Skip to comments.State science standards in election spotlight (ID/Creation Kansans need to vote!)
Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
With five seats on the State Board of Education up for grabs this year, education advocates say how children learn about evolution hangs in the balance -- and who voters choose could affect Kansas' national reputation.
A frequent flip-flop between moderate and conservative majorities on the 10-member board has resulted in the state changing its science standards four times in the past eight years.
Conservatives have pushed for standards casting doubt on evolution, and moderates have said intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom.
In 2007, a new 6-4 moderate majority removed standards that called evolution into question.
This year, none of the three moderates whose seats are up for election are running again. Only one of the two conservative incumbents is running for re-election...
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
And at least as many times, it’s been explained and re-explained to you that:
godless liberals no more have exclusive rights to science than they have to set the tone or format of discussion in FR forums!
besides, you’ve not once demonstrated your intent has anything whatsoever to do with science, not to mention you continually display so very little working knowledge of religion, science, etc.
not to mention the capability to set aside your deep-seated bias, condescension and projection problems.
If a scientist that happens to be Christian proposes ANYTHING it’s rejected out of hand and labeled, “but that’s not science.”
So far NONE of these observable facts have slowed you down.
unexplained, purposeless, random, orderless, matter from non-matter, natural, unintelligent...
and then think of alternatives...
and work from there.
==ACLU? I guess ad homonym is what passes for reasoned debate in the benighted backwaters you frequent (where dinosaurs walked with man, and Science is just a big conspiracy).
ACLU as ad homonym? I thought you would wear the name of the evos favorite battering ram with honor. I also find it interesting that you accuse me of ad homonym and then immediately live up to the characterization yourself. Is this your idea of adapting to your environment? If so, is it by chance or design?
==I happened to be reading James Madison.... maybe you just consider him an ACLU liberal as well.... after all his reading (and writing)of the 1st Amendment is exactly as I understand it to be meant.
I find it interesting that you rely on James Madison to defend your interpretation of the First Amendment. He wanted a constitution that centralized power in a national government, was opposed to the principle of federalism, and was totally opposed to the Bill of Rights. He only complied with calls for a Bill of Rights because the states would not agree to the Constitution without one. Learn some history.
All the best—GGG
==How is the reading of the First in any way a departure from Madison’s intent.
I know History. James Madison was influenced by Thomas Jefferson (the guy some claim had ‘nothing to do with the Constitution) into including a bill of rights. He wrote the bill of rights, he was not “totally opposed to the Bill of Rights”.
Other than attacking Madison, can you explain how his view of the Amendment he wrote is at odds with the current interpretation? Or is accusations of “you are ACLU” the limit of your argumentative ability?
== know History. James Madison was influenced by Thomas Jefferson (the guy some claim had nothing to do with the Constitution) into including a bill of rights. He wrote the bill of rights, he was not totally opposed to the Bill of Rights.
He didn’t write the Bill of Rights, he copied them almost verbatim from George Mason’s “Master Draft,” which were in turn were heavily based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights (which were drafted by—yes, you guessed it—the very same George Mason twelve years earlier).
So if you were in Louisiana and not troubled by the bullying of atheists, and had authorization to teach scientific alternatives to evolution, what would you teach?
Who made that rule?
Who made that rule?
James Madison is called “the father of the Constitution” and he did write the bill of rights (heavily influenced to include them by Jefferson, and basing them largely upon Mason).
So again, OTHER THAN ATTACKING MADISON, can you describe how his view of the 1st Amendment is at odds with a current reading of this amendment?
Also “verbatim” is a bit of a stretch of the truth...even for you. Which passages in the Virginia Declaration of Rights do you find “verbatim” in the U.S. Constitution?
Virginia Declaration of Rights
I That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
II That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
III That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
IV That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary.
V That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.
VI That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.
VII That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.
VIII That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.
IX That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
X That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.
XI That in controversies respecting property and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.
XII That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
XIV That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
XV That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 Virginia Convention of Delegates drafted by Mr. George Mason
==Also verbatim is a bit of a stretch of the truth...
John Adams wrote in his diary (June 23, 1777):
The Bill of Rights [Pennsylvanias] is taken almost verbatim from that of Virginia [Virginia Declaration of Rights], which was made and published two or three months before that of Philadelphia [Pennsylvanias Declaration of Rights, late August 1776] was begun, it was made by Mr. Mason....
And OTHER than attacking Madison (as an unoriginal plagiarist and as opposed to a Bill of Rights), how do you feel that his view of the 1st Amendment is at odds with the current view?
==And OTHER than attacking Madison (as an unoriginal plagiarist and as opposed to a Bill of Rights)...
Those are your words, not mine. My point in bringing up that Madison copied Mason’s work is not that Madison was unoriginal or a plagiarists, but rather that he was complying with the wishes of the states, who, let by Mason, refused to ratify the Consitution without MASON’S BILL OF RIGHTS. In the end, Madison was forced to comply, and I’m sure Mason et al were very pleased to see that the proposed Bill of Rights, with a few notable exceptions, reflected their’s (and Mason’s) original intent.
