Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
nonaffiated

Are We Falling Behind In Science?

Recommended Posts

I agree. I'm talking about people like Bill Nye, when he kept saying We are going to fall behind drasticlly if We bring in ID/YEC into classrooms or make it a credible theory. I've heard many other Atheists say the say thing.

Just funny that the biggest advances in science were made when Creationism was actually generally accepted. Especially when you consider the ratio of "Advance in Science" to "total budget spent on science and research".

 

The question remains what real advance in science and technology we would have we have without belief in Darwinian Evolution and a billions of years Earth? I am talking here about particular Evolutionist beliefs that Creationists generally do not have.

 

They're natural and physical because they are intended to understand the normal, natural and repeatable portions of God's creation.

The natural sciences aren't completely physical neither. physical laws aren't physical themselves, scientific method isn't physical.

God is natural in the sense that He has His signature all over His creation.

He is not physical. He is spirit. You are part spirit too, so you can relate.

So what are laws of nature / physics? They are not material, but what are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, the leading ID organization (the "Discovery Institute" is focused on political activity (about 75% of their budget) and very little on science (about 5%) of their budget and their strategy document clearly says their goal is the replacement of current science " with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (DI's Wedge Document) Then we can consider the fact that most (if not all) of the leading creationist ministries (AIG, CMI, ICR to name a few) openly declare any evidence not in keeping with their literal reading of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION. It becomes pretty clear what their agenda is.

 

The agenda of DI has already been stated. They put it in their "Wedge Document." Here's a link: http://www.antievolu...tures/wedge.pdf (You might get a hint from the cover.)

 

Do you know how ridiculous this sounds, Piasan? Design is an inference. We use it all the time. A design inference doesn't belong to "ID organizations", anymore than an inference to unguided naturalistic mechanisms belongs to the NCSE or any other Evolution-promoting organization. If someone looks at biological machines and infers an organizational causation that goes beyond the known capabilities of unguided naturalistic processes, then the inference is completely independent of that person having to be a card-carrying member of some organization... like this really needs to be explained? We're all adults here aren't we?

 

You're a teacher. You're supposed to think about things logically. Instead you selectively hand-wave away an entire mode of scientific inquiry because of some conspiracy theory you have about the Discovery Institute's religious attack against science based on some document someone wrote years ago. I'm sorry but your reasoning is demonstrably flawed. I think you're the last person that should be in an educational position related to these issues because you're obviously unable to think clearly about them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Except, of course for the 80% or so of evolutionists who, like myself, consider evolution to be a process of creation used by God. (Note: the 80% is based on the average of multiple Gallup polls over more than 30 years. The most recent poll indicated a rather sharp decline to 68%... still a significant majority.)

 

Hi Piasan,

 

My experience with theistic evolutionist is they jump to anything that proves evolution and are really not that open minded that God created life supernaturally even though the evidence strongly supports that everything in life is designed. How do you get any biological system without a designer? You can't. Evolution isn't even close to answering that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the post where I pointed out the US is 28th in science and all of the top 5 nations scored have very low rates of acceptance of Biblical creation, I had mentioned a number of reasons the US is falling behind in science. Here's just one more example. Our school calendar for the year did not allow for any snow days. We were out of school for 6 days due to snow. The result.... the students need not make up any time. The teachers need to make up 6 days.... with no students.

 

WOW ..... that's going to help the test scores.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the post where I pointed out the US is 28th in science and all of the top 5 nations scored have very low rates of acceptance of Biblical creation, I had mentioned a number of reasons the US is falling behind in science. Here's just one more example. Our school calendar for the year did not allow for any snow days. We were out of school for 6 days due to snow. The result.... the students need not make up any time. The teachers need to make up 6 days.... with no students.

 

WOW ..... that's going to help the test scores.....

Test scores aren't everything especially that you're giving the impression that people stop learning after a test. The US is falling behind in science in what sense? Science covers a broad number of things and technology and the US is number one in military tech which is... Science. What else could there be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are a science advocacy group....

