Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news

Perhaps the most telling reason for the gains made by proponents of intelligent design being taught in the classroom is the fact that so many americans support this idea.[According to a 1999 Gallup poll, "47% of Americans believe that God created human beings at one time within the last 10,000 years pretty much in their present form," in agreement with the theory of intelligent design. An additional 40% say that God guided the evolutionary process. Apparently, the mechanism of intelligent design, in various degrees, makes a lot of sense to a majority of Americans.] Page Not Found | East Stroudsburg University[Americans Support Teaching Creationism as Well as Evolution in Public Schools] Page Not Found Not to mention the numerous secular scientists who have been willing to admit openly the problems associated with the theory of evolution as it is taught today;["An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Crick, Francis, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature p. 88]["I believe we developed this practice (i.e., postulating prebiological natural selection) to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of a self-replicating state is zero. When for practical purposes the concept of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, that concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything, such as that, no matter how complex, everything will repeat itself, exactly and immeasurably." Mora, Peter T., "The Folly of Probability," in The Origins of Prebiological Systems p. 45]["From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.....Each found that the odds against the spark of life igniting accidentally on Earth were '10 to the power of 40,000.....They did calculations based on the size and age of the universe (15 billion years) and found that the odds against life beginning spontaneously anywhere in space were '10 to the power of 30.....At the moment, I can't find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God.....We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation--and not accidental random shuffling." Wickramasinghe, C., Interview in London Daily Express] http://www.geocities.com/...f.htm#NON-CHRISTIAN%20SCIENTISTSNow admittedly, I neither possess the aforementioned books, nor have I read or heard the aforementioned interview, so I am hardly properly equipped to view and understand just how far out of context the above quotes are, if at all.The point is that the controversy continues and will continue, most likely, long after everyone in this forum has turned to dust. Personally, I find it abhorrent that the ACLU is so adamantly against even the teaching of the problems associated with the theory of evolution, something true scientists seem willing to grapple with in their search for truth.[Evidently the ACLU threat spooked the board into submission. It soon began to restrict DeHart’s classroom material. In 1998 a new superintendent ordered Mr. DeHart to quit mentioning intelligent design. He could, however, still talk about problems with evolutionary theory. But that freedom didn’t last very long. Now, he’s been told to refrain from even questioning or criticizing the theory of evolution. In the process, he’s actually been commanded to suppress data and teach falsehoods. Unfortunately for Burlington students, the school’s required biology textbook contains factual errors.] http://www.nas.com/ccc/news5-23-01.htmHearing of cases like this only serve to strengthen the creationist view that the theory of evolution has been debunked but the left wing athiests will stop at nothing to ensure its continued teaching despite its obvious failure to remain scientific in nature. The aclu should find better things to do with its money and let the purity of science defend itself. If science can not defend itself, which it surely can, then the odds are it is not true science but psuedo-science.Sorry to go off on a tangent like that but I firmly believe that science, if it remains true and pure, is capable of answering nearly every question that man, or woman, can ask.CheersThis message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-05-2004 11:19 PM

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

More news from Ohio.[COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - The state school board Tuesday approved a lesson plan for teaching evolution that includes what critics contend is a religious theory ``cloaked as science.''Supporters argued the lesson plan offers scientific ways to analyze evolution, but scientific groups objected and critics said they expected a lawsuit.]Latest news from around the world | The Guardian

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

No Critical Analysis of Evolution?Forgive me but I have been impressed with the understanding that any true scientific study/research/endeavor should always be subject to critical analysis.Did I miss something or are evolutionists now requiring that the theory of evolution be excluded from any and all critical analysis?If so, then the creationists/christians/IDers have just been handed an enormous weapon with which to claim that the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the truly legitimate sciences which are forever subject to critical analysis.I truly hope this was a jest on your part, for it would trouble me greatly to know that evolutionists are now removing themselves, their studies, and their discoveries from the rest of the scientific community, which continually invites critical analysis as a means of keeping it legitimate, honest, and on its aphoristic toes.Cheers, Jeers, or Tears.....take your pick, I am at a loss here.

