CNN.com - Judge rules against "intelligent design" in science class - Dec 20, 2005
I'm sitting here scratching my round head in disbelief and confusion.
Look, everyone who knows me (except my Grandma) knows I'm a Deist, so I'm no friend of the religious right. But this is crazy. The good Judge acknowledges evolution is an "imperfect" science. Yet he allows it to be taught as the exclusive science of human origin. Please follow this direct quote:
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions," Jones writes.
So, the good Judge feels that it's ok to use evolution as a science class when "...theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point...", but the same benefit of the doubt can not be applied to intelligent design because it's religion based.
Here's my vote then: Darwin, on his death bed, accepted a "God" (like so many seem to do) and there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest he recognized the flaws in his own theory and denounced it. So, since the "god" of evolution has accepted the "god of organized religion", I vote we dismiss evolution because Darwin became "grounded in religion" (see prior quote)! How's THAT for an out of hand dismissal of a concept based on origin of theory?
This ruling will pave the way for schools to sell to impressionable young minds the "sanctity" of evolution. The science of evolution, which even today uses such phrases as "it appears that.." and "we believe that.." in explaining its religion, now gets sole dominion over the minds of our students because it literally has skeletons in its closet. Meanwhile, inquiring young minds will have to look outside the normal venue of education to see another perspective which admittedly uses just as many ambiguous, non-committing phrases but does not have the endorsement of the State; hence, it's considered "fringe".
Under the Establishment Clause the government is not supposed to endorse or promote a religion. I contend that with rulings like this the government is violating the establishment clause by promoting anti-religion as the state-sponsored belief system.
Look, everyone who knows me (except my Grandma) knows I'm a Deist, so I'm no friend of the religious right. But this is crazy. The good Judge acknowledges evolution is an "imperfect" science. Yet he allows it to be taught as the exclusive science of human origin. Please follow this direct quote:
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions," Jones writes.
So, the good Judge feels that it's ok to use evolution as a science class when "...theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point...", but the same benefit of the doubt can not be applied to intelligent design because it's religion based.
Here's my vote then: Darwin, on his death bed, accepted a "God" (like so many seem to do) and there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest he recognized the flaws in his own theory and denounced it. So, since the "god" of evolution has accepted the "god of organized religion", I vote we dismiss evolution because Darwin became "grounded in religion" (see prior quote)! How's THAT for an out of hand dismissal of a concept based on origin of theory?
This ruling will pave the way for schools to sell to impressionable young minds the "sanctity" of evolution. The science of evolution, which even today uses such phrases as "it appears that.." and "we believe that.." in explaining its religion, now gets sole dominion over the minds of our students because it literally has skeletons in its closet. Meanwhile, inquiring young minds will have to look outside the normal venue of education to see another perspective which admittedly uses just as many ambiguous, non-committing phrases but does not have the endorsement of the State; hence, it's considered "fringe".
Under the Establishment Clause the government is not supposed to endorse or promote a religion. I contend that with rulings like this the government is violating the establishment clause by promoting anti-religion as the state-sponsored belief system.
posted by Invictus | 5:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home