That's interesting. From their home page ( ), I saw this:

"Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion. Indoctrination of logic, reason, and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview."

 

Nothing about science there.

 

Here's a list of links to articles:

Not much about science there either.

 

And the links on their home page:

Maybe I'm missing something, but they seem to be focused on promoting atheism, not science. Perhaps you could produce a couple science articles they have done?

 

 

They are a science advocacy group....

 

Why "strike two" when as I demonstrated I wasn't saying Richard Dawkins was a group, rather that was your strawman...

Fair enough. Make it Strike ONE.

 

 

Or we could also go with the NCSE wink.png They state clearly on their website that their purpose is to advocate evolution and keeping Creationism (belief God created the universe), out...

You didn't finish the sentence. Could it be that it finishes something like: ".... of public school science classrooms."?

 

So, is NCSE out to eliminate Christianity and the Bible, or merely keep creationism out of the public school science classroom? Can you find a comment by the NCSE, for example, that declares any evidence in agreement with the Bible is invalid by definition? Can you find a statement that their goal is to eliminate Christianity? If not, we're back to ......

 

STRIKE TWO ! ! !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test scores aren't everything especially that you're giving the impression that people stop learning after a test. The US is falling behind in science in what sense? Science covers a broad number of things and technology and the US is number one in military tech which is... Science. What else could there be?

The claim was that we're falling behind in science due to the teaching of evolution. We're not. Other nations are, quite simply outperforming us .... by a LOT. It's only a matter of time until those students are engineers and scientists and those nations start outpacing us.

 

Our lead isn't the result of the current group of students.... it's because of those of us who took the difficult courses and became scientists and engineers over the last 30 or 40 years. We are now retiring. Unless someone picks up the torch, it will be passed along to a different nation, not our children. My advice to my grandchildren ..... learn Chinese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim was that we're falling behind in science due to the teaching of evolution. We're not. Other nations are, quite simply outperforming us .... by a LOT. It's only a matter of time until those students are engineers and scientists and those nations start outpacing us.

 

Our lead isn't the result of the current group of students.... it's because of those of us who took the difficult courses and became scientists and engineers over the last 30 or 40 years. We are now retiring. Unless someone picks up the torch, it will be passed along to a different nation, not our children. My advice to my grandchildren ..... learn Chinese.

Got to to go through every single aspect, and engineering is also broad range of engineering types, and also why. These are pointless if they are blanket without explanations, or sources for proof.

Also evolution is not a science, no point even trying to say it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting. From their home page ( ), I saw this:

"Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion. Indoctrination of logic, reason, and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview."

 

Nothing about science there.

 

Here's a list of links to articles:

Not much about science there either.

 

And the links on their home page:

Maybe I'm missing something, but they seem to be focused on promoting atheism, not science. Perhaps you could produce a couple science articles they have done?

 

 

Fair enough. Make it Strike ONE.

 

 

You didn't finish the sentence. Could it be that it finishes something like: ".... of public school science classrooms."?

 

So, is NCSE out to eliminate Christianity and the Bible, or merely keep creationism out of the public school science classroom? Can you find a comment by the NCSE, for example, that declares any evidence in agreement with the Bible is invalid by definition? Can you find a statement that their goal is to eliminate Christianity? If not, we're back to ......

 

STRIKE TWO ! ! !

 

"First, they endorse a strong commitment to a naturalist worldview, and to the virtues of reason, rationality and science as the best means of understanding reality."

 

http://www.secularismandnonreligion.org/article/view/snr.al/12

 

Oh did someone say (naturalistic) science advocacy group.... ;)

 

 

You do realise that you were complaining that the DI was wanting to put Creationism in the classrooms I gave you the NCSE which are their opposite... So what are you complaining about now?

