Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

One more reason to change the majority species of Congress.

Id like to insert a point for the ID crowd to consider . (thought of this while reading Stu Kauffmans "Search fro self organization" while plying theseas)
can you ID proponents make a prediction, using your hypothesis, that is testable? Yes you can. When we consider intermediate forms in the fossil record or in living species (teeth buds in bird embryos, the appendix in our species etc), the ID advocate must predict that such intermediate forms can

NEVER occur.. After all such intermediate forms (with diverse functionalities) would be evidence against irreducible complexity, and thus would demand a new designer at each step.
I read Paleys "Evidences..." during my summer (Amazon delivers to a po box), and I was amazed at how much of Paleys discourse has been swept awys with Mendelian genetics, paleo finds, Darwins writings and "self assembly mechanics".

I al;so got a copy of Morris Peckham's volume on the comparisons of the 6 editions of "The Origin..." and read Quammens "The Reluctant Mr Darwin" and "Intlligent Thought" (edited by John Brockman).

0 Replies

The most puzzling aspect of the House passing this:

Quote:

House members voted 244-173 in favor of H.R. 2679, called by supporters the "Public Expression of Religion Act." In cases involving the First Amendment's establishment clause, the proposal would prevent federal courts from requiring government entities to reimburse the legal costs of the individual or group that sued the government agency -- even though the agency was found in violation of the constitution.

If the plaintiff is told he is correct, that the government agency actually did violate his rights under the establishment clause, he is still denied reimbursement for the cost of protecting his constitutional right!

0 Replies

Whatchya got there is blatant election-season pandering to a special interest constituancy ... the bill's proponents are of 2 camps; those who are ignorant of the facts and those well enough possessed of the facts to understand they comfortably may play to a segment of their base without prospect of actually effecting legislation. The concept of denying remedy to a successful plaintiff in a single category runs smack into a constitutional brick wall.

0 Replies

Good to see FM back.

This is without doubt the political silly season. Bills of similar character are to be found in the legislation graveyard with birth and death dates closely corresponding to the campaign period for seats in the House and Senate. Flag-burning has long been a popular moribund equine to flog before the mid-terms, but as it now appears that the religious right have become disenchanted with the failure to impose a "values" agenda, desparately campaigning politicos are attempting to reach out to them with horseshit such as this. But politicians, are, of course, lovers of all mankind--note that they're attempting to appeal to veterans and supporters of the boy scouts, as well. I'm sure that reading the bill would reveal yet more constituencies they're attempting to woo with this shot-gun blast approach--but i don't intend to read it, for much the same reason that i don't intend to dine this evening on pork rinds and sugar daddies.

0 Replies

At some point wande it is necessary to draw a line to prevent frivolity. The House drew it and that is the sort of thing they are elected to do. On the Theory of Large Groups they "probably" did right in a democracy. Look to your candidates. Don't squeak "foul" afterwards. Get out campaigning at the election as I have done a few times.

Frivolity can easily be covered up by acting or having a pedantic bee in the bonnet. And so can pickpocketing.

It goes on here over libel cases. A book can be published and somebody can claim a character in it is themselves and sue for defamation. Publishers sometimes settle out of court and publication is held up or even cancelled. What are authors supposed to do about that? Write about characters that can't possibly exist. It's litigation fever and judges are a bit sympathetic because it is coin in the legal profession's coffers and judges are in that profession and are friends with those still in it at lower levels.

The House is simply being realistic.

0 Replies

Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York in yesterday's H.R. 2679 debate:

Quote:

This bill is aimed at people who have proved in court that the government has violated their religious liberty protected by the first amendment. By denying them their normal relief for monetary damages and the bill to petition for attorneys' fees, we will deny them not just their day in court, we would also be telling government officials everywhere that Congress thinks it is okay for them to violate people's religious liberty with impunity.

It is especially galling after everyone here, well, almost everyone, has taken a victory lap for reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, in which we actually enhanced the attorneys' fees provisions by adding a right to be awarded the cost of expert witnesses in addition to the right to be awarded the cost of lawyers.

0 Replies

wande-

How has it been reported? Is it front page up top or at bottom or inside up top or at bottom?

