Intelligent. But, by Design?
A couple of people had an interesting conversation today. It went something like so:
A: If a theory is presented as a theory, what is the harm in teaching it? The "theory" of evolution is taught. How is teaching Christian kids the theory of evolution ok but teaching the theory of intelligent design to non christian kids not ok?
B: The theory of evolution is based on science. Einstein's theory of relativity was based on science, even though it took 51 years for it to be fully proven.
Intelligent design is not based on science, it's based on the supernatural, which is not science, but religion. Astrology is based on the supernatural, not science.
I'll defend Christian kids' right to learn about Intelligent design in church 100%, but not in the public school biology classroom.
A: I went and read up on that case. They weren't simply asking to teach it in addition to Darwin, they wanted it to be a replacement for. It also appeared to be against a vast majority of the parents in that district.
Certainly don't think that is a good idea. That said, if the school district and the parents wanted both taught as "theories" and not as scientific law, they should be allowed to do so. Nothing wrong with Darwin believes x and uses y to support his theory, some Christians believe a and use b to support their theory, Hindus believe e and use f to support their theory. And so on...
Just gives kids an awareness of these types of things...Presentation would, of course, be the key which could be an opportunity for abuse just like anything else.
B: Think I understand your point quite well. Here is the problem as I see it:
Conflict between science and religion began well before Charles Darwin published Origin of the Species.
Evolution is not considered to be inconsistent with the religious beliefs of most Christians or Jews. Most mainline Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and many other religious faiths accept the teaching of evolution. The Pope even accepts the view of evolution! Religious theorists since St. Augustine espoused the separation of Church and State, which is written into our Constitution.
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, which if it were, would allow it to be taught in the public schools alongside Evolution theory, which is based on science. Intelligent design, in my view, is basically somebody doing a global "Search and replace" on the word Creationism with the phrase "Intelligent Design". If ID were permitted to be taught in the public schools, contrary to our Federal Law, this is what would happen:
People like me would come in and say, "School Board? I am writing you after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. We can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I'm sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science."
You get the picture? We open up the public school system to this kind of motive, and it all goes to "Hell in a legal handbasket" pretty quickly.
It is so easy to be misled or even "preached" into the inane belief that what you are doing is "right", rather than independently thinking carefully about it first. Maybe Judge Jones did us all a favor with his 139 page decision and assertion that several Board members had repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs. There's nothing wrong with teaching the Intelligent Design Theory, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Creationism theory to your kids, if that's what you believe. Just do it in Church or Synagogue where it belongs.
Teach your kids to understand that religion and science are complementary, but different, and both of them are important in order to develop a good perspective and an adult mind as you grow up. Just understand why they are different and should not be mixed. A lot of blood was spilled in Europe over conflicts between science and religion before our forefathers came here and decided, among other good things, to put a stop to it.
Oh, and, by the way: Judge Jones was appointed to the bench by George Bush.
A: If a theory is presented as a theory, what is the harm in teaching it? The "theory" of evolution is taught. How is teaching Christian kids the theory of evolution ok but teaching the theory of intelligent design to non christian kids not ok?
B: The theory of evolution is based on science. Einstein's theory of relativity was based on science, even though it took 51 years for it to be fully proven.
Intelligent design is not based on science, it's based on the supernatural, which is not science, but religion. Astrology is based on the supernatural, not science.
I'll defend Christian kids' right to learn about Intelligent design in church 100%, but not in the public school biology classroom.
A: I went and read up on that case. They weren't simply asking to teach it in addition to Darwin, they wanted it to be a replacement for. It also appeared to be against a vast majority of the parents in that district.
Certainly don't think that is a good idea. That said, if the school district and the parents wanted both taught as "theories" and not as scientific law, they should be allowed to do so. Nothing wrong with Darwin believes x and uses y to support his theory, some Christians believe a and use b to support their theory, Hindus believe e and use f to support their theory. And so on...
Just gives kids an awareness of these types of things...Presentation would, of course, be the key which could be an opportunity for abuse just like anything else.
B: Think I understand your point quite well. Here is the problem as I see it:
Conflict between science and religion began well before Charles Darwin published Origin of the Species.
Evolution is not considered to be inconsistent with the religious beliefs of most Christians or Jews. Most mainline Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and many other religious faiths accept the teaching of evolution. The Pope even accepts the view of evolution! Religious theorists since St. Augustine espoused the separation of Church and State, which is written into our Constitution.
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, which if it were, would allow it to be taught in the public schools alongside Evolution theory, which is based on science. Intelligent design, in my view, is basically somebody doing a global "Search and replace" on the word Creationism with the phrase "Intelligent Design". If ID were permitted to be taught in the public schools, contrary to our Federal Law, this is what would happen:
People like me would come in and say, "School Board? I am writing you after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. We can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I'm sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science."
You get the picture? We open up the public school system to this kind of motive, and it all goes to "Hell in a legal handbasket" pretty quickly.