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

JonF says [Many scientists have severely criticised this document.....]Understandable. And yet many have supported it as well.....[[The Ohio State Board of Education approved the new curriculum by a vote of 13-5 after being persuaded by 22 Ohio scientists that the new lesson plan promotes academic freedom and that it is good for 10th grade students to have an inquiring mind about evolution.]Also, the teacher has options..... [[no teacher will be required to teach criticisms of evolution, and no students will be tested on the criticisms. So what's the big deal?]I still have much reading to do but at this point it seems that those less qualified are the very ones who are raising the biggest stink.....[[To some people, it's a very big deal, and the ACLU is ominously threatening a lawsuit. The opposition to the new lesson was led by Case Western Reserve University lecturer Patricia Princehouse (whose academic position is philosophy not science) who said, "It's sad day for science in Ohio." Another non-scientist, Florida State University law professor Steven Gey, flew in to warn Ohioans that the lesson is unconstitutional and would almost certainly be struck down if it reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe he is seeking an activist judge to rule that the Constitution prohibits allowing students to question anything in science class.....There is nothing religious about creationism, or even about intelligent design, in the new Ohio standards. What is controversial is giving students the opportunity to question evolution; it's the inquiry-and-debate aspect that some people find so threatening.]There are numerous points and opinions presented, among which are..... [[Science standards set, but the teaching is still evolving,
Ohio faces a new challenge in intelligent-design debate,
Proposed lesson on evolution upsets scientists,
10th-graders would debate the theory,
Ohio educators to be applauded,
Ohio lesson plan pleases conservatives, irks apostles of Darwin,
Ohio Lesson Plan Pleases Parents, Irks Liberals,
If you want 'honest science,' Intelligent Design is not it]It is a bit one sided, ok, heavily one sided, but makes for excellent reading nevertheless.All references provided are available at the following link.....Texas Citizens for ScienceOne of the many points raised at this site is the fact that ID, intelligent design, presupposes a designer, a creator, which can neither be tested, falsified, proved, or disproved, and therefore does not meet the requirements of scientific inquiry.To be fair, and I know many evolutionists disagree with me on this point, evolution presupposes life springing from non-life via some mechanism known surreptitiously as abiogenesis, which can neither be tested, falsified, proved, or disproved, and therefore does not meet the requirements of scientific inquiry.Yes, I know the argument that the theory of evolution does not deal with the theory of abiogenesis, but I for one am not willing to use that argument as a means of escaping discussing the origin of life, choosing instead the safe, and in my opinion, somewhat disingenious position of claiming that evolution only be about life after it appeared.I choose to deal faily when discussing issues with creationists and evolutionists alike and if I insist that creationists consider the designer, aka god, in their thinking then it is only fair that I allow them the same courtesy, and agree that evolutionists consider the non-designer, aka abiogenesis, in their thinking.I can not help but admit the incredible sense of design in much of nature, from the smallest of elements to the enormity of the universe itself. However, a sense, or appearance of design must not be the final word when it comes to science. Chaos is also apparent and few designers would intentionally incorporate chaos into their designs. But if god is god is god is god, then I would have to say that god could do whatever the hell god feels like doing. Who is going to argue with a god besides anti-theists and idiots.So, if the Ohio Board of Education continues to include the Ohio "Critical Analysis of Evolution--Grade 10" Model Curriculum in its science classes on an optional basis, then personally, I couldn't give a rats ass. At least I won't have to deal with it, the school board, or that disgustingly anti-theistic, idiotic organization known as the aclu. I swear, at times, that old saying, "KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD SORT IT OUT", sounds pretty damn good to me.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

That's like a christian saying god is testable and falsifiable and they will do so just as soon as jesus returns in the clouds. Nice argument when you don't have to worry about it until it actually happens.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

