Given our longstanding history of mutual respect, going all the way back to the great prayer experiment of 2000, I would appreciate your reading my posts for what they actually say. I haven’t advocating teaching ID as science, and I have in fact drawn out the difference between science and religion in quite some detail.
It is those old men’s jobs to interpret already existing amendments and that’s all they did. Cry about it all you want but the law of the land is that the establishment clause applies to states. Aren’t you glad that it does? Wouldn’t it suck if your state could tell you what God to worship or use your tax money to establish a church?
That’s not a problem. If Mr. Layperson believes that micro evolution can’t happen we’re well within our rights to beat them over the head with fruit flies. Even if we haven’t actually taken fruit flies and tested it.
It’s quite silly to claim that we need to run each experiment before we can accept it as working and can proceed with the beating of the heads of laypeople. Or, to rephrase, that we need to become experts before we can tell other people what the experts say.
I can understand why someone might question the validity of a particular scientific postulate (especially if they don’t understand it), but IDers go beyond that, and repeat the question even after it has been well answered.
Example:
IDer: Not one example has ever been found that proves X!
Scientist: Here are 10 good examples with references and peer-reviewed articles in reputable publications. Here are 5 books on the subject. More examples are being found every day that prove X and support the X theory very well.
IDer: Not one example has ever been found that proves X!
I have no problem with your telling people what the experts say. Just don’t represent it as either some kind of proof or some kind of knowledge on your part. It is neither.
So, to further clarify, do you believe ID is a religious belief, since you agree it isn’t science? Please keep in mind that the promoters of ID insist that it IS a science, and not at all religious.
Would it be accurate to restate your position to say that states may teach certain religious concepts, because of state’s rights?
Yes. I believe that ID is a religious belief and not science. But who defines in the end what “science” is? Me? You? The ID people? The ACLU?
I believe that the Supreme Court has been wrong in most of its recent “Establishment Clause” ideas. As long as a state doesn’t establish an official religion, nor prohibit any person from exercising it as he chooses, then other things are fine. Post the ten commandments, have prayer in school, etc. at the will and pleasure of the local school board/parents.
ID falls in this line of thought. If a state wants to teach it, (and if I was on the school board, I would vote against it) then that’s fine with me.
Does it matter that ID is being packaged as a science, and not accurately labeled as a religious belief? Does it matter that it would be taught in a science class alongside biology and evolution and physics, as opposed to being part of a sociology or “comparative religion” course?
Is the issue of deception at all relevant?
Since you don’t believe in the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution and defined by the Supreme Court, why should anyone listen to your interpretations of what is legal and illegal, since you seem to base those interpretations on…what…your imagination?
Back to the original OP, we can hope that some parents in the district have the gumption to call the ACLU and sue. The “ID is science” concept was thoroughly destroyed in the Dover, PA case – which was, by the way, judged by a Republican Bush appointee – and all that evidence is now available to destroy it again in another suit.
I would suggest that the Polk school board be encouraged to sit down and watch the Nova episode about the Dover case, before they go out and waste tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on a fruitless exercise.
This question was answered n the Dover trial. The answer was very simple. The people who get to determine what is or is not science science are…wait for it…scientists.
Teaching ID is establishing a religion.
The Ten Commandments represent a very specific endorsement of some very specific religious views. More than that (and WORSE than that) they actually prohibit other views. The government does not have a right to tell me I can’t worship graven images or other gods. As for prayer in school, w already have it. Anyone can already pray in school anytime they feel like it. The only thing that’s illegal is for the government to get involved in it.
You’re obviously not very educated or informed about the legal issues, but just out of curiosity, what do you think would actually be “taught” about ID? Do you believe that the government has a right to lie to students and tell them it’s science or tell that evolution has “gaps” or tell them that any such thing as “irreducible complexity” has ever been found in biology? Would agree that whatever gets taught has to be truthful? If that’s the case, then what do you imagine can be taught about ID?
Foolridia should first teach toilet training.
This is not correct in most cases. Often who decides is the local school boards, and if enough people are upset with that decision, it goes to the courts, where judges or juries make the call. Scientists may be called on for expert testimony, but they are not the deciders.
But we all know who CLAIMS to be “The Decider”. Let’s not go there…
That’s really a circular answer. What is a scientist? A person who studies science. What is science? Back to square one.
I don’t know how you could say that. What church is being built? What church is being granted official status? When I was in high school, the principal prayed before football games in violation of a court order. What religion was established there? What is it called? How do I become a member?
The Ten Commandments generally represent common morality as we all agree (no killing, stealing, lying, etc.) and have a few religious elements that you may object to. Simply posting the commandments or teaching about them, does not equate to the government forcing you to abide by the religious aspects of them.
Anyone can pray in school when they feel like it? What about a teacher in front of her class? Just because she takes a job in the school system, she gives her right to practice religion in school?
What about a Christian parent who doesn’t believe in evolution? Should their children be forced to learn, against the parents’ wishes, that life happen by pure chance and that it did not involve a higher power?
I understand the legal issues very well. And I also disagree with the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause very much, just as I’m sure you disagree with SCOTUS opinions. It doesn’t make you or me ignorant of legal issues.
The bottom line is unless I am a parent in Polk County, Florida (I’m not) then I don’t care what the local school board approves for its cirriculum. Governments don’t have rights, they have powers.
