Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by 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.
From a quick read it looks pretty shady to me.
Especially interesting is SCOTUS' refusal to incorporate the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th.
In any case... it doesn't alter the 1st, it just applies the free exercise clause to the states, the same as it does the feds.
No one's had the balls to take a 2nd Amend case to the SCOTUS, as the court's been political. MOLON LABE applies anyway, no matter what they think.
The 5th and 6th's been there. In particular I remember legal representation is required at trial. States used to try and convict people w/o representation until the early '60s. the test case regarded a FL prosecution.
"In any case... it doesn't alter the 1st, it just applies the free exercise clause to the states, the same as it does the feds."
It applies the no establishment clause also and extends it to all jurisdictions, including school districts.
So you see, science have theories and is flexible to emerging discoveries and calculations.
Philosophy(like creationism/ID) are unchanging. I call them Feelosophy. You gotta "feel" it.
It most certainly does. It's desire and the attempt by some is to teach it in the schools. Teaching and requiring folks to learn it is in fact establishing. Furthermore, the attempt here is to defraud the students that the religiously motivated claims are actually science. They are not.
"There is no constitutional prohibition concerning endorsement, acceptance or promotion of religion."
There is when it comes to govm't action.
voted - I suspect that some fair minded Freeper evolutionists might think freedom to choose is worth voting for?
This poll is obviously being freeped, and JR probably knows it.
The unregistered voters have very few undecided and pass entries (6.5%), compared to over 11% for registered freepers. Why is that? Does anyone think that non-freepers are naturally more decisive than freepers?
People are showing up just to vote in the poll. And you can see that their votes in favor putting creationism in science class (over 63%) are much higher than the 57.6% of registered freepers making that choice.
The voting shows a majority who favor putting religion -- or should I diplomatically say creation "science" and ID "theory" -- in science class even without freeping the poll. But it's not as big a majority.
I cannot accept some of you premises:
"Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science]"
This is not only the reason that Evolutionists will lose, but also why the Democrat party CONTINUES to lose.
"Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation."
Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.
If you dismiss faith, then you have to dismiss actual occurences in human life that can ONLY BE EXPLAINED as a direct result of a person's faith. The entirety of Herbrews chapter 11, for example. The testimonies of fellow Freepers could provide another example.
As a bottom line, I really don't care if Crevo or ID are taught side by side. My two boys will walk into the classroom everyday knowing how the earth got here.
They've been taught that since birth........ :)
Mmmm? I think somebody took something out of context. Next time that somebody out to check back ONE MORE POST to see what I was responding to.
I see now why you didn't get the point of my comment ~ you forgot to evolve your mind when you got on this thread.
Well, Patrick Henry, when the GOP gets ID taught as science, the biotech companies will simply lobby congress from more H1B visas and more employment based permanent immigration for scientists because there simply won't be any home grown sceintists anymore. I'm already putting up with a couple of creationist-chemists and they have the worst experimental designs I've ever seen. They need someone to structure their work in order to get meaningful results. That's what happens when ID and creationism are on real scientist's brain! The rest of their work really is compromised.
That's a BBKing phrase from "Lucille".
Roger Penrose (among others) recognizes that evolution is a theory, and a very good one, indeed. He thinks it's a more solid theory than the big bang theory (go figure).
And yet it is chilling to me to think that "social scientists" take their cues from Darwinism. But they do. If social pathologies result -- as inevitably they seem to do -- then that should tell you something about the suitability of the neoDarwinist framework for informing social policy. Don't forget, both Marxism and fascism take their view of man from neoDarwinist principles.
Thanks for writing, RightWhale!
Yes, they do. It is the most basic kind of error, missing the category.
AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
I think you're right about this being a free speech vs. censorship issue, tomzz. But how do you keep a high school biology classroom from being turned into a battleground? The issue has become so politicized (surprise, surprise), that reason goes right out the window.
All I know is that, in the long run at least, scientific truth comes out: You cannot stop it as long there are minds given to the free investigation of natural phenomena. And the history of science tells us that new scientific advances are built out of the achievements of the past, typically in a way that does not falsify the past achievements, but extends and refines them as our ability to observe the world grows with advances in technology.
Personally I doubt evolutionary theory has much to fear from the disciplines of ID, and perhaps has much to gain from them. For instance, the mathematical physicist Hubert Yockey, who's evidently a great admirer of Charles Darwin, taking a page from physics, wants to place the theory on a more rigorous, mathematical basis. I don't know why anyone would object to that.
Maybe this is some kind of turf war between the life scientists on the one side, and the physicists and mathematicians on the other, with the former regarding the latter as illegitimately poaching on their territory? The late, great Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr, for instance, suggested that perhaps biology should be an independent discipline from the rest of science, to be regarded as sovereign in its own way as physics is in its. But to me this wouldn't be a very good idea, for without doubt living systems have a material basis in physics and chemistry, notwithstanding they are more than what that material basis can describe....
Well FWIW. Thanks for writing, tomzz!
Teach biology, not religion.
Now there, that was easy, wasn't it?
Go thou and re-read your history. Marx's main works predated Darwin and Marx's most consistent practitioner had "Darwinists" dismissed from teaching and some executed. Fascism is a derivative, sort of Spaghetti Marxism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.