Still no comment on my La Mettrie post I see. It's beginning to look like a crowd pretending the Emperor is wearing clothes when he isn't. How very pretty. I didn't think it was so embarrassing. There's much worse to come.

I heard a radio discussion yesterday on BBC Radio 4 about Darwin. One of the participants was James Moore who sounded a bit American.

I jotted a few things he said.

1-Origin was used to justify the British Imperial mission and the class structure.

2-Darwin was totally opposed to women controlling their fertility.

3-Origin provided comfort for eugenicists, Nazis and free markets.

He also used the word "unsettling" to describe the American public's reaction to evolution theory. He said ordinary people were unable to grasp the 3 billion years time frame or the principles of the theory and particularly sexual selection. He said some might pretend to grasp it for "various reasons". He conveyed a general uneasiness in the public which it cannot articulate and which I will bet on winning when push comes to shove. You're only playing at it yet.

He was asked could anything falsify the theory. He replied that nothing could unless an organism could be shown to have evolved purely for the benefit of another species which he thought impossible.

He made one point which isn't easy to get across but it was alluded to in the La Mettrie post.

It was that progress relying on evolution rather than on the use of our already evolved intelligence was a hopeless prospect.

And he gave me an impression that, like all genuine IDers, the "golden age" is in the future and not in the past.

A participant in the discussion referred to the book Mr Moore wrote with Adrian Desmond as the "definitive" book on Darwin.

I have read it twice and refer to it often.

There wasn't the slightest inkling in the discussion of a vested interest or an already set-in-stone mindset and the chairman is a well known homosexual.

0 Replies

Quote:

House Action to Limit First Amendment Protections "Hostile to Religious Freedom"
(ADL Press Release, September 27, 2006)

Calling the measure "hostile to religious freedom," the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today criticized approval by the House of Representatives of H.R. 2679, legislation that would make it more difficult and more costly to enforce the First Amendment's prohibition against government sponsorship of religion.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

This legislation is unnecessary and unwise. The measure is hostile to religious freedom because it selectively and unfairly limits challenges to enforce the First Amendment's prohibition against government sponsorship of religion.

The House leadership is wrong to tout this bill as part of its "House Republican American Values Agenda." Hostility to religious freedom has never been an American value. To the contrary, the right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, along with other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The House leadership is wrong to tout this bill as part of its "House Republican American Values Agenda." Hostility to religious freedom has never been an American value. To the contrary, the right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, along with other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

ADL has strongly opposed legislation that would deny federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to constitutional interpretation. This legislation is comparable - and equally objectionable. By limiting the remedies for a successful plaintiff, this measure would remove an essential legal tool that exists to help ensure government compliance with the Establishment Clause. It would effectively insulate serious constitutional violations from judicial review.

Beyond the church-state implications, we are concerned about the dangerous precedent of content-based restrictions on efforts to vindicate civil rights and civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. If the right to attorney's fees is taken away from plaintiffs who prove violations of the Establishment Clause, other fundamental rights may well be targeted in the future.

Religious expression is not threatened by the enforcement of the Establishment Clause - it is protected by it. But the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment are not self-executing. Congress has no business making it more difficult and more costly for average citizens to challenge violations of religious freedom. The Senate should reject this disturbing legislation.

0 Replies

Is Mr Foxman a member of the legal profession. I have heard that it is a gravy train and all you need to get on board is to be able to say "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir and may I kiss your arse sir?

0 Replies

are you quoting bob dylan again, spendi?

0 Replies

No.

Why no answers to my posts wande?

Is Mr Foxman trained into the legal profession? That's pretty easy.

Is the House Bill story top news or not? That's pretty easy too.

Is Mr Moore an American?

What did he mean by "unsettling". I assumed he meant a felt repulsion to anti-ID rather than one that could be explained similar to the felt repulsion some ladies feel towards scuttling black spiders with big furry legs.

I hope you anti-IDers are not taking advantage of the inarticulate folks out there whose children's future we are discussing rather than what the self-selecting ADL happens to think it can stir the **** with this week. As if we didn't know.

Don't you know that education is about what we don't know. Fancy a bunch of anti-IDers who never want to hear about anything they don't already know telling everybody how to run a system which is geared to telling people what they don't already know. That's ironical.