WOW!!!!! That's the pot calling the kettle black.
Evos are masters in the area of discounting credentials.
Simple question and you got through Olympic style gymnastics to avoid answering it.
Do you believe that everything is just a result of accident, chance, random whatever? If it’s not, then it’s the result of design and intent.
The former ends in meaninglessness, the latter in purpose.
If everything is the result of accident, then why should we take anything you have to say seriously?
That there is God or not.
Go back over my posts and tell me where I have questioned anyone's credentials.
I have asked a dozen times, not that Louisiana has a law protecting the teaching of scientific alternatives to evolution, what would you teach.
You may note that I haven't required anyone to flash their credentials. I ask for a reasoned list of explanations for the evidence presented by the fossil record and DNA. An alternative explanation that encompasses the findings of biology and geology.
The whole issue in these cases with the schools be it LA or KS is not over “scientific” alternatives to the ToE, but ANY alternatives.
The ACLU and their liberal elitist buddies aren’t concerned about other “scientific” alternatives, but any other alternatives.
They’d be just as happy with a billion “scientific” alternatives, as long as it kept God or anything but a completely random, naturalistic, we-don’t-know-how-it-came-about, but-it-couldn’t-include-any-hint-of-intelligence-or-design thinking.
What are your scientific credentials and experience in the scientific fields?
For the years of reading crevo debates, discounting credentials is one of the most common forms of debate that evos as a whole engage in especially when the guy with the degree is right about what he’s saying.
No matter what the level of degree nor where it was received, if a scientist does not toe the hardline FRevo party line, he’s dissed, without exception, as far as I’ve ever seen.
It's not a simple question. It is a well formed sentence in the English language, but your assertion that it is simple is bogus.
Even if you get technical and ask a relatively solid question such as, if you started evolution over, would the same species evolve, is not an easy question.
My best guess is no, but it's a guess.
As to why anyone should take me seriously, I suppose that depends on whether they find my reasoning adequate or interesting. as I have pointed out, I don't stand on credentials.
Credentials or the lack thereof do not make an argument right or wrong. Nor does your fervent desire that things be a certain way and not some other way.
You say it makes no difference what alternative to evolution is presented provided it doesn't violate your desires as to how the world works. But it does matter. It matters whether the description of the world is consistent with evidence or not.
Theyd be just as happy with a billion scientific alternatives, as long as it kept God or anything but a completely random, naturalistic, we-dont-know-how-it-came-about, but-it-couldnt-include-any-hint-of-intelligence-or-design thinking.
That reads to me like another admission that the alternatives being promoted in LA and KS--and here--are not really scientific alternatives, but rather attempts to talk about God. Again, points for honesty; too bad about the smokescreen, though.
SEE #496! It can’t get much plainer!
Are you running from yet another debate, Allmendream? That’s three in a row.
so how about it then...at what point DID life become intelligent, purposeful, ordered...?
What a dilemma it must be to be so worried about God somehow influencing science to the point that if He does somehow seep into the argument, your entire worldview collapses!
How utterly far reaching could that be?
You have yet to explain yourself as to how you think Madison's reading of the 1st Amendment was incorrect. You just keep saying that somehow “the Father of the Constitution”’s opinion doesn't matter. Hard to continue a discussion with you when you will not state a position.
It seems that you also like ducking questions.
Do you believe that if someone loses at Dice that it was “just random” or that it was God’s plan that they lose at dice?
Why do you think God’s power somehow doesn’t extent to randomness?
Why do you feel that God’s plan for life didn’t include randomness, despite all the evidence that randomness is an essential component of life?
Why do you suppose the line “it happened randomly” somehow precludes the involvement of God?
==You have yet to explain yourself as to how you think Madison’s reading of the 1st Amendment was incorrect.
Do you concede that George Mason is the true father of the Bill of Rights, and that Madison only went along with the same because a refusal to do so would have scuttled the Constitution?
Is this an attempt to avoid the debate re: the First Amendment that YOU INITIATED?
Nope. It doesn't have to be about God and it's not about *religion*. The any-hint-of-intelligence-or-design thinking could be highly evolved extra-terrestrials but since that would remind the ACLU and its cronies about God, they have a hissy fit and reject it since it SOUNDS too much like *God*.
So tell me, which religion would it be that is being promoted by admitting that certain features of life and the universe are best explained by intelligence and design?
I ask again...
How is Madison's interpretation of the 1st at odds with the current understanding of its meaning?
“Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable; because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also; because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him.” James Madison
I don't know, and I don't pretend to know.
And thank you for your concern, but God has a very comfortable place in my world view. You seem to think you know a lot about other people's relationships with God.
==How is Madison’s interpretation of the 1st at odds with the current understanding of its meaning?
Madison’s interpretation of the First Amendment is not at odds with the current understanding, it’s at odds with the original intent of the founders.
