Free Republic Poll on Evolution

Free Republic ^ | 22 September 2006 | Vanity

[PatrickHenry]

Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:

Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?

You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.

I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.

Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)

If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.

[loboinok]

The first Amend. forbids forcing religion though the public school system.

I can't seem to find the constitutional amendment that grants authority over the "public school system," to the federal government.

I couldn't find anything in the first amendment mentioning "public school system," let alone forbidding religion.

[spunkets]

"I can't seem to find the constitutional amendment that grants authority over the "public school system," to the federal government."

The 14th does that. It was put into place, because the States were violating the rights of their citizens. The 1st Amend has been incorporated, so that's no longer an issue.

" I couldn't find anything in the first amendment mentioning "public school system," let alone forbidding religion."

The public school system is a legal jurisdiction under the State Constitution and the US Constitution. The first Amend forbids establishment of religion and it protects freedom of expression. Freedom of expression doesn't apply to govm't entities, because that's expressly forbidden. From the 1st Amend, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," That includes coercion by any school dist to learn it.

[Revolutionary]

Evolution doesn't even rate as a theory. The scientific problem is that they have nothing to fill the hole if they disavow evolution. Scientists always want another theory to replace the previous theory. Otherwise they will stubbornly cling to a failed notion for decades.

Intelligent design is still in its infancy as a potential replacement. If were pursued as rabidly as evolution, they would be able to fill it out. It also is fighting a political war at the same time. This makes it doubly tough.

Terra-forming might be a way around the problem. By funding the science of Terra-forming, the picture would become clearer at each step. By making the scientific community the intelligent designers, you get around the political problem. If they figure out what I have so far, they will marvel at the combination of elegant simplicity and complexity in the same design. They would see where they could let the process run and the points at which they would have to intervene to move to the next level. They would see many of the same collection of methodologies repeated over and over in different situations. Eventually this would lead to a new "theory" or theories of how things work (more likely the later).

[balrog666]

Are you retarded or is this your standard level of (in)competence?

[loboinok]

I'll check out the 14th and get back to you.

The first Amend forbids(the government) establishment of religion and it protects freedom of expression. - From the 1st Amend, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," That includes coercion by any school dist to learn it.

The 1st, prohibits the government from "establishing" a state church or religion, like England did with the "Church of England". It also prevents the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion by the citizens.

[spunkets]

"The 1st, prohibits the government from "establishing" a state church or religion, like England did with the "Church of England"."

From the 1st Amend, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," That includes coercion by any school dist to learn it. It is any particular creed, concept, or doctrine, or any general reference to any of them.

" It also prevents the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion by the citizens."

Free exersise does not include using the coercive powers of govm't to spread, or promote it.

[loboinok]

Free exersise does not include using the coercive powers of govm't to spread, or promote it.

Our disconnect is in your believing the mythical "separation of church and state".

The Founding Fathers spread, promoted and encouraged religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Why would they propose prohibiting the government from promoting and encouraging religion, and then publicly and frequently, violate that prohibition?

I suggest we take this to FReepmail to keep this thread on subject.

[spunkets]

" Our disconnect is in your believing the mythical "separation of church and state". "

No. It amounts to your failure to note that the 14th Amend. and supreme Court rulings extended the 1st Amend of the Bill of Rights to all jurisdictions below Congress. That was done, because those jurisdictions were violating the rights of their citizens. The coercive powers of govm't are not to be used to spresd, or promote religion.

" The Founding Fathers spread, promoted and encouraged religion in general and Christianity in particular."

Not by the coercive power of Congress. In fact, they forbid the practice.

"Why would they propose prohibiting the government from promoting and encouraging religion, and then publicly and frequently, violate that prohibition? "

They did not violate the prohibition.

" I suggest we take this to FReepmail to keep this thread on subject."

This thread and these posts are on topic.

[csense]

What does one's soul have to do with it?

If you read back an additional post, you would have realize that "it" refers to a wager, the consequences of which were insufficient in my opinion, hence....

Accepting reality is not a sin.

Nor did I say it was. Next time though, you might want to be specific here, since your statement, as is, and absent additional dialogue, is the quintessential Pandora's box

[smartymarty]

The question is not whether creation 'should' be taught, but textbooks should definitely be free of lies and false evidence of macro evolution.

[metmom]

Perhaps it would have been better to ask if the creation account should be taught as an alternative explanation of how life arose on the earth, even if it's taught in science classes along with the ToE. It would be interesting to see the poll results for that wording, as I know several others have expressed the same difficulties in voting as you did.

[metmom]

The First Amendment also speaks very clearly about stifling the practice of religion. Many people never get past what they consider the *establishment clause*. There's an awful lot of *preventing the free exercise thereof*, going on.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[spunkets]

"There's an awful lot of *preventing the free exercise thereof*, going on."