 

People who believe and have faith in evolution want to support and keep evolution in science classrooms, those who believe the design hypothesis wants some air-time for ID... What is wrong with that? Do you believe that children should be taught want to think rather than how? Doesn't critical analysis of different points of view allow for the development of critical thinking? And finally if the evidence for ID was as shoddy as evolutionists claim why worry? Students aren't idiots...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

On the other hand, the leading ID organization (the "Discovery Institute" is focused on political activity (about 75% of their budget) and very little on science (about 5%) of their budget and their strategy document clearly says their goal is the replacement of current science " with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (DI's Wedge Document) Then we can consider the fact that most (if not all) of the leading creationist ministries (AIG, CMI, ICR to name a few) openly declare any evidence not in keeping with their literal reading of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION. It becomes pretty clear what their agenda is.

 

And you really spin a conspiracy theory from that? Here is DI's comment on that:

http://www.discovery.org/f/349

My comment: It is the purpose of think tanks and lobby groups to promote certain ideas and organize reception of them. In that regard DI (or any of the creationist organizations) isn't much different then the far greater number of atheistic or secularist organizations, the NCSE comes to mind, but their is a myriad more and they do get government funding and their proponents sit in taxpayer funded positions. So when someone uses the "Wedge Document" as an argument, this should be responded to with a big laugh.

 

The other laughable argument they use is the verdict of Judge Jones. It's ridiculous for more then one reason. As it is kind of saying that "my gun is bigger then your gun, and that's why I am right". And since when do judges have to decide on what is right and wrong in science? Especially if it's a very biased judge by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Jones did describe in his opinion the dishonest tactics of the ID movement.

A Bush appointee BTW.

Judge Jones in his own words at the World Humanist Congress, organized by the American Humanist Association, when receiving and accepting an award from them:

 

 

 

Inexorably toward Trial:

Reflections on the Dover Case and the “Least Dangerous Branch”

