We here a lot of jabber on this site about how liberal, activist judges are making law. But what about Richard Thompson (left) of the Thomas More Law Center? His mission is to use the courts to "change the culture." Lawyers for the center are defending the school district in Dover, PA which voted last year to require Darwin's theory of evolution to be referred to as "not a fact" in 9th grade biology class.
The Kansas School Board (left)recently approved, 6 to 4, to do much of the same thing. John G West of the Discovery Institute which promotes intelligent design, has been pushing heavily for this in Kansas and is happy to see that their board of education now has "the best science standards in the nation."Even in my own home state of Minnesota, the Minnetonka School District is considering a change in curriculum to reflect that evolution is a "theory" and not a fact. In addition, intelligent design is being considered as a valid course of study.
Now I know that some of you conservatives will say that these folks are just trying to make a more moral society. I say they are essentially using their power and wealth, along with other like minded people, to make our country as fucking ignorant as possible. That way, you see, they can control society more effectively. People that have access to more knowledge and facts ask questions and wonder why. People that don't have access to this sort of education are easier to manipulate into submission. It's just that simple.
Some conservatives that post here have argued that evolution must be taught in schools while saying at the same time that prayer or saying "under God" in the pledge should be allowed. This seems to be in direct dichotomy to me and this is my talking point for the week. Explain to me, right wingers, how you want to have prayer in schools and yet evolution as well.
Because by arguing for prayer in school, you are emboldening these people to take over an aspect of our lives and my children's lives that should not be touched by belief but by fact. Church is where belief should be taught, discussed, expounded upon etc.....NOT IN SCHOOL!!!We are allowing religious beliefs to be taught in schools and it just wrong. I have said this before but now I really want an answer. Why? Why do these people feel the need to teach intelligent design in schools? Can't they teach it at church? And you know what is really funny? Some of the most moral people I know don't believe in God at all. Some of the least moral people I know do believe in God.
Maybe the real reason why religious people need to have religious curriculum in schools is because their faith is weak and they need to constantly have it in all aspects of their lives. Any less than that, and (Gasp!) they might give into temptation. And people say that liberals are trying to force things down the country's throat. What a fucking riot that is. Hello Kettle? This is Pot. Guess what? YOU'RE BLACK!!!
It's funny but I don't think that evolution is all true necessarily. I think there are a lot of unaswered questions there and those of you that know me know that I have my own zany theories about the creation of man. But I do believe that there are enough facts that evolution should be taught in schools. Religion should not be taught in schools unless it is a religious school in which case, great!Well, thankfully, at least the good people of Dover had had enough and voted out ALL of those idiots that were fucking everything up out and elected a whole new school board. And a judge threw out the rule that intelligent design must be taught in schools. I guess there is some hope after all. Laughably, Pat Robertson declared that God would punish the judge and all members of the town for turning their backs on Him. Is Minnetonka, MN next?
Oh and by the way, as of this writing, Dover is still standing.
3 comments:
Seems to me that evolution has become a modern religion in itself with witch hunts against those that challenge it. Holier than thou atheists bug me just as much as holier than thou religious people.
As far as ID goes, why can't it be taught from the standpoint that possibly, in this extremely vast universe, some being of a higher power, maybe not "God" as we know her, but a higher being none the less, planted the seed of life on earth? Why couldn’t it be something like Star Trek where extremely complex beings are found with a hundred times the capacity of humans who were the ones who jump started the human race? It may sound improbable but it’s just as improbable or probably as evolution is, which cannot fully be proved…which is why it is still called a theory and not a “law” like the “law of gravity”.
I don’t see a problem with some school teaching it in philosophy, history, or even social studies along with other creation mumbo-jumbo because that’s what it is. The conclusion I’ve read about in the various cases thus far concludes that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom and I don’t translate that as being told to teach it in church only. Why not bring the other creation beliefs into the fold, too? Like what Hindus, Buddhists and Pagans believe. Discuss the differences of who believes what and why, but in a social and historical context. It's a great way to create awareness and tolerance of other cultures (since most intolerant behavior these days is directed at white, religious people).