You may want to re-familiarize yourself with the constitution.
_________________________________U.S. ConstitutionDone in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,G. Washington-Presidt. and deputy from VirginiaNew Hampshire: John Langdon, Nicholas GilmanMassachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus KingConnecticut: Wm: Saml. Johnson, Roger ShermanNew York: Alexander HamiltonNew Jersey: Wil: Livingston, David Brearly, Wm. Paterson, Jona: DaytonPennsylvania: B. Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt. Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos. FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv MorrisDelaware: Geo: Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco: BroomMaryland: James McHenry, Dan of St Thos. Jenifer, Danl CarrollVirginia: John Blair--, James Madison Jr.North Carolina: Wm. Blount, Richd. Dobbs Spaight, Hu WilliamsonSouth Carolina: J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce ButlerGeorgia: William Few, Abr Baldwin_________________________________Now maybe you will disagree with me but my guess is that the "Lord" being referred to here is the same lord that the christians call jesus, so it would seem that the very men who signed the constitution happened to accept the notion of god as being a reality.
_________________________________Bill of RightsAmendment ICongress 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.U.S. Constitution | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute_______________________________
Now maybe you read that differently than I do but what I read here is that neither the congress, nor the courts, nor even the aclu has the right to tell the populace that they can not talk about whatever god they choose to talk about, anywhere, anytime.We may not like it but the Ohio Board of Education, and any other Board of Education for that matter, would be perfectly within their rights to yield to the wishes of the populace and include the teaching of intelligent design right along side of evolution. At least according to the constitution I read.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

[Jar: While the folk in Ohio are free to hold any opinions they want, they DO NOT have the right to include and supernatural religious material in the public schools.]Sorry Jar, but according to the constitution, they have every right to do just that sort of thing if that is what the people agree to and so far I have not heard of any referendum being presented to the Ohio populace that would lead me to believe that they, the Ohio populace, would object to it by a majority vote. Aint democracy grand!Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

[Rrhain: If I take a piece of metal and painstakingly carve out the obverse and reverse of a quarter, is it any different from a quarter that is minted?]Sure it's different, yours isn't legal tender.Now on to abiogenesis and "your" inability to understand what I wrote concerning it and the theory of evolution.presuppose
SYLLABICATION: presuppose
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: presupposed, presupposing, presupposes
1. To believe or suppose in advance.
2. To require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition. See synonyms at presume. [Rrhain: Doesn't your holy book tell you to love thine enemy as you love thyself?.....And thus, you just relegated your "intelligent design".....]My holy book? My intelligent design. Where the hell did I say that? What post were you reading anyway?You may want to consider reading my posts a little closer next time. And as for the aclu, I never said it was anti-christian, or even anti-religion, just anti-theist and not one of the links you offered has anything to do with the aclu defending "god" or "a god" which is a hell of a lot different than defending a religion, a religious group, or a religious individual.The "Oh my God" Case
The ACLU was the prime mover in bringing this challenge to the Ohio motto.
ForbiddenAccording to recent statistics, the U.S. population is compromised of 80 percent Christian/Jews. I think the ACLU goes way overboard when they are out recruiting complainants for cases that the vast majority of the population would not support. The ACLU gives themselves a bad name when they do this.They oppose restricting children from pornography on the Internet while also taking offense to the posting of the Ten Commandments in a (presumably) predominantly Christian/Jewish community. Where is the logic in this? Where is the balance in this? Where are they guiding our country?The ACLU say they exist to protect our freedoms, but there are limits and in the wake of what happened on 9/11 - arguably a case could be made that they should be ashamed of where their guidance has gotten us so far.The ACLU needs to stop digging and searching for cases, focusing on the obscure and inane and start doing constructive things to honestly make our country a better and safer place to live.If there aren't larger, more pressing cases for them to work on where they actually would be working to protect the people's civil liberties instead of exploiting the trivial and creating mountains where there aren't even mole-hills, maybe they've outgrown the noble cause they presumably originally sought and intended to undertake.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C39660%2C00.htmlACLU Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Ruling Removing the Phrase Under God From Pledge of Allegiance Recited in Public Schools (03/24/2004)WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the Supreme Court to uphold a federal appeals court ruling that public schools are constitutionally barred from linking patriotism and piety by reciting the phrase "under God" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance.
http://www.aclu.org/...giousLiberty/ReligiousLibertylist.cfmACLU Challenging 'God Bless America'
http://www.afa.net/activism/aa101701.aspThe ACLU - America's Very Own Taliban Demands End of "God Bless America".....On March 23, 1998 the very liberal California Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the ACLU.....
ForbiddenIn God We Trust: Is It Time to Decide? Michael G. Shaw November 9, 2000 Simply put, most Atheists don’t like the ‘In God We Trust’ slogan staring at us every time we pull out our wallets or purses.
http://www.shawlegal.com/ChurchStatePaper.pdfIt should be clear to you by now that I am no fan of the aclu and that I could go on and on, listing literally hundreds of like examples but I think that by now it should be obvious to any reasonable individual that the aclu gets more than a little nuts whenever someone says "god" and they can't wait to file a suit to make them stop saying it, writing it, promoting it, or displaying it in any manner.Mark my words, when the religious liberties have been fully eroded in this country, we won't be far behind on the hit list. Freedom of academic thought and ideas will be the next casualty. If we learn nothing else from history, we should at least learn, and remember, that much.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