by Judge John E. Jones III

Published in the Humanist, January/February 2009

86d0035f4aee373cd92c2e9898ed22dc95335adcJudge John E. Jones III of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is one of the foremost defenders of evolution in public schools, ruling the teaching of intelligent design unconstitutional in public schools in the landmark Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case in 2005. On Saturday, June 7, 2008, Judge Jones was awarded the American Humanist Association’s Humanist Religious Liberty Award at the World Humanist Congress in Washington, DC. The following is adapted from his acceptance speech.
Since the Kitzmiller v. Dover case landed on my docket in December of 2004, I have had an astonishing, almost mind-bending odyssey. That I--a Republican, Bush-appointed judge and a Lutheran from Pennsylvania--accepted the Humanist Religious Liberty Award from the American Humanist Association last year is another step, I suppose, on that odyssey. Someone asked me if I thought my accepting the award might be taken the wrong way. I should point out that the Framers, in their marvelous work creating the Constitution, gave federal judges life tenure, and that’s a great thing. But in a more serious vein, I think it’s important for federal judges to get out and talk about what we do. To the extent that the federal judiciary is maligned and misunderstood, a lot of that is on us. So, I welcomed the opportunity to speak to such a distinguished group at the 2008 World Humanist Congress, and I thank them and the AHA for the honor of the award.
The day the Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit was filed I was driving home from my chambers listening to a local radio station, and they said that this big bombastic press conference had been held in the rotunda of the State Capitol in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. It involved a lawsuit that had been filed by the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and a large firm in Philadelphia, Pepper Hamilton, against a school board in York County, Pennsylvania. It was filed in Middle District Federal Court (my court) as an establishment clause challenge to a policy involving intelligent design. And as I blissfully drove home I had two thoughts: one was that although I consider myself reasonably well read, I couldn’t exactly remember having heard about intelligent design. And the second thought I had was, I wonder who’s going to get that case? I went home and said to my wife, somebody’s going to get that case and it’s going to be really big.
Of course it landed on my docket. And up until the time I did the scheduling conference the following month (January 2005) I believed that through some suasion and through my efforts I could bring the parties to a settlement. But you could tell from their demeanor and their body language that the case wasn’t going to settle, and I thought, well, now we’re heading inexorably towards trial.
It is known by many that in the aftermath of deciding the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, I took some incoming fire by such luminaries as Bill O’Reilly, who called me a fascist. The Rev. Pat Robertson indicated that “this was an arrogant federal judge making an absurd decision” and opined that the community at Dover would likely be vaporized in a natural disaster. Phyllis Schlafly said, “this was an unintelligent rant about intelligent design by a federal judge.” And the coup de grace was administered, I suppose, by Ann Coulter who devoted several pages of her book, Godless, to me. She said, among other things, “that we haven’t had a First Amendment scholar near the bench like this since President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to be on the Supreme Court,” so she didn’t much like Harriet Miers apparently either.
91e5ef3d9bd6f9695e28e5f892c8b6b24def5de4But it was Phyllis Schlafly, in her criticism of me, who posited that because George W. Bush was elected president with the help of evangelicals and he had appointed me as a federal judge, that in rendering my decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case I had “stuck a knife in the backs of those who brought me to the dance.” And of course, the necessary implication there is that federal judges need to get with the program, we need to please political benefactors, we need to take one for the team, where necessary, without any real regard for how we operate. And that was a common stripe in all of the criticisms by the punditry and it really drove me out of chambers and onto the speaking circuit. I knew by the time I decided the case that it had attracted attention, really not just across the United States but across the world, and I thought it was important to speak generally about some of these points.
And my case, as you well know, was not alone in being subjected to this kind of ideology. We need only look to the Terri Schiavo case that was resolved earlier in 2005. Wherever people come down on that very emotional case, lost in the analysis was that by the time Judge Jim Whittemore rendered his decision and refused the injunction that would have placed the feeding tube back into Schiavo, approximately twenty state judges had looked at the case and every single one of them found that Schiavo had her due process and that the case had been handled properly. But Congress had a boundless enthusiasm to inject itself into that and create a federal law specifically for the purpose of involving the federal judiciary, causing Tom DeLay and others to directly threaten the careers of federal judges after Schiavo eventually passed away.
These cases ultimately give rise to the presumption that most Americans don’t understand how our system of justice works in the United States. Polls reveal that approximately 15 percent of all Americans can name John Roberts as the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. However, approximately 65 percent of Americans can name at least one judge on the television show American Idol. Most Americans can’t name all three branches of our government and we are really bereft of a good civics education. My friend, former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, has said that this stuff is not stamped on our genetic material and we need to learn it and re-learn it. And I don’t think we’re doing a particularly good job when we have teachers who want to proselytize rather than teach what they ought to teach in our schools. And so, I think we need a more robust public education curriculum as it relates to government.
Just as we have lost our compass regarding civics education, we are concomitantly losing our compass and our competitive edge due to a lack of focus on science issues in our schools. The issue of good civics education goes to the survival of our American democracy, because if you don’t understand what your rights are, if you don’t understand the constitution and its Bill of Rights, then you stand ready to lose those rights. But the issue of good science education--and I don’t think this is an overstatement--goes to the longevity and the survival of the people of all nations. It’s that important.
3df1e0f548c0b31102f5e5dde3efc65e8b01591aSo, to return to what I think is the fundamental misconception in America about the judiciary, it is that we are a majoritarian branch. We aren’t, and that’s hard to grasp for a lot of people. The Framers, when they worked in Philadelphia during a hot summer some 221 years ago, designed a constitution that had within it articles 1, 2, and 3. Articles 1 and 2 designate the legislative branch and the executive branch, respectively, as majoritarian--they are subject to the will of the people; they stand in popular elections. But article 3 is counter-majoritarian. The judicial branch protects against the tyranny of the majority. We are a bulwark against public opinion. And that was very much done with a purpose, and I think that it really has withstood the test of time. The judiciary is a check against the unconstitutional abuse and extension of power by the other branches of government.
My case featured a school board that was out of control. It was dominated by individuals who were in fact Young Earth creationists. They were bullies, frankly, and they had no rest until they passed a policy that, ultimately, devolved to me to find unconstitutional. But it’s well to know that Tammy Kitzmiller, who was the lead plaintiff, and the other parents who filed suit did what citizens cannot do in many other nations around the world. They sought relief in a federal court of law to roll back what they considered to be a clear trampling of their rights under the establishment clause in the First Amendment.
Kitzmiller v. Dover informed me--and I submit that it should inform all of us--that we have many miles to go in the United States regarding our understanding of the First Amendment and, particularly, the establishment clause therein. And we also have an equally long distance to travel in terms of how we can uncouple science and religion. These two things are frequently, all too often, conflated in the United States, and when they are conflated both end up being debased.
Many times during the Kitzmiller trial my thoughts turned to the Framers, and it’s a foolish and a rather nonsensical exercise to think about what they would say about a controversy in 2005 but it’s one that I would engage in at odd moments. It’s ultimately unknowable what they would think of a dispute--even the Scopes Monkey Trial in the 1920s, let alone my case--but I did come across some things that a particular Framer said that I think are pertinent. Alexander Hamilton remarked: “Enthusiasm is certainly a very good thing but religious enthusiasm is, at least, a dangerous instrument.” And Hamilton said this about the third branch: “The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous branch. The judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatsoever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment.”
I hope that I have exercised good judgment during my time on the bench. The Humanist Religious Liberty Award tells me that I have in at least one case, and I am deeply humbled and grateful for this award.
http://archive.is/7spI#selection-83.0-205.205

