A landmark federal trial that began Monday in Pennsylvania could help resolve a central question in the Kansas evolution wars — is intelligent design “theory” primarily scientific or religious in intent?
Eight families have filed suit against the Dover, Pa., school board for violating separation of church and state by requiring biology teachers to mention ID. Here’s one bit of evidence: At a meeting last year to discuss the changes, the Dover board chairman reportedly said, “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?”
Does that sound like a scientific or religious intent?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
- situveux1 on Too many exemptions
- Pleefer on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Health care reform would save state money
44 Comments
Of course it’s about religion! Always has been. What gets to me is that you people have so little faith in the power of your religious message that you want government aid in supporting it! Hey, Jesus got it done with only 12 apostles, but you need laws passed to enforce his word? Doesn’t speak too well for your efforts.
ID is the backdoor approach to include religous instruction in schools.There are those in favor and those against.
Those against have the better case by upholding the contitutional directive of separation of church and state.
That’s not going to make the religous bunch too happy, but it will satify the law.
If they’re not happy with that, then they need to try to change the constitution.
Fat chance.
BTW, ID will quickly become “intelligent purpose,” which is really what they after, once they get their foot into the schools.
The problem there is the same old monkey: They’re not smart enough to figure that out and never have been.
Ed, wasn’t it you who called these people the American Taliban?I really liked that comparison.
The American Taliban should consider the fact that if they teach this stuff in school we won’t need churches.
I’d like to take credit for that, Tracy, but alas, and sadly, it was not me.
The “right to life” Bunch: “Save the petre dish, but kill the soldier” { That’s mine }.
Anyone ever hear of the “Wedge” document put out by the Discovery Institute? It was leaked by a former employee and lays out the plan to “wedge” creationism into the school curriculum as the first step in a general scheme to give fundamentalism a stepping stone in American life.
Dr. Freud was adamant about those driven by religion: To Dr. Jung: There is no doubt now that the root cause of religious obsession is to be found in the Oedipus Complex.
Translation: They’re nuts.
Jed..For once, I agree with you.. see, miracles do happen! God doesn’t need any help with his message, and legislating any kind of religion is NOT in the best interest of Christians. Christianity is about loving people and being Christlike. It is a relationship more than a religion. The so called “separation of church and state” was placed in the Constitution to protect everyone’s right to worship as they choose. Once “religion” becomes legislated.. whatever it is, is not Christianity. God doesn’t work that way!
Of course they are trying to get Christianity back in the schools. That is what the Bible requires of them and there is no constitutional ban on that. They are just not allowed to establish one. I used to think there were zealots on both sides. It seems, from reading this thread that all Liberals Democrats are anti Christian. Could this be true? All the Democrats I know claim to be Christian.Either way it ain’t gonna happen as long as the dumb sh–s in this country think there is a ’separation of church and state’ in the constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Is that plain enough??????
EDYou are correct. Nothing about a xmas program or Easter eggs, etc.Hell, Ed, you could add some Christianity instruction and it wouldn’t ‘establish a religion’.And it is not a left vs. right issue. I still believe there are a few Christian democrats out there. Just not on this blog.
Kansassam, Great post!
Joe,I’m not antichristian, I’m just not christian, and I resent the efforts of a small pecentage of christians to try to make me lie and say I really am! I know members of many faiths, and the fundies are the only ones who give me grief about my nonsupport of their religious and political agenda. Therefore I fight them. I’m happy to let be anyone who offers me the same consideration, but mess with me, and I’ll give back in spades. Got it?
Ditto, Kansassam, great post!
The agenda of the religious right just becomes more and more evident.
Yesterday, many of us posted about the recent speech by Kansas school board member Abrams. He had asserted in a speech that you were either for creation or against it. Today we have this example from Pennsylvania.
Ya know? I’m an atheist. But sometimes, I think I understand religion bettter than some religious people.
“Thou shalt not bare false witness”
Now just about everybody has already figured out that the agenda here is not about science or education. It’s about indoctrination. So I say let these folks quit with the semantics like “intelligent design” “moment of quiet reflection”. Let them say what they honesly mean. They want their personal observations on faith taught through offices of government. Now I suspect that most of these folks are of a similar vein of faith. But I speculate that if they ever get their way, there will be much infighting as to just who writes the curriculum. After all, when you can presume to speak for “God” the temptation is pretty powerful to regard your own PERSONAL take on things as a divine assignment.
The worst people I’ve ever met said they were Christians.
And yet the message they miss is that there’s no price to high for adherence to decency.
I like that about decency. It rides so easy. And it feels good to keep it in mind.
Freud was loaded on coke most of the time, so I’ll place anything he says right alongside the Kate Moss chronicles.I’ve met some great christian people, and also some really bad christian people: That’s a moot point. Good Jews/bad Jews, good Mexicans/bad Mexicans, good blacks/bad blacks…it’s a piontless argument.Religion deserves no place in public school…period. It belongs in private schools. Parents want their kids to get a religious education? Put them in parochial or private schools. Or teach them their beliefs in the home.Part of the problem with parents wanting religious doctrine taught in public schools is that people rely on the government for everything now. People are too lazy and/or too cheap to do what they should be doing, ie, send their kids to private schools.My tax dolars should not be going to some public school to teach ID, it should be used for teaching the three “Rs”.
Opened up a can of worms, didn’t you Randy.