[Jar: That's why we are not a Democracy, thank GOD.]Thank whomever or whatever you wish. We may be a republic, but we definitely practice democracy here. Stop splitting hairs. [Jar: And the Constitution actually says that they Can Not do something like that.]I would love for you to point out to me where you read that in the constitution and don't bother pointing me to the establishment clause, (or the separation clause), if you prefer that term. It does not address that issue at all. School Boards are not congressionally elected officials. [Jar: If they were to allow teaching in a public, state funded school system.....]Public? State? Hmmm, lets see now."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Constitution of the United States
Bill of Rights
Amendment XPretty cut and dried, wouldn't you say?Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Federal bucks, State bucks.....makes no difference whatsoever. It all comes from the populace.
______________________________________________________________________
The Gettysburg Address
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
______________________________________________________________________Of the people, by the people, for the people.....I guess you're not a big fan of ol' honest Abe. That's ok, I don't think the aclu is either.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

[crashfrog: .....how can you suggest that a state has the ability to circumvent Constitutionally protected rights?]
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. Constitution
Bill of RightsAmendment ICongress 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.Amendment IXThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.Amendment XIVSection 1. 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.
______________________________________________________________________Bill of Rights
Amendment I"CONGRESS" shall make no law respecting an "ESTABLISHMENT" of religion, or "PROHIBITING" the "FREE EXCERCISE" 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. (emphasis mine}Exactly which "constitutionally" protected rights are you referring to?Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

[Jar: When we use public funds to promote religion though, we are wrong.]Exactly which religion would these funds be promoting and would this truly be the case even if the teaching of creationism is what the majority of the public wishes?August 30, 1999
Americans Support Teaching Creationism as Well as Evolution in Public Schools
Divided on origins of human speciesby David W. MooreAlthough some leaders in the scientific community have expressed stunned dismay at the willingness of both leading presidential contenders, Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice-President Al Gore, to support the teaching of creationism in public schools, recent Gallup polls confirm that Americans are in favor of that policy by a substantial margin. At the same time, they are divided on how human beings came into existence.
Page Not Found [jar: And allowing creationism or even intellegent design, even though niether could possibly be taken seriously by any reasoning being, is to establish a state religion. There is simply no way to get around that.]jar, that statement, "allowing creationism or even intellegent design, even though niether could possibly be taken seriously by any reasoning being, is to establish a state religion", is so utterly foolish and ridiculous that I am surprised that your were willing to state it openly. Exactly which one of the many religions that believe in creation and/or intelligent design would be established and exactly how does the teaching of creationism and/or intelligent design establish a religion?I hate to have to stick up for the creationists/id'ers here but you are making some unbelieveably outlandish statements that have absolutely no merit whatsoever.No Cheers for you this time!

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

And that is the beauty of all of this. No one can be forced, nor should they. Option of opinion is the key phrase here.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

[jar: It matters not which religion is promoted, only that religion is being promoted.]I think more likely that no religion is being promoted, but rather an opposing view of the evidence is. No religion, no offense. [jar: And no, it most certainly does not matter if the majority of the public want it.]You may want to brush up on the constitution. The constitution has been amended on more than one ocassion precisely because of what the "majority" wanted, and it takes a "majority" to do so.
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. Constitution
Article VThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
______________________________________________________________________So it is quite true that a "majority" of senators and representatives, who tend to respond to a "majority" of their constituents so as to remain in office, and in conjunction with a "majority" of the states, is quite able to do exactly what you seem to think they can not do. This is a republic and yes, the majority rules, whether the minority likes it or not. That is constitutional!Cheers