Much as it pains me to admit this, the "Inky" is being a Liberal in the noblest sense of the word, open to all ideas and beliefs even (gasp) to Judeo-Christian doctrine.
Now I better put on my hard hat to make sure the sky isn't falling.
When it comes to first causes, science = naturalism by definition. Science is defined in such a way as to automatically exclude intelligent design when speculating on the origin of the universe and life. The religion of naturalism requires probably more faith than any other religion out there.
That is why Athiests make such good converts to Christianity....they are already capable of great faith.
Sometimes even the ACLU (gag) is right.
I see that even when taking a stance liberals dislike their liberal strategy of selective truth still holds:
"When the Nobel Prize in medicine was recently awarded to the scientists who proved that ulcers were caused by bacteria, it was duly noted that they faced enormous opposition from the scientific and medical establishment, which was convinced otherwise. Today, a number of scientific groups have enshrined neo-Darwinism as a "proven" theory, but it would be a sad day (and, again, tragic irony) if the ACLU succeeds in getting a court to rule that anything other than the current orthodoxy doesn't qualify as science.
More than 400 scientists have signed a statement declaring that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," and that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
1) Nice of them to mention the Nobel Prize, considering that virtually all of the winners consider evolution valid and none has ever even expressed a hint of belief that ID is valid.
2) "A number of scientific groups" means the most prestigious scientific organizations in America.
3) 400 scientists sounds like a lot until you find out that very few of them are actually biologists and none of them are biologists who are particularly noteworthy for their achievements. Also, that one could easily 100 times as many scientists who consider evolution valid - that list says, essentially, there are about 400 scientists in the United States who consider ID valid.
Way to stay liberal in methods Inquirer!
Government schools are unconstitutional on both the state and federal levels.They violate the 1st and 13th Amendments. Using the topic of evolution, I will explain why.
Evolution is only one example of many government school topics that have religious,cultural, and political consequences. These consequences are not neutral.
The government school has only three choices. No matter which it chooses the political, cultural, and religious or nonreligious world-view of some of the students will be undermined or supported ( established) by the government.
1) The government school can teach only evolution. If it does this then the religious values and closely held religious traditions of some will be undermined while the traditions of the nonreligious will be established and supported by the government.
2) The government schools can teach only I.D. with the same consequences except entirely in reverse. In this case the religious world-view will be established and supported by the government and the nonreligious undermined.
3) The government school can teach both. In this case the religious or nonreligious values of both can be offended or those of only the nonreligious student.
Therefore,,,,,Government schools violate the First Amendment because they WILL establish the religious world-view of some and trample that of others. Evolution is only one among many such curriculum issues.
Then there are the freedom of speech, press, and free expression, and free assembly issues regarding the government schools.
Those students who do not have an alternative are required by law to be in their assigned government school. While in his compulsory school the student can not escape the other students of the school even if he were to "opt-out" of evolution or intelligent design. The other students have been fully indoctrinated in one, or the other, or both theories and will influence the religious or nonreligious belief system of the student.
If the student attends the evolution or intelligent design class, the student's right to speak freely is violated because the student can not disrupt the class with his free speech. If the student is suffiencently obstanant and defiant, armed police will be called. We know that even 5 year olds have been handcuffed and hauled off to jail.
But,,,,let's say the student does manage to speak freely. If he speaks freely he may be violating the First Amendment establishment clause because his speech may be the cause of indoctrinating another captive student whose religious worldview differs from his.
Do you see? The government school had three problems.
One is with the establishment of a religious or non-religious belief system. There are hundreds of curriculum and policy issues that will never have neutral consequences.
The second is that government schools inherently violate the free speech, free press, free expression of religion, and free assembly of those students who are compelled by law to be there.
The third is compulsion. The government schools compel student attendance. If the student is sufficiently resistant, the government school can and does use armed police force. This is essentially incarceration of a citizen who has committed no crime. This is a violation of the 13th Amendment.
Government schools are unconstitutional on both the state and federal levels.They violate the 1st and 13th Amendments. Using the topic of evolution, I will explain why.
Evolution is only one example of many government school topics that have religious,cultural, and political consequences. These consequences are not neutral.
The government school has only three choices. No matter which it chooses the political, cultural, and religious or nonreligious world-view of some of the students will be undermined or supported ( established) by the government.
1) The government school can teach only evolution. If it does this then the religious values and closely held religious traditions of some will be undermined while the traditions of the nonreligious will be established and supported by the government.
2) The government schools can teach only I.D. with the same consequences except entirely in reverse. In this case the religious world-view will be established and supported by the government and the nonreligious undermined.
3) The government school can teach both. In this case the religious or nonreligious values of both can be offended or those of only the nonreligious student.
Therefore,,,,,Government schools violate the First Amendment because they WILL establish the religious world-view of some and trample that of others. Evolution is only one among many such curriculum issues.
Then there are the freedom of speech, press, and free expression, and free assembly issues regarding the government schools.
Those students who do not have an alternative are required by law to be in their assigned government school. While in his compulsory school the student can not escape the other students of the school even if he were to "opt-out" of evolution or intelligent design. The other students have been fully indoctrinated in one, or the other, or both theories and will influence the religious or nonreligious belief system of the student.
If the student attends the evolution or intelligent design class, the student's right to speak freely is violated because the student can not disrupt the class with his free speech. If the student is suffiencently obstanant and defiant, armed police will be called. We know that even 5 year olds have been handcuffed and hauled off to jail.
But,,,,let's say the student does manage to speak freely. If he speaks freely he may be violating the First Amendment establishment clause because his speech may be the cause of indoctrinating another captive student whose religious worldview differs from his.
Do you see? The government school had three problems.
One is with the establishment of a religious or non-religious belief system. There are hundreds of curriculum and policy issues that will never have neutral consequences.
The second is that government schools inherently violate the free speech, free press, free expression of religion, and free assembly of those students who are compelled by law to be there.
The third is compulsion. The government schools compel student attendance. If the student is sufficiently resistant, the government school can and does use armed police force. This is essentially incarceration of a citizen who has committed no crime. This is a violation of the 13th Amendment.
The hoax is circling the drain. As it becomes less of a risk, more scientists with "degree credentials"
will become whistleblowers. Gould knew the toe was at risk. That's why he concocted the ridiculous p.e. "explanation" for the utter lack of transitional fossils...
If certain religionists want to change the definition of science to include the supernatural, they at least need to be honest about it. Let's just relax the standards to make phrenology a pure science as well. Why learn biology when you can learn ID, Phrenology, palm reading all under the guise of a scientific education?