JM..When you complain about how your taxes are used in public schools, just remember that MY taxes are also paying for YOUR kids to go to public school. How much do you think your taxes would go up if those of us whose kids DO go to private schools didn’t still have to subsidize the public schools? I’m not saying that we shouldn’t pay school taxes, but you should understand that private school is a VERY expensive option, and it’s worth every penny! Unfortunately, not everyone who is “religious” can afford that option.
Walker
Freud died in 1939. Did you two snort together?
Joe
What you’re saying is true. But religion per se’ belongs in chuch, not in schools.
Like oil and water, they don’t mix well.
But Christmas trees and Ester bunnies are fun, not religion.
Walker
You’re a piece of work.
Freud wrote 34 volumes. 16 linear feet. And you’ve read them all to the point you’re able to discount all of that work? Do the world a favor…..fart.
Evangelicals have their hooks in the White House now. They want more. There’s trying to make their radical ideas law. Bad news.
Here is a good example of when religion rules. They’re firing this artillery piece into refugee camps. Fine bunch of people. And they wonder why to world hates their guts.
http://www.haaretz.com/
What a fine bunch of bigots we have posting today. So filled with hate and vitriole it makes one wonder what values they really have.
If evolution were science then woulnd’t there be empiracal evidence rather than supposition used as “fact”.
Ed,”Do the world a favor…..fart.” I did…you were the result. Say hi to your daddy.Ed, Freud and I snorted all the time…O. you mean THAT kind of snort….for shame.Freud was a coke head. Fact. Whether it affected his writing or not is something time will decide, not I. That was sarcasm on my part, get used to it.The part about religion and public schools wasn’t. Get used to that also.
Walker
We’re on the same side on that issue, dummy. You’re having those “elder-moments” again. Have-a Coke. Stay happy.
You must be happy in your work.
Still think she was your mother?
Ed Freeman
I’m sure you “wonder” a lot.
Science evolves and does not state fact, dummy.
Religion {organized} tries to make fact out of fiction.
{ If you walk on the water, you scare the fish }
***USATODAY.com Breaking News***WASHINGTON – A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, an indictment that could force him to step down as House majority leader.For more on this story, go to http://www.usatoday.com.
Ed Friedmann,You are so full of hate. Why are you so mad?
The only thing your blogs are a success in is showing how out of touch you really are and your state of mental instability.
edfreeman
So why are you so worried?
The truth about “your deal” comes through to you as hate because it is your hatred of the truth.
I turn-over rocks and you come crawling-out.
Ever think about just not living there?
Just like all the other radical leftists. Just how do you define truth or is it that you define truth to fit your situation?
You really do need medical help.
Ed,Freud was not just a cokehead, he was THE cokehead. Before he got started with psycology, he pioneered to use of cocaine as an anesthetic in eye surgery, something it’s still used for. He started using it at that time, and continued to use daily for the rest of his life. Whether Freud or cocaine is the father of psycoanalytic thought is still pretty much up for debate. Do understand though, that psycoanaysis is for all practical purposes dead, having been superceded by other theories. That doesn’t diminish the impact of his methods, just his conclusions. His cocaine addiction raises many questions though, about the value/harm of drug use that need to be answered, and soon!
Ed, You’re in an argument with yourself, and you’re losing!
Ed,You have forgotton what the word “fun” means. I know we are on the same side on this, and other issues. Injecting some humor into a blog lightens things up, so, lighten up, bro!
Having not been in a church for years I am still in awe that all the leftist/democrats on this Blog appear to be athiests.
Joe,Atheist? No. Agnostic, maybe. I just know that if there is a god, he/she/it can be nothing like what religions describe, for the universe to be like it is. I don’t spend much time worrying about it though; I’d rather do what I can here and now.Leftist? Hardly. Radical Centrist. Left-wing turkeys don’t fly any better than the right-wing ones- takes both wings to keep from going in circles. I’ve just been forced to move a little to the left lately, to counterbalance the extreme right that’s currently in power.
Here’s my problem with ID thinking:How is it that this intelligent being was clever enough to create the world as we know it, but apparently not clever enough to indoctrinate evolution into the mix in order to keep the ball rolling? If evolution is rejected, the creationist doesn’t appear to be so clever, eh?
Nola,I, for one have no problem with evolution as you describe.. it happens continually. You just can’t convince me that “nothing” exploded and became “everything”; and men evolved from pond scum. The problem I have is with one species evolving into another.. I just don’t see the proof!
sam,Exactly.
KsSam,Actually, in the recent formulations of superstring theory, There may be an alternative to the “Big Bang.” Sort of a Cosmic Clap. It’s really pretty elegant.And don’t knock pond scum- without it, you wouldn’t have anything to breathe!The problem most people have with cross-species evolution is that they look at cats and elm trees and see the differences. You need to look deeper into the chemistry of genetics to see the similarities.
Jed…The problem is that we look at the same evidence, but draw different conclusions. I look at genetic codes and think “If things came about by random chance, then these could have extreme differences”. Similarites in genetic makeup point me to an intelligent, organized, efficient designer!LOL.. I don’t knock pond scum.. I just don’t claim it as a relative :)
KsSam,If it were just random chance, I agree. But when randomness is combined with survival of the fittest, you get a whole new animal! Ramdom chance drives change, while survival limits it to what works, and it becomes a mechanism for great organization and beautiful equasions.