Now please answer my question. Do you concede that George Mason is the Father of the Bill of Rights, and that James Madison only went along with the Bill of Rights because to refuse to do so meant scuttling the Constitution? Do you concede this point or not?!?!
Genetic variation arises through random mutation. If a gambler looses at dice isnt it still Gods will that he do so, despite it being demonstrably random?
Now that I have asked it of you repeatedly will you answer it now?
If there were positive scientific evidence for that intelligence and action of a designer, it would not necessarily promote any religion. Any further answer will have to wait for the production of such evidence.
It doesn't have to be about God and it's not about *religion*. The any-hint-of-intelligence-or-design thinking could be highly evolved extra-terrestrials
So do you think the people pushing for the changes to the curriculum in LA and KS will be happy if God and aliens are discussed as equally plausible alternatives? That seems kind of naive.
That would be a problem for the modern day scientist to answer, or maybe just the FRevos. I've had more discussions than I can remember with frevos about order and complexity being indicators of intelligence and design and them denying that; saying that it's not because order and complexity can arise spontaneously amidst randomness.
Do you concede that Thomas Jefferson influenced James Madison to include a Bill of Rights?
Do you concede that James Madison is “the Father of the Constitution” and the AUTHOR of the Bill of Rights?
So you think the current understanding of the 1st is not at odds with the intent of the WRITER of the 1st; instead you say it is at odds with “the original intent of the founders”? OK then. Which founders? Certainly not Franklin, Jefferson, Madison or Paine. How do you think an amendment was passed when one group thought it meant what modern jurisprudence thinks it means, and the other group thought it meant something else (what exactly?)?
What do you think the original intent of the founders (but not the author Madison, or Jefferson, Franklin or Paine) was concerning the 1st?
And yet they can provide no examples of the same. Talk about BLIND faith.
There is no evidence for the naturalistic philosophy they espouse.
Order and complexity are indicators of intelligence.
Apparent randomness can be built into a system when necessary and is also a product of intelligence.
So in both cases, intelligence is behind it. There is simply no known case of order and complexity arising without intelligence nor of randomness arising without intelligence.
The best they can say is that they don’t know whether there was intelligence behind it or not and where they got that idea, that randomness indicates no intelligence is beyond me since there’s no precedent for it.
There is a God.
There is not a God.
We don't know if there's a God -- yet.
We don't know and cannot know if there's a God.
That's four "sides," without even getting into the infinite variety of views about the nature of God.
Life uses randomness all the time. The first time each of our unique genetic code was assembled was when our parents sex cells performed a random shuffling of our grandparents chromosomes together. This is apparently God's plan.
If someone wins at dice...is that not God's will?
If someone loses at dice...is that not also God's will?
Why do some people suppose that randomness is somehow beyond the power and purview of God?
I didn't say verbatim. I said almost verbatim.
==Do you concede that Thomas Jefferson influenced James Madison to include a Bill of Rights?
I never denied Jefferson convinced Madison it's better to get “half a loaf” than no loaf at all.
==Do you concede that James Madison is the Father of the Constitution and the AUTHOR of the Bill of Rights?
I have never denied that Madison is the father of the constitution. But please explain what you mean by author of the Bill of Rights? Madison got a bunch of proposed amendments from the various state conventions (mostly based on Mason's “master draft”) which he distilled down into amendment proposals. The Congress debated, deliberated, made changes to, and ultimately rejected Madison's version, that would have incorporated the changes into the body of the Constitution itself. So, as you can see, even calling Madison the “author” (as opposed to Mason, who is the true father of the Bill of Rights) is problematic. Given the above, I think "editor" would be a much better word describe Madison's role re: the Bill of Rights.
#496 is my post, asking you a question. It's the central question relevant to the title of this thread.
If you were in Louisiana, where all the bullying by naughty atheists has been stripped away by law, and you were guaranteed the right to teach scientific alternatives to evolution, what would you teach?
The reason why I brought this all up is because of your claim that Madison's “reading (and writing)of the 1st Amendment is exactly as I understand it to be meant.” Well, both his and your understanding of what the First Amendment ought to mean are not in-line with what the founders intended. In fact, the founders so disagreed with Madison on this point, that they threw out the very amendment he proposed that comports with yours (and his) vision of the same.
It’s amazing to me how much energy they put into convincing us of something for which there is no evidence....Yet more proof that Darwinism has become a religion.
George Mason played a key role in opposing Patrick Henry's 1785 Bill for the Support of the Teachers of the Christian Religion. In response to Henry's bill, Mason encouraged James Madison to author his famous Memorial and Remonstrance, then circulated copies of the Memorial throughout Virginia at his own expense.
“That Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence, and therefore all Men have an equal natural and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society ought to be favored or established by Law, in Preference to others” George Mason's proposed amendment to the Constitution.
That was a Virginia matter, what the heck does that have to do with the Bill of Rights?