You call ID a “lie”, others may believe it is true. That is why we have school boards, and parents who elect these school board members.
Seriously? It’s ok if a local school district teaches the students that the earth is flat, or that a girl that has sex is going to hell, or that masturbation causes blindness?
It is no one else’s business if a school board makes up a curriculum out of thin air?
What if one parent complains? What if 10% of parents complain? What if 51% of parents complain?
I think you are reducing the argument to hypotheticals. If there were a real issue of local boards teaching that the earth is flat, or some such nonsense, then there would be a real debate.
But let’s take an issue that has no religious connotations. Let’s say that the Polk County schools want to teach that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Declaration of Independence, okay?
Under what authority would the federal government, not the state, with has plenary powers, but the federal government step in and disallow that. Please tell me the section in the constitution that would grant the feds that power…
I think the resolution to this and even the ID debate was played out in Dover, PA. Look how the citizenry threw out the board members who proposed it.
I agree with your basic point that a school should NOT teach something that is false, but the idea that a school perhaps MIGHT teach something false is not a justification for a federal remedy…
It is not a “perhaps MIGHT”, it’s a very real and absolute “is”. ID is not science, and those who advance it have nothing on their agenda but the advancement of their religious dogma. The fact that you have ignored all the evidence presented so far under the false guise of states rights tells me exactly what your agenda is.
Why is it, whenever someone starts in on “States Rights”, 9 times out of ten the topic at hand is some sort of ignorant bullshit? Now, I’ve got nothing against states rights per se, but why the hell is it constantly used as an excuse for shit like this?
IMHO, of course.
Why isn’t it knowledge? Am I wrong to say that I know that Mars has mountains? I think any ordinary definition of knowledge includes those true beliefs which you hold on the basis of reliable testimony. If you aren’t using an ordinary definition, you should know that the people you’re complaining about probably are.
What I am getting out of this is that it wouldn’t be “ok” for a school district to teach totally made up shit, but still there is nothing anyone outside the school district can do about it. Even inside the school district, the only remedy for parents of students affected by this would be to vote out the people who instituted the bad policies.
Do you accept that people INSIDE the school district have a right to sue it on the grounds that their constitutional rights, or their childrens’, are being abused? That is indeed how the Dover case started, and would in all probability be the case if this Polk program is actually implemented.
I wasn’t speaking hypothetically. In tghe Dover trial it as actually decided that scientists are the legal arbiters of what constitutes “science.” Scientists are defined as credentialed academics in recognized scientific fields. More soecifically, scientists are those who practice scientific method. Scientific method has well established, objective, tangible definitions. Opinion does not play into it. I get the inpression that you have very little understanding of what science is. Your posts in general have a childish brio to them. You think you know what you’re talking about but you don’t.
Once again, you demonstrate you ignorance of the law. An Establishment violation does not requte a literal establishment of a specific church. The 1st Amendment prevents the government from taking any stance at all on what religious views are or not true. Quite simply, the state has no right to say that God exists or doesn’t exist or how many of them there are. Since we know for an absolute fact that ID is nothing but Biblical Creationism in disguise, attempts to teach it as fact are attempts to teach religious mythology as fact. That ID violates the Establishment Clause has already been decided and that’s the end of it. You’re wrong both philosophically and legally.
How should I know what denomination your moron, criminal principal belonged to? His violation was that he was an agent of the government taking a position on religious truth.
As see you’re as unfamiliar with Bible as you are with science and the law. The first four commandments are purely religious (Don’t worship other gods, don’t worhip idols, don’t take God’s name in vain, observe the sabbath). The state is Constutionally forbidden from endorsing any of that. Period. The first Commandment, in particular is clear endorsement of the Abrahamic deity. The government does not have a right to tell me what god to worship or to tell me I can’t worship graven images or to tell me I have to give a fuck about someone else’ sabbath or to tell me I can’t say “goddamn it” if I goddamn, Jesus fuck feel like it.
The government is forbidden from taking any position on the truth of any of that shit or from giving it special treatment.
Yep.
The teacher can pray but cannot lead a class in it.
When she takes that job, she becomes an agent of the government. The government is forbidden from interfering in the free practice of religion. A teacher leading a class in prayer is a government agent interfering with the free practice of religion. The funny thing is that people like you would stroke the fuck out if a teacher wanted to lead an Islamic or a pagan prayer.
What about them? They are certainly welcome to suck my balls?
Evolutionary theory makes neither of those claims. It does not address the origin of life and it has nothing at all to say about the existence of God. Having said that, evolution is fact, not opinion, and parents have no right to prevent public schools from teaching fact or tryng to fiorce the government to lie.
The bottom line is unless I am a parent in Polk County, Florida (I’m not) then I don’t care what the local school board approves for its cirriculum. Governments don’t have rights, they have powers.
[/quote]
That’s correct. And one of the rights the goivernment does NOT have is any right to endorse religious opinion as fact. I don’t think you really grasp the fcat that the school board is a government institution, not a private one.
It’s unquestionably a lie that IID is science. It’s also unquestionably a lie that evolutionary theory has weaknesses or gaps. It’s also unquestionably a lie that any such thing as “irreducible complexity” has ever been found in biology. Those aren’t opinions, those are facts.
School boards are government institutions. They don’t have a right to teach religion as science or to lie to children about known facts. Once they are elected, they are bound by the Constitution, just like any other government institution.