Let's imagine for a moment the outrage, if he'd accepted an award from Answers in Genesis or some religious body equivalent to the AHA and threw a speech with a similar mocking undertone after having made a judgment having thrown Evolution out of the class room in favor of YEC or ID. As if the pushing of Evolutionism and against Creationism or ID isn't religiously motivated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Jones in his own words at the World Humanist Congress, organized by the American Humanist Association, when receiving and accepting an award from them:

 

Let's imagine for a moment the outrage, if he'd accepted an award from Answers in Genesis or some religious body equivalent to the AHA and threw a speech with a similar mocking undertone after having made a judgment having thrown Evolution out of the class room in favor of YEC or ID. As if the pushing of Evolutionism and against Creationism or ID isn't religiously motivated.

I think this is telling as to the judge's lack of understanding of the constitution:

I submit that it should inform all of us--that we have many miles to go in the United States regarding our understanding of the First Amendment and, particularly, the establishment clause therein. And we also have an equally long distance to travel in terms of how we can uncouple science and religion.

The first amendment only pertains to the federal government establishing a religion or infringing on the free exercise thereof by the people. If a school board decides to create a curriculum based on YEC, that is not a federal issue. If these people don't like it, they have recourse through the board, and it's elections. We keep getting told that when crappy politicians get into office and make bad laws (Obamacare comes to mind). The problem is, we've gone from a loose conglomeration of individual states to an over reaching federal system that has slowly drawn the power away from the states and centralized it. If you read the letters and papers of the founding fathers, you'll see the 9 lyrics reason they wanted people to be able to read is so they could read the bible. Now, because of political correctness, and a fear of offending someone (there's no cconstitutional right to not be offended) we've pushed God's word out and let secular humanism and atheism in...
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is telling as to the judge's lack of understanding of the constitution:

The first amendment only pertains to the federal government establishing a religion or infringing on the free exercise thereof by the people. If a school board decides to create a curriculum based on YEC, that is not a federal issue. If these people don't like it, they have recourse through the board, and it's elections. We keep getting told that when crappy politicians get into office and make bad laws (Obamacare comes to mind). The problem is, we've gone from a loose conglomeration of individual states to an over reaching federal system that has slowly drawn the power away from the states and centralized it. If you read the letters and papers of the founding fathers, you'll see the 9 lyrics reason they wanted people to be able to read is so they could read the bible. Now, because of political correctness, and a fear of offending someone (there's no cconstitutional right to not be offended) we've pushed God's word out and let secular humanism and atheism in...