Our children should be exposed to all such notions just as further understanding of why various people believe various things. It should be presented in a completely non-biased "History Channel" sort of way (preferably a “Mail Call” sort of way…HOO-RA!) that allows the students to judge for themselves what they prefer to believe (which we all know will more often than not, reflect whatever it is their parents have taught them based on any religious upbringing they have). I see nothing wrong with studting all theories that are out there under the context of studying the origin beliefs of various cultures all over the world. Pretty much, every culture has some sort of creation "theory" in their folklore/religious teaching and to just say “no God' and walk away from it as if that is the only truth is kind of lazy IMO. Just blowing it off makes no sense to me. If anyone is leading people to stupidity it is the Evolution Nazis by mandating ignorance (refusing to even touch the subject). Again, so long as it's presented unbiasedly along side creationism and evolution in HISTORY or some class other than Science class, simply as examples of what various cultures believe and not in any way trying to prove/disprove anything about these notions/theories, I don't see any reason not to educate our children about ID.
At the end of the day, though, what does it really matter? Knowing that one or the other is the truth isn't going to change how I go about my day. I'll still get up, shower, jerk off, eat, go to work, go lift, come home, jerk off, sleep and do it all over again. What may or may not have happened before I was even a gleam in my daddys eye won't make much difference in how I live my life (maybe it will allow me to say “Wow…Wow Wow” like Joe Theisman).
Explain to me, right wingers, how you want to have prayer in schools and yet evolution as well
I don't (and won't) support prayer in schools. Not in your context, anyway. I do support, and will continue to support, the right of people to pray in a school or to set forth religious beliefs in public places. If a high-school football coach wants to have a voluntary pre-game prayer (in the spirit of "anybody who wants to take a knee and pray is welcome"), I'm all for it. I'm all for a community that loses Christian soldiers in a war who wants to honor them with a cross-shaped memorial. To deny them that as part of some "no religion in public" sanitization process sounds un-American and, frankly, a bit "kleenex boxes on the feet" to me.
Although I cannot share your view that there is a vast conspiracy to "dumb"-en us up, there's no question in my mind that a great many of the ID proponents are in it strictly to attempt to impose their beliefs on everybody. Not anything more glamorous or sinister than that. (Frankly, I think you're giving them way too much credit if you think it's all part of a larger plan.) So the ID curriculum that they support is one that I have no problem striking down.
I do believe that elements of ID belong in school, however. I have to disagree with HMHC, though, and speculate that elements of ID belong in a science classroom right alongside evolution. Darwin himself spent a great deal of time formulating positions on primary and secondary causation, drawing on Thomas Aquinas and Newton to conclude:
To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes
Darwin approaches the notion of a Creator from a Christian standpoint, as does much of America. (I believe Darwin was even planning on being a minister?) But I personally don't see the need to invoke the name of any "God" in the ID discussion...a mere discussion regarding the possibility of a "higher power" being the origin of life would seem to suffice.
Being imperfect creatures, perhaps such an impassionate discussion of "higher power" is not possible. I absolutely defer to John and other educators to weigh-in on that. But I have to believe there is empirical benefit to reconciling the apparent incongruity between the creationist theories almost all societies/religions have and what is being taught in science class. Especially when, in truth, science has not yet been able to definitively remove G(od) from the origin equation. It seems much more desirable to me that a kid walk out of science class feeling at ease with both his/her faith and education rather than feeling as if it is an "either/or" proposition.
Since we are talking about fantasy. Let me tell you about a dream I had. The wife & I are in a convience store and three guys come in. We are in the back of the store when one guy opens up to scare the clerk into giving up the cash. I pop the guy one in the head and when # two turns my way I tag him in the head too. Number three opens up on me with soup cans exploding all around. I hit him in the head too. When the police arrive I am of course taken into custody. My only defense is that I am ridding the scene of rats. I am sentenced to forty years for my efforts. Who was wrong?
Post a Comment