As long as no one attempts to use the coercive powers of govm't to spread and promote it, they can exercise it all they want.

[metmom]

But people are using the coercive powers of the government to prevent the free exercise thereof.

Witness the ACLU using the power of the judiciary to force on an unwilling constituency the wishes of the minority who, since they can't get their way by any other means, bring lawsuits to force public schools to do THEIR bidding. It doesn't appear to matter to some that the majority of taxpayers who are supporting the schools with their coerced taxes to educate their own children, object to it, and are forced to acquiesce to the demands of the few.

That's not OK either.

[loboinok]

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv).

I didn't find anything in the 14th that altered the 1st in any way.

The coercive powers of govm't are not to be used to spresd, or promote religion.

Not by the coercive power of Congress. In fact, they forbid the practice.

The United States Capitol regularly served as a church building. According to the congressional records for late November of 1800, Congress spent the first few weeks organizing the Capitol rooms, committees, locations, etc. Then, on December 4, 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building.

The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson’s approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President. Philadelphia, September 10th, 1782.

_______________________________________ Honble James Duane, Esq. Chairman, and the other Honble Gentlemen of the Committee of Congress on Mr. Aitken's Memorial."

Whereupon, RESOLVED, THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.
CHA. THOMSON, Sec'ry.
___________________

And on December 23, 1803, Jefferson's administration negotiated - and the Senate ratified - a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that stated “the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars for the support of a priest” to minister to the Indians (i.e., federal funds for Christian evangelism!)

Following his inauguration, Washington signed his first major federal bill - the Northwest Ordinance, drafted concurrently with the creation of the First Amendment. That act stipulated that for a territory to become a State, the “schools and the means of education” in that territory must encourage the “religion, morality, and knowledge” that was “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.” Conforming to this requirement, numerous subsequent State constitutions included that clause, and it still appears in State constitutions today. Furthermore, that law is listed in the current federal code, along with the Constitution, the Declaration, and the Articles of Confederation, as one of America’s four “organic” or foundational laws.

These are a few examples of many. Our country, history, government and government actions/buildings, memorials and laws, are chock full of religion(Christianity).

[CobaltBlue]

I agree with the good doctor's definition, "freeping" an online poll means voting early and often.

Thus, the validity of online polls is always iffy.

I've participated in quite a few freeping sessions, myself, and learned how from the pros, but never freeped a Free Republic poll, no idea how that would be received by the management but I doubt favorably.

[spunkets]

"But people are using the coercive powers of the government to prevent the free exercise thereof.
Witness the ACLU using the power of the judiciary to force on an unwilling constituency the wishes of the minority who, since they can't get their way by any other means, bring lawsuits to force public schools to do THEIR bidding.

No, not at all. The matter before the courts regarded religious concepts and religiously motivated nonscientific claims being taught as science, in the science class. It's not up for a vote. The number of people that think either way doesn't count, the 1st Amend does. Furthermore, those on the school board that instigated the program were ousted in the next election. That knocks the majority justification down, even though it never mattered in the first place.

[spunkets]

" I didn't find anything in the 14th that altered the 1st in any way. "

Look harder. The keyword ot use is incorporation.

[Dimensio]

Evolution doesn't even rate as a theory.

Please explain why you believe that the theory of evolution is not actually a theory.

The scientific problem is that they have nothing to fill the hole if they disavow evolution. Scientists always want another theory to replace the previous theory.

The scientific response to a disproven theory where no alternative explanation exists is to consider the answer "unknown".

Otherwise they will stubbornly cling to a failed notion for decades.

Please demonstrate that the theory of evolution is a "failed notion".

Intelligent design is still in its infancy as a potential replacement.

If by "infancy" you mean that there exists no evidence in favor of it, then this is correct.

If were pursued as rabidly as evolution, they would be able to fill it out.

Then it is unfortunate that advocates for "intelligent design" do no actual research to 'pursue' their claims.

It also is fighting a political war at the same time. This makes it doubly tough.

This is the fault of those who promote it for choosing to treat science as though it were a political battle rather than actually doing research to support their claims of "intelligent design".

Terra-forming might be a way around the problem. By funding the science of Terra-forming, the picture would become clearer at each step

I fail to see how terraforming would affect the study of the theory of evolution or the claims of intelligent design.

By making the scientific community the intelligent designers, you get around the political problem

I fail to see how this relates to the current subject.

If they figure out what I have so far, they will marvel at the combination of elegant simplicity and complexity in the same design. They would see where they could let the process run and the points at which they would have to intervene to move to the next level. They would see many of the same collection of methodologies repeated over and over in different situations. Eventually this would lead to a new "theory" or theories of how things work (more likely the later).

It appears that you believe that others will find this claim compelling, but you have offered no explanation. Please state your claims more clearly.