I would write that one down wande in case you know a kid who has to give an example of an ironic situation for homework. The kid would be top with one as good as that.

Fifty years of that and blokes will be chanting Baa-Baa Black Sheep as they shovel **** or pilot your jet-plane to the next big meeting.

You could fancy it up a bit in your spare time. Like putting a couple of adjectives before "anti-IDers", sticking an "ever" between "want" and "to", changing " anything" to "**** all", place the sub-clause "which isn't much" after the third "know" and scrub the full stop and insert a comma and add "which isn't much either". Then you can put the full stop in.

0 Replies

Did anybody find that as good as I did writing it.

0 Replies

Well, I didn't mind the different ways you used "fancy" in a sentence.

Razz

0 Replies

spendi,

The House bill is not a top story. The bill first needs to be passed by the Senate before it becomes law. The Senate may not deal with the bill until several months from now.

You probably could add any silly wording to that bill at this time. As timber pointed out, yesterday's action by the congressmen is a gimmick to get votes from certain constituents in the upcoming election.

0 Replies

wandeljw's source wrote:

House Action to Limit First Amendment Protections "Hostile to Religious Freedom"

One thing the religious rightwingnuts are quick to lie about is the religious character of "the founders." They attempt to suggest that "the founders" were religious men who meant for religion to have a part in government. This ignores many things in history--that all these men were aware of and profoundly influenced by the quick fragmentation of sects in the Protestant reformation; that all of these men were aware of and influenced by the sectarian controversies which arose in the course of the English civil wars (1640-1650), during which time the Parliament, lead by Puritans, had leaned heavily on "dissenters," but had, in the clinch, rejected the "Declaration of the People," an early example of a written constitution with guarantees of civil and religious liberty. They ignore the influence of the evangelical movement in the colonies in the early 18th century known as the Great Awakening, during which the established churchs of Massachusetts and Connecticutt had suppressed the intinerant preachers using the power of the state.

The desire for a statement, embodied in the opening clause of the First Amendment, which would guarantee no establishment of religion, and freedom to practice religion, was one of the controversies at the time of the ratification of the constitution. Those who favored ratification of the constitution promised that a bill of rights would be the first business of the new legislature, and indeed it was. The amendment we know of as the First Amendment was the third amendment proposed and sent to the States--but it was the first amendment to be ratified.

Jefferson coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in his now famous letter to the Baptist congregation of Danbury, Connecticutt. Connecticutt had had an established Congregational Church before the revolution, and in writing to the President in 1802, the correspondents complained that they were tolerated as though by a gift of the state, rather than of right. Jefferson replied that freedom of conscience was foundational to the government and the expression of individual liberty, and referred to the "wall" erected between church and state.

What religious fanatics of the right don't want to consider, and don't want brought into the debate about religion in public life is that any form of particularism impinges on the religious liberties of those who do not adhere to the particularist point of view advanced by those religious fanatics. They are fond of saying that the United States is "a christian nation." Such an attitude excludes Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Animists and all other non-christian sects, as well as those who wish to be free from religion. But more importantly, they fail to acknowledge that they do not even speak for all christians. When the joker in Alabama erected a monument to the ten commandments in the building which houses the Alabama Surpreme Court, that judge and his supporters were apparently unaware that even among christians, there is no one single version of the ten commandments, and that their particularism was offensive to those who do not adhere to their version of christianity.

This is election year grandstanding, of that i have no doubt. This legislation will not pass constitutional muster with the courts, and of that i have no doubt. It is germane to the issue of science education in the nation's schools, as well--in the decision in 1968 in Epperson versus Arkansas, Mr. Justice Fortas wrote:

Quote:

There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma.

In the 1987 Edwards versus Aguillard decision, Mr. Justice Brennan wrote:

Quote:

[The Louisiana Creationism Act] . . . is designed either to promote the theory of creation science which embodies a particular religious tenet by requiring that creation science be taught whenever evolution is taught or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects by forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught. The Establishment Clause, however, "forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma." Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.

The Federal Courts in general, and the Supremes in particular, have always stressed the pernicious character of the introduction of sectarian particularism into public life. The religious right is fighting in the last ditch, and if any credit is due, it would be their dogged determination to fight to the last man or woman.

0 Replies

wande- ref "gimmick".

Isn't everything they say a gimmick to gather in the voter's happy smiling faces. Why pick this particular one.

You might have said that it is a gimmick but you ought to mention that it is one of a seemingly infinite number of such things with which we are assailed and which have brought us to this fine mess you have have gone and got us into Stanley.

Oh yes. It's the ID thread. Getting that lot on topic is like getting a greasy bear down the cellar steps into the darkness with a buzz-saw getting warmed up.

They prefer the firework display.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

The religious right is fighting in the last ditch, and if any credit is due, it would be their dogged determination to fight to the last man or woman.

We are nowhere near the last ditch. We are still in your territory. Last ditch??? Sheesh as they shay.

0 Replies

Thanks for the historical perspective, Setanta.

In yesterday's debate, a congressman speaking for the bill tried to make the point that Jefferson was in France at the time the first amendment was written and therefore it is a mistake to invoke Jefferson in defending the establishment clause!

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

Jefferson coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state"

How do you know that they were not the fine words to avoid saying "we're not making the mistake that bunch of clowns we've run off from have.

A bit like not allowing the ball to bounce in the bat/ball game and allowing the forward pass in the ball handling game. And not even having a no hands ball game. A foot stamp. From a bolter.

I think it's a bit far fetched to think he thought that was best in the nation's long term interest with any great confidence. It was a bit flying by the seat of your pants considering where they came from to say the least unless he was a seer into the future. And they didn't even have electricity and that's in our blood.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Thanks for the historical perspective, Setanta.

In yesterday's debate, a congressman speaking for the bill tried to make the point that Jefferson was in France at the time the first amendment was written and therefore it is a mistake to invoke Jefferson in defending the establishment clause!

However:

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow
of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, Stephen S. Nelson

To which Jefferson replied:

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

****************************************

The point of neither the Danbury Baptists nor of Jefferson was to eliminate religion, but to assure that it remained a private matter of all citizens, who were free to associate for relgious reasons without let or hindrance, nor in any fear of having government impose orthodoxy on them.

This is not a fluke of history, not a dusty letter buried in the past which has been dredged up by those who would battle a legitimate religious component in our history. It was well known at the time, and many Presidents subsequently acknowledged that same separation of church and state:

Refusing to declare a national day of fasting and praryer, Andrew Jackson (7th President, 1829-1837), wrote:

"I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this county in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government."

Commenting upon criticism of his appointments, James Polk (11th President, 1845-49) wrote:

"Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between Church and State, and that in my action as President of the United States I recognized no distinction of creeds in my appointments to office."

Commenting in general, Millard Fillmore (13th President, 1850-53, succeeded upon the death of Zachary Taylor) wrote:

"If any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion in politics should not be mingled."

Commenting upon issues of taxation, and the support of pubic and parochial schools, James Garfield (20th President, 1881--assassinated and succeeded by Chester Arthur) wrote:

"Next in importance to freedom and justice is popular education, without which neither justice nor freedom can be permanently maintained. Its interests are intrusted to the States and the voluntary action of the people. Whatever help the nation can justly afford should be generously given to aid the States in supporting common schools; but it would be unjust to our people and dangerous to our institutions to apply any portion of the revenues of the nation or of the States to the support of sectarian schools. The separation of Church and State in everything relating to taxation should be absolute."

Commenting on public and parochial school funding, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (26th President, 1901-1909) wrote:

"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."

**********************************************

There are many more quotes of American Presidents which i could post here--but these should suffice to demonstrate that there has been such a tradition in our nation's history, and that Jefferson's statement was but the first in a long line. As recently as President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), well-known as a devoutly religious man, this is made evident:

"When a group of Christians try to implant through government our beliefs on others as superior, that subverts the basic constitutional prohibition concerning separation of church and state. And when we try to use the federal government to intercede in religious affairs, it inherently weakens the unique character of Christ's Kingdom."

**********************************************

The separation of church and state is a long and continuous tradition in our polity, and has often been expressed by our chief executives in terms which refer specifically to the objection to sectarian particularism.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know