling for the Nigerian Scam trick.
Come along, Liberal, surely you accept the difference between science and religion.
ID is simply not science and should not be taught as such.