It is so easy to be misled or even "preached" into the inane belief that what you are doing is "right", rather than independently thinking carefully about it first. Maybe Judge Jones did us all a favor with his 139 page decision and assertion that several Board members had repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs. There's nothing wrong with teaching the Intelligent Design Theory, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Creationism theory to your kids, if that's what you believe. Just do it in Church or Synagogue where it belongs.
Teach your kids to understand that religion and science are complementary, but different, and both of them are important in order to develop a good perspective and an adult mind as you grow up. Just understand why they are different and should not be mixed. A lot of blood was spilled in Europe over conflicts between science and religion before our forefathers came here and decided, among other good things, to put a stop to it.
Oh, and, by the way: Judge Jones was appointed to the bench by George Bush.
"the separation of Church and State, which is written into our Constitution."
ReplyDeletewhoever said this in your conversation doesn't know the constitution very well. The words church and seperation don't even exist in the document... and if you read the first amendment with any amount of intelligence you will see the concept doesnt even exist. "Laws establishing religion" has to do with the govt making you adhere to a certain religion... like they do in muslim countries... not about saying God in the pledge, or on the currency, or a nativity scene, etc...
that said, i do think that it's better for the schools to remain neutral in terms of religion.
that said (above), i think the govt ought to give you tax $$ back to go to a religious school if you so choose. Then people might not fight so hard to change the public schools.
In the end the concept of "religion" is impossible for the govt to get away from completely. Mostly because you can never get past the first question without immediately running into conflicts, "what is a religion?" If you include something like atheism (or agnosticism) as a religion than isnt the govt supporting that by not supporting God? etc.... slip slip slip all the way down the slope. But in the end the judges invent just enough law to bring some stability... even though the foundation is built in the marsh...
as soon as the court starts loosing a handle on its invented law though it will all unravel... for instance the Federal court of appeals that said atheism is indeed a religion (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874) is setting up a big problem... because now the govt. all of sudden promotes a religion by not promoting a god.... get it?
Personally, I'm okay with evolution and don't see any difference between evolution and intelligent design. The Holy Spirit's messages on The Christian Prophet blog say both theories are incorrect. The Holy Spirit does seem to be concerned about mindless worship of science. On a brighter note, a message on The Holy Inheritance blog says we were all created by love.
ReplyDeleteRE "Personally I'm OK with evolution..."
ReplyDeleteDon't see a difference between evolution and Intelligent Design?
Intelligent design says that the universe is too complex to have evolved by itself therefore there must have been a higher being involved. That's creationism, and its religion. It is not science.
Evolution looks at the fossil record - a huge amount of scientific evidence, and the fact that the DNA of Chimpanzees and Humans is 98% identical. That, my friend, is science, not religion.
Our founders saw fit to keep the two separate.
RE: "the separation of Church and State..."
ReplyDeleteYes of course the actual term, "separation of church and state", does not appear in the Constitution, but rather derives from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a “wall of separation between church and state.”
James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, “Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.”
Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."
So the concept that in the Constitution "The words church and separation don't even exist", as you state, gives little validity to attempts to deny or discredit the intent of its writers.
The Framers were equally outspoken on their own:
" The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." ~ George Washington
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." and "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"I was born in Boston, New England, and owe my first instructions in literature to the free grammar schools established there. I therefore give one hundred pounds sterling to my executors, to be by them, the survivors or survivor of them, paid over to the managers or directors of the free schools in my native town of Boston, to be by them, or by those person or persons, who shall have the superintendance and management of the said schools, put out to interest, and so continued at interest forever, which interest annually shall be laid out in silver medals, and given as honorary rewards annually by the directors of the said free schools belonging to the said town, in such manner as to the discretion of the selectmen of the said town shall seem meet."
~ Last Will and Testement of Benjamin Franklin (1789)
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." ~ James Madison
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." ~ Thomas Paine
We agree that the schools should remain neutral. But, they have to -its Federal law.
Yes, I am familair with the letter jefferson wrote, but again, that is talking about the govt. forcing a specific denomination onto the people which is prevented in the constitution. This is taken too far when we try to say that they intended this to mean no God whatsoever. This is supported by the references to God in many of the founding papers and documents. Even the US motto "in God we trust" refutes the idea that the first amendment is to force the Govt. to deny that God exists.
ReplyDeleteThe whole concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness found in the Declaration of Independence is setup by the acknowledgement of a Creator, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."
In 1777 the first Continental Congress appropriated funds to import 20,000 bibles for the people. Where is the seperation?
In the 1892 Supreme Court ruling in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S. (citing 87 precedents), "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
In terms of Jefferson's conviction about God... well it's engraved on his memorial;
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” - Thomas Jefferson, Query XVIII, 1781 [engraved on Jefferson Memorial]
Jefferson's metaphor has been so abused by people who know very little about the context of why he wrote it. Jefferson wasn't even at the signing of the bill of rights and wrote that letter 14 years later... hardly a good barometer for the founders intent.
If you want to get a good picture of what the 1st ammendment really means than check out Rehnquist's Dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree @ http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm
url got cut off
ReplyDeletehttp://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm
weird it wont paste the whole url. click here
ReplyDeleteInteresting stuff, good research. But the bottom line is, it's over, for the most part. Common Sense prevailed.
ReplyDelete