That's what I was thinking all the time about this issue. They keep on telling us that the constitution mandates "separation between church and state" and then argue with the first amendment doing so, when it actually doesn't:

 

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.

All what that says is that Congress has no mandate legislating religion in a positive or negative way. And of course that people are free to exercise their religious beliefs anywhere and any time freely. It also doesn't prohibit counties, even states and for sure not school boards from doing so. There would only be a problem, if congress made a law regarding religious instructions in school, no matter if that would be for or against it.

 

Also look what this actually was about. School board wanted to make it part of the curriculum to tell the class that there are scientific problems with Darwinian Evolution and that there are alternative explanatory models. So this was actually very fair. Judge Jones and the prosecution, with whom he obviously sided right from the beginning, failed to show that this was anyhow wrong, yet he made that decision. All that this did show was actually a lack of understanding of the Constitution on the side of the judge and the plaintiffs.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to to go through every single aspect, and engineering is also broad range of engineering types, and also why. These are pointless if they are blanket without explanations, or sources for proof.

The sources and evidence were shown in the post where I documented students in the US rank 28th in the world.... behind a bunch of nations in which Biblical creation isn't even a consideration. One will need to address that issue before we blame evolution for the decline of the US in science.

 

 

Also evolution is not a science, no point even trying to say it is.

I haven't even commented on evolution in this particular discussion. The only thing I've done is address the question: "Are we falling behind in science?"; document we are hardly the leaders in science education; document that a number of nations that rank ahead of us in science education never taught Biblical creation; and provide a number of reasons (other than evolution) that we are falling behind.

 

Oh yeah.... I mentioned earlier that we lost 6 days due to weather this winter so teachers need to make up those days without students. He also have a snow day scheduled for Friday, April 18. Neither students nor teachers will be making up any of the missed time on that day either. Spending LESS time in school is NOT a way to improve education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to the "New Atheists"

 

"First, they endorse a strong commitment to a naturalist worldview, and to the virtues of reason, rationality and science as the best means of understanding reality."

 

http://www.secularismandnonreligion.org/article/view/snr.al/12

 

Oh did someone say (naturalistic) science advocacy group.... wink.png

I didn't say advocacy. Let me provide a couple examples.... AIG and/or CMI publish a creationist scientific journal in an effort to advance creation science. ICR, by it's very name claims it is involved in "Creation Research." In fact, both organizations fund creation science research. Yet both organizations also declare in their statement of faith that any evidence not in keeping with (their) literal reading of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION. In fact, both require a statement attesting to that belief as a condition of employment.

 

"New Athiests" is clearly NOT a scientific organization. They do no research; they do nothing to promote science; their activities are concentrated ENTIRELY on advancing atheism.

 

NCSE is not a scientific organization either. For the same reasons as DI is not a scientific organization. NCSE is a political/lobbying organization with an openly declared political/social agenda. Much like the Discovery Institute which I also regard as a political/lobbying organization. In fact, DI actually does spend part of its budget (around 5%) on scientific research.

 

No scientific organization has an openly declared statement claiming the Bible is invalid before the evidence is even examined .... in direct contrast to the statements of AIG, ICR, and CMI. Not one.... anywhere ..... ever.

 

 

You do realise that you were complaining that the DI was wanting to put Creationism in the classrooms I gave you the NCSE which are their opposite... So what are you complaining about now?

Neither DI nor NCSE are scientific organizations. My request was that you produce one mainstream science organization (examples the American Geophysical Union, the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Astronomical Society.... and I haven't even gotten thru the "a's." Even the scientific journals such as "Nature" would qualify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All what that says is that Congress has no mandate legislating religion in a positive or negative way.

And then the 14th Amendment happened, and was interpreted to mean the 1st (and others) applied to states as well as the federal government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then the 14th Amendment happened, and was interpreted to mean the 1st (and others) applied to states as well as the federal government.

