You hang in there, Bridget. Change will come to Texas, and when it does, the ground will move.
The ground moves in CA all the time. In fact, we had a nice little shaker just a few weeks ago. What’s the big deal about that? 
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The Constitution forbids the government from endorsing religion. Libertarians support the Establishment Clause. They do not believe that citizens have a “right” to force the State to take religious sides. The Libertarian view would be that parents have a right to teach their kids anything they want in private or home schools, but that the government has to stay out of it.
[/QUOTE]
But not because of the Establishment Clause. That’s just old scribbles. People have the rights they do because they are born with them, not because some magistrate or congress has bestowed rights upon them.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You get upset because you don’t really understand the difference between peer-reviewed scholarship and faith-based apologia. I seldom present anything but the mainstream scholarly view. That means I avoid more radical stuff like Jesus Mythicism too, but you just get bent out of shape when I tell you something as uncontroversial as the fact that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.
[/QUOTE]
I’m neither upset nor bent. Your problem is that you pick which peers you consider to be qualified and discard the rest. As irony would have it, the ones you choose always agree with you. You have never cited an opposing view. Not ever. Never. Period. I mean, except for the purpose of ridiculing or categorically denying it.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
But not because of the Establishment Clause. That’s just old scribbles. People have the rights they do because they are born with them, not because some magistrate or congress has bestowed rights upon them.
[/QUOTE]
Not really (although I agree with that last clause). People have “rights” because they have agreed they want to have those rights. There is no objective way to determine what is a “right” and what is not. No one is born with any “rights” unless society agrees they are.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I’m neither upset nor bent. Your problem is that you pick which peers you consider to be qualified and discard the rest. As irony would have it, the ones you choose always agree with you. You have never cited an opposing view. Not ever. Never. Period. I mean, except for the purpose of ridiculing or categorically denying it.
[/QUOTE]
I cite scholars who are actually credentialed, who are published in peer reviewed journals and who are respected within the field. Most of the scholars I cite are Christians. Having said that, I tend to form my opinions based on the evidence, not on the word of authorities and my views are about as mainstream as it gets in NT scholarship. I also try to show my work in discussions of Biblical Criticism. I don’t just present the scholarly consensus, I explain why it’s the consensus.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Not really (although I agree with that last clause). People have “rights” because they have agreed they want to have those rights. There is no objective way to determine what is a “right” and what is not. No one is born with any “rights” unless society agrees they are.
[/QUOTE]
I was expressing my view as a classical liberal (libertarian), since that was the subject of his proclamation.
[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
I could find nothing about Medved’s “Libertarian” objections to teaching science in science class. Perhaps you’ve got a link?
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps I don’t. If you re-read my post, you will see that what I said was:
[QUOTE=Me]
I haven’t heard him talk about intelligent design, but I’m kind of surprised that he would advocate it. Is it more that he’s advocating the right to teach it in local school districts? That would probably be consistent with his liberatarian views.
[/QUOTE]
As I already said once, I was guessing based on what I know of his views. If my guess was wrong, it’s wrong.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
You hang in there, Bridget. Change will come to Texas, and when it does, the ground will move.
[/QUOTE]
I also just renewed my subscription to The Texas Observer. “Sharp reporting and commentary from the strangest state in the union!”
The Observer was founded in 1954. Fighting ignorance even longer than the SDMB! (Molly Ivins was one of the editors.)
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I cite scholars who are actually credentialed, who are published in peer reviewed journals and who are respected within the field. Most of the scholars I cite are Christians. Having said that, I tend to form my opinions based on the evidence, not on the word of authorities and my views are about as mainstream as it gets in NT scholarship. I also try to show my work in discussions of Biblical Criticism. I don’t just present the scholarly consensus, I explain why it’s the consensus.
[/QUOTE]
But your explanations are themselves tainted with your bias. I mean a Creationist can explain why the Grand Canyon formed during the deluge, but that lends no credence to his prejudice. Dio, there are dissenting opinions in every discipline, including New Testament scholarship, which you refuse even to acknowledge. And “mainstream” means nothing. Keynes is still mainstream — okay, maybe not so much anymore — in economics, but his theories have been revised in the hopes that they might start working. I have cited archeologists before who write for peer reviewed journals, who are scholars, but whom you have dismissed summarily with jabs at their credentials that mean nothing. You say you cite Christians, but you have complained about my sources before precisely because they were Christian. So again, and as I’ve said many times, if you want some credibility, you’re going to have to stop acting like you can say no wrong. Until then, one has to take what you say with a grain of salt.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
But your explanations are themselves tainted with your bias. I mean a Creationist can explain why the Grand Canyon formed during the deluge, but that lends no credence to his prejudice. Dio, there are dissenting opinions in every discipline, including New Testament scholarship, which you refuse even to acknowledge.
[/quote]
Actually, the kind of things I talk about really don’t have significant dissenting opinions, just like there is isn’t any scientific dissent about evolution. If you want to cie an example of a serious, scholarly opinion that you think I’ve given short shrift to I’d be willing to examine it.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Actually, the kind of things I talk about really don’t have significant dissenting opinions, just like there is isn’t any scientific dissent about evolution.
[/quote]
Gah. See? That’s simply not correct. I mean, unless you’re taking it all the way up to the highest meta-level. No serious scientist denies that evolution takes place, but there is plenty of controversy and research about the particulars, including everything from abiogenesis to theories that augment natural selection.
It’ll come, I’m sure. Be patient. 
I do like you, Dio. Always have. Still will despite this. But I’d like it to get back to the times when I held you in high esteem as a debater per se.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I’m not talking about what Darwin said or didn’t say. I’m talking about the use various people have put to his theories (and others) over the years to try to deny God, or prove a certain race backward enough to warrant extermination, or show that mankind itself can evolve in various directions if certain people could push the process along.
[/quote]
Don’t forget Social Darwinism – a meme that appears still to play a role in our political and social life though it is rarely named.
To points:
(1) With respect to Dio’s claim that someone who believes that all non-believers will go to hell is inherently anti-semitic, you can certianly define anti-semitism in a way that makes that true, but it’s kind of like defining rape in a way that includes sex between two drunk adults… it cheapens the term.
Jew #1: “Man, I’ve had some bad experiences with anti-semitism… I’ve had swastikas spray painted on my house, people have called me kike, people have refused to let me into their homes and their social organizations…”
Jew #2: “Yeah, me too. See, my next door neighbor, he’s super nice and friendly and we drink beer and watch sports together and he coaches my son’s little league team… sure he made a few hints that he’d like to convert me once, but he dropped it. Except that one time I really quizzed him about his theology, and he admitted that he believes I will end up in hell, and it really bothers him because he likes me a lot. Damn anti-semite!”
(2) With respect to the question of God interfering directly with the universe, that is still not something that science can really address. Here are two hypotheses:
“The universe is based on a set of laws that explain all interactions between everything. They include quantum mechanics, relativity, etc… we do not yet fully understand them, but believe that they are sufficient to explain all phenomena”
and
“The universe is based on a set of laws that explain all interactions between everything. They include quantum mechanics, relativity, etc… we do not yet fully understand them, but believe that they are sufficient to explain all phenomena. Oh, and a few thousand years ago, God used to do any damn thing he wanted, and when he was exercising His Divine Will, all bets were off. Aside from that, though, it’s all rules”.
How could any experiment ever disprove the second one? The only argument against it is Occam’s Razor.