10-29-2005, 03:16 AM | #181 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
Again, I agree, but Constitutional issues are Federal issues. There is some room at the state level for modifications.
This just in: Groups Balk at Teaching Intelligent Design October 29, 2005 1:06 AM EDT TOPEKA, Kan. - Two national groups say the state can't use their copyrighted material in proposed science standards that critics contend promote creationism. The National Academy of Sciences and National Science Teachers Association called the proposed standards misleading and objected to language - sought by intelligent-design advocates - suggesting some evolutionary theory isn't solid. "To say that evolution is sort of on the ropes is unfair to the students of Kansas," said Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the teachers' association. The State Board of Education is set to vote Nov. 8 on whether to adopt the new standards, which must be updated periodically under Kansas law. Current standards treat evolution as a well-established theory that is crucial to understanding science. Six of the board's 10 members have shown support for the proposed standards, saying they want to give students a more balanced view of evolution. The standards are used to develop student achievement tests but don't mandate how science is taught.
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
10-29-2005, 09:39 AM | #182 |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Kansas again... Is there something in the water there?
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
10-29-2005, 11:22 AM | #183 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
...ah, a smile from a post by IR is a rare and wonderful thing.
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
10-29-2005, 11:35 AM | #184 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
Spock - constitutional issues apply to the states as well (and have been taken to apply to local government too), from the 14th Amendment "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 a person of life, liberty or propery, without due process of the law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
And one of those privileges and immunities is that of not having any church established (from Amendment 1)
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
10-29-2005, 12:07 PM | #185 | |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
Quote:
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
|
10-29-2005, 03:27 PM | #186 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
There is an establishment. As I've been pointing out, government employees presenting one religious viewpoint (creationism) is an establishment, constitutionally speaking.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
10-29-2005, 04:13 PM | #187 | |||
Friendly Neigborhood Sith Lord
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 2,080
|
Quote:
__________________
I was Press Secretary for the Berlioz administration and also, but not limited to, owner and co operator of fully armed and operational battle station EDDIE Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
10-29-2005, 04:41 PM | #188 | ||
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
Quote:
Second, in relation to the text above, so far as I know the Kansas case does not involve Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
||
10-29-2005, 05:55 PM | #189 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
YES!!! Finally somebody gets it.
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
10-29-2005, 06:10 PM | #190 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
it would be like teaching about Tolkien's world in a history class and claiming that it's a possible alternate history
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
10-29-2005, 06:30 PM | #191 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Gwai?!
*falls over in a faint* How ya doing?! Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
10-29-2005, 07:16 PM | #192 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
That's why I quoted the Fourteenth Amendment
Guys, I'm quite capable of reading. The First Amendment does indeed refer to Congress. However, it is by now an established Supreme Court precedent that one of the major effects of the Fourteenth Amendment (indeed, THE major effect) is that it applies formerly federal restrictions to the states. Establishment of religion is one of those. That is why, for instance, states can no longer take your land without due process or just compensation - which they could before the Fourteenth Amendment. Or why state and local officials have to give Miranda warnings - which they wouldn't have, before the Fourteenth Amendment.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
10-29-2005, 08:13 PM | #193 | |
of the House of Fëanor
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,150
|
Quote:
__________________
Few people have the imagination for reality.
~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
|
10-29-2005, 10:20 PM | #194 | |||
Friendly Neigborhood Sith Lord
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 2,080
|
Quote:
but don't get discouraged or nothing, keep on having an opinion and everything.
__________________
I was Press Secretary for the Berlioz administration and also, but not limited to, owner and co operator of fully armed and operational battle station EDDIE Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
10-29-2005, 10:29 PM | #195 | |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
Quote:
2. Miranda was decided by court decision based upon the 14th amendment. It didn't come into existence with the passage of the 14th amendment as your post implies.
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
|
10-29-2005, 11:17 PM | #196 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
rohirrim - you continually assert "that creation and ID are no more scientific or UNscientific than evolution" yet you do not provide evidence of how this is true - by contrast, there are many many posts in this thread that provide examples of how evolution is scientific in specific ways that ID and especially creation are not.
Spock - Miranda rights came into existence as soon as the 14th amendment was ratified. HOWEVER, the court did not hear a case on the topic until Miranda v. Arizona, as you correctly point out, and therefore the rights were not enforced until then. However, as Miranda was decided entirely on the basis of 14th amendment application to the states, the right, however unenforced, came into being with the 14th amendment. The court does not make proactive law. It can only react, by ruling on a case brought to trial and appealed. That is why Miranda rights were not acknowledged until Miranda v. Arizona was decided - no case of that nature had come to the court before. The rights come into being when the law the case is decided on comes into being - but are not necessarily enforced until the court case is decided, which comes later. In the case of creation-science, the 14th amendment, and the 1st amendment, there are already court case precedents, however, so I can safely say the rights exist.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
10-29-2005, 11:48 PM | #197 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
But I still think that too much federal control is just ... scary ... And I've listed scientific aspects of both creationism and ID before. IMO I think there ARE valid scientific aspects of both. And in the opinion of a growing group of people, including scientists, too. And darn it, I'm tired of being ridiculed esp. by the people who tend to go on about how a majority shouldn't override a minority - oh, sorry, only on THEIR minority positions
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
10-30-2005, 01:15 AM | #198 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
I agree that too much federal control can be scary. However, that doesn't change the current state of the nation's laws. They can be scary (check out what the CIA used to be able to do before the mid-1990s), but they are there.
Yes, Rian, you have presented some evidence (most of which I feel has been refuted, but if you don't, that is, regardless of my agreement, your right) about the scientific aspects of those theories. I do not feel, however, that rohirrim has, which is why I was asking rohirrim. I, of course, remain convinced that those are not scientific, for the same reasons are have been expounded in this thread multiple times - primarily their lack of any testable assertions whatsoever that are not merely "evolution won't work." Evolution may not be 100% testable (I'm not enough of a fool to say that you can test directly what happened a couple billion years ago) but it Does make testable assertions (such as those about DNA that IR has posted about, or the experiments with early-earth atmospheres and amino acids that I posted about way upthread) and those assertions have this tendency of proving to be correct - and, amazingly enough, when they aren't, we change the theory. That's where punctuated equilibria came in, for instance.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. Last edited by Count Comfect : 10-30-2005 at 01:16 AM. |
10-30-2005, 11:29 AM | #199 | ||
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, goody, we agree. As for the rest, as Tessar would say, OFF TOPIC
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
||
10-30-2005, 02:39 PM | #200 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
the theory of evolution is based on things we know exist... time and change from generation to generation... what scientists imply may be wrong, but it is scientific to imply from causes we know exist it is not scientific to imply from causes we have absolutely no way of knowing exist remember, science is about how you approach a theory, not whether it is right or wrong and to stay "on topic" if something is not science it is wrong, and arguably unlawful, to teach it in "science" class in a public institution... this is why creationism was shot down and they tried to change tactics via ID... but changing "god" to "an intelligent designer" does not change the fundamental problem with the approach please remember, i am not arguing against religion being taught... i think it is essential for our children to learn about all the major religions in the world, especially in light of current events... i just don't want it to be taught as something it is not... this does more harm than good to both the believers and the non-believers
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Evidence for Evolution | jerseydevil | General Messages | 599 | 05-18-2008 02:43 PM |
How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 1199 | 10-05-2005 04:43 AM |
Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution | Rían | General Messages | 1149 | 08-16-2004 06:07 PM |