Mind to show us where the 14th Amendment does actually say that that specific part of the 1st Amendment also applies to state legislatures? Or is this that kind of postmodern interpretation where you can let any text say anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind to show us where the 14th Amendment does actually say that that specific part of the 1st Amendment also applies to state legislatures?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It seems like a pretty straightforward reading to go from there to applying the 1st Amendment to the states. From what I've read elsewhere, it sounds like the Establishment Clause in particular is somewhat more controversial than the others, but as far as I can tell the standing precedent is that it does apply to states.

 

If you're interested, you can read the specific Supreme Court decision that applied the Establishment Clause to the states here.

Or is this that kind of postmodern interpretation where you can let any text say anything?

I'm fairly certain judicial review predates postmodernism by at least a century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like a pretty straightforward reading to go from there to applying the 1st Amendment to the states. From what I've read elsewhere, it sounds like the Establishment Clause in particular is somewhat more controversial than the others, but as far as I can tell the standing precedent is that it does apply to states.

Now how I do read that, this is actually a clause to prevent slavery or other abuses against citizens:" abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

 

To read some extension of an restraint on Congress into that is a bit far fetched.

 

If you're interested, you can read the specific Supreme Court decision that applied the Establishment Clause to the states here.

I'm fairly certain judicial review predates postmodernism by at least a century.

The prethinkers (i.e. Nietzsche, Heidegger) do predate postmodernism by partially more then that - Although they weren't that foolish as it is at present. And relativism isn't exactly new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also look what this actually was about. School board wanted to make it part of the curriculum to tell the class that there are scientific problems with Darwinian Evolution and that there are alternative explanatory models.

Here's the problem,

They wanted to introduce ID as the model.

Why ID and not creationism?

Because there was a precedent that Judge Brown had to abide by prohibiting the advocation of creationism in public schools. (Edwards v. Aguillard)

The Judge found it very dishonest that the members were denying that ID was the same type of model as creationism.

Especially when they found the edited transcripts of the book Of Pandas and Men that contained the term "c design propreationists" wherever creationists was previously worded and where intelligent design proponents was later added. (The book the members were advocating)

This edit was added to the textbook right after the precedent setting Edwards v. Aguillard case that declared creationism violated the Establishment Clause.

Thus his strong rebuttal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now how I do read that, this is actually a clause to prevent slavery or other abuses against citizens:" abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

 

To read some extension of an restraint on Congress into that is a bit far fetched.

I'm not sure what I can offer other than that the Court disagrees with your interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what I can offer other than that the Court disagrees with your interpretation.

One could also say that I disagree with the Court's opinion on this. And looking at the texts at hand, obviously for very good reasons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you really spin a conspiracy theory from that? Here is DI's comment on that:

http://www.discovery.org/f/349

From the very first paragraph of the document you linked:

"this fundraising proposal ....."

 

Ya know... I get a lot of fundraising proposals in the mail. One thing they all have in common is they all mention money. More specifically a need for money. Do you realize what is entirely absent from this "fundraising proposal?" You guessed it.... any mention at all of money.

 

 

And since when do judges have to decide on what is right and wrong in science?

Since legislatures and school boards have taken it on themselves to make that decision. Keep in mind, not one court case on the matter of evolution/creation/design would have been possible except that creationists had FIRST gone to the legislatures and school boards.

 

 

Especially if it's a very biased judge by that.

Actually, IIRC, the creation side of this one was delighted when Jones got the case. Do you think some of his "bias" was the result of perjury by YEC members of the Dover School Board? How about the fact that the book in question was changed from a creationist book to an ID book by merely substituting references to creation with references to design? (Can you say "cdesignproponentists?")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could also say that I disagree with the Court's opinion on this. And looking at the texts at hand, obviously for very good reasons.

I think it's still in question whether your reasons are obvious or good. It sounds like you're interpreting "Congress shall make no law" more narrowly than the courts do. If that's the correct interpretation, should states also have the right to do other things (abridge free speech, prohibit free exercise of religion) that "Congress shall make no law" about? Do you have any specific response to the logic used in the decision I posted, or just a general objection based on your reading of the amendments in question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms