Evolution

[dsvochak]

The scary thing about this discussion to me is I think the people who've chimed in here are more logical and reasonable by an incredible amount than the people arguing about this issue in Kansas, Cobb County, Dover PA, or wherever else a discussion like this is taking place.

In fact, I'd bet that if we were all in the same room somewhere, even though you would be "so much in the minority", we could probably work out a reasonable compromise in a couple of days, a week tops. It might not be 100% satisfactory to both sides, but I know it would make more sense than what our elected and/or appointed officials are going to come with.

If our government(s) conducted business like this we would probably be a whole lot better off than we are.

[GomJabbar]

If our government(s) conducted business like this we would probably be a whole lot better off than we are.

Hear, hear!

"hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"

[egibbs]

As one of the chimers, I'm going to have to be a bit less present for a couple weeks - off to the Red States to do some honest work. I will check in from time to time and try to keep the pot stirred.

On the copyright issue - Suppose I took some of the Southern Baptist copyrighted Bible Study materials and added a bunch of notes and thoughts of my own. Just some facts about the veracity and literal truth of the stories in the Bible (i.e. a careful meterologic and hydrologic analysis analysis of the Great Flood, etc.). Then I sold them on the internet and claimed they were endorsed and recommended by the Southern Baptists. I wonder how long it would take them to "censor" my free speech?

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

Just when I thought that this thread may be wrapping itself up............

On the copyright issue - Suppose I took some of the Southern Baptist copyrighted Bible Study materials and added a bunch of notes and thoughts of my own. Just some facts about the veracity and literal truth of the stories in the Bible (i.e. a careful meterologic and hydrologic analysis analysis of the Great Flood, etc.). Then I sold them on the internet and claimed they were endorsed and recommended by the Southern Baptists. I wonder how long it would take them to "censor" my free speech?

There are some important differences between your hypothetical and the case at hand.

1. You would claim your hypothetical is endorsed and recommended by the Southern Baptists, which is obviously false. In the case at hand, the ID proponents are not trying to say that the additions that they themselves put in the textbook materials (used from the National Science Education Standards) are endorsed and recommended by the textbook writers, the National Research Council. In fact the current news coverage on the issue should remove any ambiguity regarding this.

2. You would sell the materials in your hypothetical for unjust profit. In the case at hand, the State or School system is buying the materials for use. They are not selling them.

3. In your hypothetical you "added a bunch of notes and thoughts of my own". Regarding the case at hand, at least what I have read so far regarding the ID proponents is that they wish to put a brief statement at the beginning of the subject of evolution stating that 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact......'.

Caveat: I am less familiar with what exactly they are trying to to in Kansas.

'This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living beings. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.'

Just some facts about the veracity and literal truth of the stories in the Bible (i.e. a careful meterologic and hydrologic analysis analysis of the Great Flood, etc.).

Some difference there I would say.

[DaveO]

Seeing that this thread has drifted away from the original question (actual evidence against evolution)
and moved more to the issue as presented by the US media, for now..... I'll just add.....

The anti-evolution view may be the underdog in this thread, but it doesn't seem to be the "minority" view nationally, in the US anyway.

Any of you guys that think the current establishment scientific view doesn't dabble in "religion", then what do you call this?
Seems the shoe fits the other foot as well!

[doppelfish]

Ok, we're at a point where being a science teacher in Kansas is number three on the ten worst jobs in science. I'd tell you folks about the other jobs, but I've been told not to use dirty words.
But hey: Think your job is frustrating? Then click away ...

cheers,
-- fish

[dsvochak]

"The anti-evolution view may be the underdog in this thread, but it doesn't seem to be the "minority" view nationally, in the US anyway."

When this issue came up earlier I wrote:

"Are we going to resolve these public policy issues by taking a poll? Don't be so quick to answer yes.

"CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll:
This was taken on 2005-MAR-21 to 23. They asked 1,001 randomly selected American adults the
question: "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain
circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

Results:
55% responded sometimes legal. This is an increase of 1 percentage point from a similar poll in 1975
23% always legal; this is an increase of 2 percentage points.
20% always illegal; this is reduction of 2 percentage points.
2% uncertain.
Margin of error ±3 percentage points"

If there's anyone out there who can offer a "theory" that can account for/reconcile the results of these two polls, I'd like to hear it.

Another quote: "If you subscribe to the Democratic form of government, then the majority decides where the public monies are spent. As the elected officials decide how to spend these monies, they should consider the will of the majority and the public good, and legislate likewise."

The problem with this sentiment is, in the U.S., the constitution goes to great lengths to protect the rights of the minority, in many cases, regardless of the public good.

As an example consider this clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.". This is the clause that, just recently, constrained Toledo, Ohio, from prohibiting a march by the American Nazis [or whatever they call themselves now] in a heavily black area of Toledo. It's difficult to imagine how the ensuing civil disturbance reflected either the will of the majority or the public good.

Enough said on this topic. To be posted later is my take on the other part of DaveO's post which is much more interesting.

[GomJabbar]

the ten worst jobs in science.

No wonder these scientists get so P---ed off when someone challenges their assertions! Who would want to go through all that misery and ridicule only to get their conclusions questioned? LOL

[GomJabbar]

Another quote: "If you subscribe to the Democratic form of government, then the majority decides where the public monies are spent. As the elected officials decide how to spend these monies, they should consider the will of the majority and the public good, and legislate likewise."

The problem with this sentiment is, in the U.S., the constitution goes to great lengths to protect the rights of the minority, in many cases, regardless of the public good.

Yes, I agree that the rights of the minority needs protection as the Constitution mandates. However, I am not sure this would apply in the above instance regarding the spending of public monies. Should we allow public monies to be spent on just any pursuit of knowledge? For instance, if some group wished to 'prove' the existence of ghosts, does that mean that the public should be support that endeavor financially? In this case, I think the majority's will should take precedence.

[dsvochak]

Please bear with me here because some of this gets complicated. It's also really long.

Part 2 of DaveO's post:

"Any of you guys that think the current establishment scientific view doesn't dabble in "religion", then what do you call this? Seems the shoe fits the other foot as well!"

Under the current interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, DaveO appears to be right. Relatively easy to deal with--the referenced website removes all statements regarding religion. Same solution that obtains in Cobb Co., GA. Dover, PA. Kansas, etc.

Whether "the current establishment scientific view..." should "... dabble in 'religion'" is a whole other question.

Contained in the article DaveO linked is this link

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0906uc.asp

The substance of the article is as follows:

"Unless they choose to take other college-prep classes that use textbooks deemed "acceptable" by UC, these students' applications will most likely be denied. The reason: the Christian textbooks used in several new college-prep courses at their high school were considered "too religious" to be accepted for college-entrance credit at UC.

On August 25, these six students, along with their school, Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, California and the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), filed a federal lawsuit against the University of California where, according to the LA Times (August 27), admissions officials have been accused of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.

According to the LA Times article, UC's board of admissions advised the school that it would not approve biology and science courses that relied primarily on textbooks published by Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books. Some of the school's Christian-oriented courses were "too narrow" to be acceptable, university officials wrote in letters to Calvary Chapel."

From the UC admissions website:

"How does UC determine eligibility?

Students must meet certain minimum academic requirements to be considered eligible for
admission to the University of California system. For most prospective freshmen, eligibility is
determined by:

1. Completion of the required a-g college prep courses in high school;
2. The GPA earned in a-g courses taken in the 10th and 11th grades;
3. Scores on standardized tests. Students who graduated from high school before spring 2005 should have taken the ACT or SAT, plus three SAT Subject Tests. Students graduating in spring 2005 or later should take the ACT Assessment plus Writing or the SAT Reasoning Test, plus two SAT Subject Tests. [ More

The Eligibility Index defines the combination of these grades and test scores required for UC eligibility. Students also can become UC-eligible by being in the top 4 percent of their own schools graduating class, based on their grades in the a-g courses (a process known as Eligibility in the
Local Context, or ELC), or by scoring highly on required admission tests (known as Eligibility by Examination Alone).

Historically, achieving eligibility has meant a guaranteed spot at one of UC's campuses, although not necessarily at a students campus of choice. Campuses select their incoming students from among eligible applicants using a process called comprehensive review that considers multiple
indicators of academic and personal achievement."

As near as I can tell, this argument is related to the "d-Laboratory Sciences-2 years required, 3 years recommended" part of the "required a-g college prep courses" noted above. The only course offered by the school shown by UC as meeting the "d" requirement is Chemistry.

According to UC, "Laboratory Sciences" includes "two of the three fundamental disciplines of Biology, Chemistry and Physics".

The effect is Calvary Chapel Christian School students are not "UC-eligible by being in the top 4 percent of their own schools graduating class, based on their grades in the a-g courses (a process known as Eligibility in the Local Context, or ELC)". On the other hand, it would seem to have no effect on Calvary Chapel Christian School students who "become UC-eligible by... scoring highly on required admission tests (known as Eligibility by Examination Alone)."

So, why do I find this so interesting?

GomJabbar wrote: "I meant to add that participating in this debate has been fun for the intellectual challenge, but disappointing for the direction it has headed, in that I appear to be so much in the minority here. I am the champion of the underdog in this thread. Actually I could use Underdog right about now."

It's so interesting because I get to be Underdog while remaining (relatively speaking) logical and consistent. GomJabbar, have no fear, Underdog is here!

If you go back and read my posts, you should note that I've been careful to say that the first amendment restriction on "establishment of religion" as it comes up in the context of the "intelligent design" vs "evolution" debate is only applicable to "public" schools. The implication, which I believe, is "private" schools can teach anything that floats their boat. FSM, creationism, the bible, whatever. Private schools can do what they want. (Also true of home schooling).

Another quote from the article:

[begin quote]"...in a May 2004 meeting between Christian school personnel, UC personnel and attorneys from both sides of the issue, the UC representatives indicated that 'there was no problem with the material facts in the BJU physics textbook—that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved for the science lab course requirement.'

The Update article goes on to say that as the discussion continued about the biology books, 'it became evident that they were rejected because they appeared to state the perspective that the Bible is revelation and along with faith is more authoritative than the observations of science, especially if there were a conflict over a 'factual scientific issue.''

As reported by the Inside Higher Ed, the science courses that have been rejected teach not only creationism or intelligent design, but also teach the "standard content of evolution," even if the teachers do not believe the content.

Other courses rejected by UC officials, according to the LA Times article (August 27), include "Christianity's Influence in American History," "Christianity and Morality in American Literature" and "Special Providence: American Government."[end quote]

If this is an accurate report of the May, 2004, meeting and other relevant facts, the UC representatives are: 1) in some legal difficulty; and 2) idiots (which probably accounts for #1).

I have no explanation for why "Christianity's Influence in American History," "Christianity and Morality in American Literature" were rejected. The first would seem to fit under the "a" requirement (History/Social Science) and the second under the "b-English" requirement, or both under "g-Elective". In addition, both sound like they might be interesting courses.

If "... there was no problem with the material facts in the BJU physics textbook", defending excluding the physics courses from qualifying under the "d" requirement is problematic. It is, after all a private Christian school and if they want to editorialize it seems to me they have the right.

In the context of the suit, if the physics texts and the physics classes are approved, the biology issue becomes moot. If you add physics to chemistry, the students would be eligible under the "d" requirement.

But, since this is an evolution thread, let's talk about biology.

Assume the report is right and "...the science courses that have been rejected teach not only creationism or intelligent design, but also teach the "standard content of evolution," even if the teachers do not believe the content.", I'm going to ignore the rhetoric in the article and try to frame a legal question or issue. The issue is this:

Whether, in the context of formulating the list of required a-g college prep courses in high school, UC, when formulating such list for courses offered at a private school, can reject a course or text which offers the same material as that offered by other courses (here, "the "standard content of evolution,") for the reason that such course also offers alternative material consistent with the private schools purpose?

If Calvary Chapel Christian School is indeed teaching the standard content of biology and that content includes "the standard content of evolution" in the same fashion as taught in other schools, UC has no legal right to discriminate against the faculty, staff and students of Calvary Chapel Christian School for taking advantage of their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion.

This would be particularly true if the applicant is applying for a program/major outside of the science departments.

A final quote from the article:

"If you don't understand evolution, you don't understand biology," Albert F. Bennett, chair of ecology and evolutionary biology at the university's Irvine campus said in the Inside Higher Ed article. "If you don't understand biology, you don't understand modern science. A student ill-versed in science is poorly prepared for university-level work."

[This isn't part of a legal argument, but Professor Bennett has been taken out of context, is kidding, or must think the only reason to go to college is to study "ecology and evolutionary biology".]

Professor Bennett's comment contains some logically faulty assumptions, both express and implied, which are relevant.

First, the most obvious, "A student ill-versed in science is poorly prepared for university-level work" is likely to only be true if such student is applying to study science and not as a universal criteria for admission.

Next, whether a student "understand[s] biology" is not measured by whether a student took, and passed, high school biology courses taught with approved texts. Learning a group of facts in a biology class and being able to answer questions on a test is not evidence of "understand[ing] biology".

Third, the criteria is a student becomes "UC-eligible by being in the top 4 percent of their own schools graduating class, based on their grades in the a-g courses (a process known as Eligibility in the Local Context, or ELC)" not the implied additional criteria that this only applies if you "understand" (Bennett's term, not mine) not just get grades sufficient to place an applicant in the "top 4 percent of their own schools graduating class".

If the criteria has an implied "understanding" requirement, it must be, to be rationally based and therefore legal, applied to all students not just those who are taught biology out of a nonstandard text.

There are others but these three suffice. Now, back to the question:

Whether, in the context of formulating the list of required a-g college prep courses in high school, UC, when formulating such list for courses offered at a private school, can reject a course or text which offers the same material as that offered by other courses (here, "the "standard content of evolution,") for the reason that such course also offers alternative material consistent with the private schools purpose?

A complicated question with a simple answer: No.

If anyone wants to dispute this conclusion feel free.

Oddly enough, in a way, this is the way the U.S. is supposed to work. Public institutions (e.g local school boards and public universities) are prohibited from either "establishing religion" or "preventing the free exercise thereof". Private institutions, in large part, face no such prohibition.

[doppelfish]

No wonder these scientists get so P---ed off when someone challenges their assertions! Who would want to go through all that misery and ridicule only to get their conclusions questioned?

Good thing that ID proponents aren't [censored] off about the FSM "theory" (availlable since last Thursday).

cheers,
-- fish

[GomJabbar]

There's no need to fear! Underdog is here!

When criminals in this world appear
And break the laws that they should fear
And frighten all who see or hear
The cry goes up both far and near
For Underdog! Underdog! Underdog! Underdog!

Speed of lightning, roar of thunder
Fighting all who rob or plunder
Underdog. Underdog!

When in this world the headlines read
Of those whose hearts are filled with greed
Who rob and steal from those who need
To right this wrong with blinding speed
Goes Underdog! Underdog! Underdog! Underdog!

Speed of lightning, roar of thunder
Fighting all who rob or plunder
Underdog. Underdog!

[GomJabbar]

Not evolution, but I thought you science enthusiasts might find the following article intriguing.

The New York Times, Published Tuesday, November 1, 2005
On Gravity, Oreos and a Theory of Everything

[dsvochak]

"Should we allow public monies to be spent on just any pursuit of knowledge? For instance, if some group wished to 'prove' the existence of ghosts, does that mean that the public should be support that endeavor financially?"

What if, by proving the existence of ghosts, you might be able to prove the existence of the "intelligent designer"?

"There's no need to fear! Underdog is here!

When criminals in this world appear
And break the laws that they should fear
And frighten all who see or hear
The cry goes up both far and near
For Underdog! Underdog! Underdog! Underdog!" [etc]

I can't believe you can quote the whole song. I wonder how many people who visit this site or read this thread have ever heard of Underdog. There's probably a whole discussion in that, particularly if you throw in Dvorak's column titled "Computers and Modern Anarchy". The link is:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1867945,00.asp

The column starts: "Not studying the Internet explosion's effects on society is like being a film company parked outside of Pompeii in A.D. 79 and not filming the Mount Vesuvius eruption."

By the way, since we've spent a lot of time talking about education in this thread, how did the Denver public school property tax--teacher merit pay vote turn out? That's probably a whole other discussion.

Finally, because I know it will make you envious, back in the day I took an undergrad seminar called "The Social Psychology of Organizing". We had 2 books for assigned reading. The first was the title of the seminar. It's about 100 pages with some general principles for how organizations process information. We read that text, read the second and spent 30+ class hours applying the principles to the situations in the second book. The second book was "Dune". All in all it was one of the most enjoyable classes I ever took, and, oddly enough, one of the most practical.

[GomJabbar]

I can't believe you can quote the whole song.

Google is a wonderful thing.
----------------------------------------

Regarding: "how did the Denver public school property tax--teacher merit pay vote turn out?". Sorry don't know.

----------------------------------------

The second book was "Dune". All in all it was one of the most enjoyable classes I ever took, and, oddly enough, one of the most practical.

I don't know if you saw the Dune thread I started in the Off Topic Stuff forum some months back. Maybe it's just a coincidence you mention it.

In High School, in one of my English classes, we had a somewhat progressive teacher. One of the subjects we discussed for a short time was Logical Reasoning. To this day I think that has been one of the best short courses I have had. It really helps for understanding the truth of what is said, as opposed to what is implied. You can discern the difference between what politicians are really saying (or not saying), as compared to what they seem to be saying. It applies in marketing (and other areas of life) quite often too. For instance we often hear: "Nothing is better than our product." Who can dispute that? What is being implied is: "We have the best product." What is actually being said is: "If you had nothing, it would be better than our product." Can't fight that in court.

It sure is nice to reflect on these jewels of education that were occasionally handed us, as well as the on the dedicated instructors that supplied them.

EDIT: Stupid me. Whack! (sound of hand hitting forehead). With the nom-de-plume of GomJabbar I wonder where he comes up with Dune!

[GomJabbar]

Since I was getting bored, I resorted to catching up on my news reading. The following 6-page article has to do with Evolution, but of a different kind. Nevertheless, I thought the following quote within it was worth bringing up.

That is because evolutionary biology is unusual among the sciences in asking not just "how" things work but also "why" - and not the why of local explanations (Why does water freeze at 32 degrees?) but the why of deeper ones, why something exists (Why did we evolve lungs? Why do we feel love?). There is no lab protocol to solve these sorts of mysteries, which the inductive techniques of science are poorly designed to answer, and so in the end, evolutionary biologists' conclusions can far outrun their research.

The Literary Darwinists

EDIT: Sorry, I should have checked the link first. I guess you need a paid subscription to view 'preview articles'

[dsvochak]

And here's another one on the background of the Dover PA suit:
"In Intelligent Design Case, a Cause in Search of a Lawsuit."
(New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/scien ... esign.html

From the article:
"For years, a lawyer for the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan visited school boards around the country searching for one willing to challenge evolution by teaching intelligent design, and to face a risky, high-profile trial.

Intelligent design was a departure for a nonprofit law firm founded by two conservative Roman Catholics - one the magnate of Domino's pizza, the other a former prosecutor - who until then had focused on the defense of anti-abortion advocates, gay-rights opponents and the display of Christian
symbols like crosses and Nativity scenes on government property.

But Richard Thompson, the former prosecutor who is president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Center, says its role is to use the courts "to change the culture" - and it well could depending on the outcome of the test case it finally found."

If your goal "is to use the courts 'to change the culture' it might not be a good idea to campaign against "activist judges".

[GomJabbar]

If your goal "is to use the courts 'to change the culture' it might not be a good idea to campaign against "activist judges".

Good point.

Just bolster the laws and precedent that support your cause at present.
Worry about tomorrow, when tomorrow comes.

So many nowadays can't see past the end of their nose.

Grandkids? Let them worry about their own problems.
(not my view)

[DaveO]

Change the culture or just keep it in check?

Quotes from:
Dover, Pennsylvania (USA) Intelligent Design trial ends today:

"......ID is seeking a place in the classroom because of its merits. But it’s being kept out because it is harmonious with the Christian faith.”
and
“There are two Americas today, one that’s still very religiously based, and another that has no foundation, where everything is relative, where everything goes. And the moral relativism that dominates the second America is an ideology enabled by Darwinism.”

[BillMorrow]

"......ID is seeking a place in the classroom because of its merits. But it’s being kept out because it is harmonious with the Christian faith.”
and
“There are two Americas today, one that’s still very religiously based, and another that has no foundation, where everything is relative, where everything goes. And the moral relativism that dominates the second America is an ideology enabled by Darwinism.”

HUH..??

[GomJabbar]

If your goal "is to use the courts 'to change the culture' it might not be a good idea to campaign against "activist judges".

Ideology Serves as a Wild Card in Senate Debate on Court Pick

On Roe v. Wade, the abortion ruling that has stood as a precedent since 1973, she asked, would not a "judicial conservative" be a person who would uphold it and a "judicial activist" one who would overturn it? That is the opposite of the way such terms are often used.

"I told my class the other day I have no idea what judicial activism is," Professor Epstein said. "Maybe the best definition of a judicial activist is a judge you don't like."

[dsvochak]

""I told my class the other day I have no idea what judicial activism is," Professor Epstein said. "Maybe the best definition of a judicial activist is a judge you don't like."

To quote myself, from 10/22: "A somewhat relevant aside. A "judicial activist" can be defined as "a judge who decides a case opposite of the way I wanted it to go". A "strict constructionist" can be defined as "a judge who decided the way I wanted it to go."

Neither "judicial activist" nor "strict constructionist" have a meaning outside of their context. In information theory terms, the value of the information contained is 0. You have to know a lot about the sender of the message in order to determine the intent/meaning.

Bill Morrow wrote: "HUH..??"

DaveO's quotes are quoting Richard Thompson. An additional quote from the NY Times Article "In Intelligent Design Case, a Cause in Search of a Lawsuit", on Mr. Thompson:

"The legal group was founded in 1999 by Mr. Thompson and Thomas Monaghan, the former chief executive of Domino's pizza. At the time, Mr. Thompson had just lost his re-election campaign for prosecutor in Oakland County, Mich., defeated by voters disenchanted by his pursuit of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the retired pathologist who attended numerous assisted suicides."

The above quote is the ultimate poll on the spending of public money. Oakland County (suburb of Detroit) got tired of Mr. Thompson's fruitless (and expensive) pursuit of Dr. Kevorkian. They showed their displeasure with the way public money was being spent, and Mr. Thompson had to find a new career. Apparently, he sees his new role as being "to change the culture".

DaveO wrote: "Change the culture or just keep it in check?"

Mr. Thompson is clear on the goal: "to change the culture". If you go back and read closely my post of Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:45 pm, I believe you will find that, when Mr. Thompson says "There are two Americas today...[omitted for brevity]" he is incorrect.

There are a lot more than "two Americas today", but, on issues like this one there are two. On one hand there are those who want their religious beliefs enacted into law and on the other hand there are those who don't. An example of the difference I've already cited is the differing official positions of the Lutheran and Baptist churches on the role of religion in government.

I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, in the context of Mr. Thompson's quote, to reasonably argue that Lutherans are a group that "... has no foundation, where everything is relative, where everything goes." for reason that they don't share his idea of the role of religion in government.

Which is, at the bottom, what we've really been discussing here. All the issues of evolution v intelligent design, spending public funds, taking polls and the like are subsets of this question:

What is the proper role of religion in government?

[DaveO]

What is the proper role of religion in government?

Which brings me to the question of why is evolution (macroevolution-molecules to man type) preached and funded by government?
No one from mainstream science is asking the same questions to themselves as to ID/creationism.....

As I originally mentioned, facts are based on evidence that has to be interpreted according to ones worldview.
Its not a question of religion versus science but worldview versus worldview.
Creationism, and to a lesser extent ID, has the worldview based in the acceptance of an ultimate Intelligent Designer-Creator-God.

Evolutionism/Darwinism which has its worldview based in the acceptance of Naturalism without any supernatural intervention.
Which may I add, is promoted by Secular Humanists and Athiestic Materialists.

Link Quote:
Most don’t realize that Secular Humanism was recognized by the US Supreme Court as a religion. The U.S. Supreme Court in Torcaso vs Watkins, 81 S.Ct. 1681 (1961) contains the following statement:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God, are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism (emphasis added), and others.

Two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II that exactly state what evolution teaches are:

1. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
2. Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

Since the US Supreme Court has recognized Secular Humanism as a religion, and since the two tenets above come from the Humanist Manifesto, one can conclude that by teaching evolutionism (or at least the part of evolutionism that says that the universe is ‘self existing and not created’, and that man ‘has emerged as a result of a continuous process’) a teacher is, in fact, teaching a religion. The humanists are the loudest criers of the notion of separation of church and state and that anything religious may not be taught in the government schools. Therefore, evolutionism should not be taught in the government schools either, since it is religion (according to the US Supreme Court).
[end quote]

I also agree with the writer of the above link, rather than teaching ID/creationism in schools, that "all'' of evolution, including the flaws, should be taught.
But it seems the secular humanist evolutionists want it hidden!

Quote:
In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.

–Eugenie Scott, leader of the NCSE, cited in Where Darwin Meets the Bible—by anti-creationist Larry Witham (Oxford University Press, 2002).
[end quote]

Old news maybe, but this link shows that the hypocrisy and gag on the truth of evolutiongoes all the way to the top it seems....

[K. Eng]

The below quote is wrong. The Supreme Court DID NOT hold that Secular Humanism is a religion.

The narrow issue in Torcaso v. Watkins was whether an Article in the Maryland Constitution requiring that persons had to declare a belief in God in order to hold a state office violated the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court held that such an Article violated the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. No state or federal government may enact laws that force people to profess a belief or lack thereof in any religion.

The Court decided ONLY this issue.

The statement that answersingenesis.org provides is in a footnote in the opinion and does not directly address the issue the court decided. It is therefore dicta, and implying that it is citable law is a serious misstatement of the law.

Link Quote:
Most don’t realize that Secular Humanism was recognized by the US Supreme Court as a religion. The U.S. Supreme Court in Torcaso vs Watkins, 81 S.Ct. 1681 (1961) contains the following statement:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God, are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism (emphasis added), and others.

Two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II that exactly state what evolution teaches are:

1. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
2. Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

Since the US Supreme Court has recognized Secular Humanism as a religion, and since the two tenets above come from the Humanist Manifesto, one can conclude that by teaching evolutionism (or at least the part of evolutionism that says that the universe is ‘self existing and not created’, and that man ‘has emerged as a result of a continuous process’) a teacher is, in fact, teaching a religion. The humanists are the loudest criers of the notion of separation of church and state and that anything religious may not be taught in the government schools. Therefore, evolutionism should not be taught in the government schools either, since it is religion (according to the US Supreme Court).
[end quote]

I remember my 9th grade biology textbook quite clearly, and nowhere did it say that the universe was 'self existing and not created'. Evolution was presented as merely a genetic change over time that could result in different species.

In short: (1) The website fails to set forth applicable law (2) the website sets up a straw man that teaching evolution means teaching a certain worldview.

The argument is completely bogus. Anyone who presented this at oral argument would be laughed out of the court. [/quote]

[mpcook]

What is the proper role of religion in government?

Evolutionism/Darwinism which has its worldview based in the acceptance of Naturalism without any supernatural intervention.
Which may I add, is promoted by Secular Humanists and Athiestic Materialists.

Link Quote:
Most don’t realize that Secular Humanism was recognized by the US Supreme Court as a religion. The U.S. Supreme Court in Torcaso vs Watkins, 81 S.Ct. 1681 (1961) contains the following statement:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God, are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism (emphasis added), and others.

Two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II that exactly state what evolution teaches are:

1. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
2. Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

....

First of all, Evolutionary Biologists and others who subscribe to the theory of evolution do not subscribe (necessarily) to "the universe as self-existing and not created." Many published scientists are believers in mainstream religions and believe in a "creator". There is nothing in evolutionary theory that presupposes the non-existence of G-d, a creator, or a supreme being.

Based on your argument, we should be teaching the origins of the universe and of humanity based on not only evolutionary theory and Christianity, but also Taoism, Buddhism, Kabbalah, Wicca, Zoroastrianism, the many Native American religions, and other religions, along with their creation and origin beliefs, in public schools. I would see the teaching of religions as belonging in a religion course, not a science course. Although some evolutionary scientists are secular humanists, most are not. It is fallacious to conclude that evolutionary theory is religion (Humanism) based on your arguments. I do however agree with you that to the extent that time permits, the many unaccounted for issues with evolutionary theory (or for cosmology for that matter) should be taught in school, as is the case for any theory taught in school. However, you have to keep in mind we are talking about secondary school, where not much time is available to devote to the details of any theory, let alone evolution and cosmology which become complex when studied in detail.

[K. Eng]

The bolded part of the quote highlights exactly the kind of attitude in some right wing evangelicals that I find ignorant and insulting. These people assume that if you aren't one of them, you must be a "moral relativist" with no foundation. This simply isn't true.

Things like knowing what is right and wrong, "family values", and the importance of ordered liberty are not concepts exclusive to relgious America.

Change the culture or just keep it in check?

Quotes from:
Dover, Pennsylvania (USA) Intelligent Design trial ends today:

"......ID is seeking a place in the classroom because of its merits. But it’s being kept out because it is harmonious with the Christian faith.”
and
“There are two Americas today, one that’s still very religiously based, and another that has no foundation, where everything is relative, where everything goes. And the moral relativism that dominates the second America is an ideology enabled by Darwinism.”

[dsvochak]

While I was off doing some searching in order to provide a proper answer, K. Eng and mpcook were kind enough to point out some of the problems with the facts in the Answers In Genesis article cited by DaveO. I thank them.

K Eng wrote "The statement that answersingenesis.org provides is in a footnote in the opinion and does not directly address the issue the court decided. It is therefore dicta, and implying that it is citable law is a serious misstatement of the law." which is correct as far as it goes. It would be inappropriate, and somewhat misleading not to acknowledge that, at times, dicta has been cited in subsequent cases as a legal basis for decision in the subsequent case. As an example, see the famous "Footnote 4" in US v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938) http://www.justia.us/us/304/144/case.html

Two quotes from Torcaso:

"There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland. The power and authority of the State of Maryland thus is put on the side of one particular
sort of believers - those who are willing to say they believe in "the existence of God." It is true that there is much historical precedent for such laws. Indeed, it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the new Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical "establishment" of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers.[Footenote 3]" 367 US 488 at 489-490

"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers,[Footenote 10] and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.[Footenote 11]" ibid, at 495

(The full text of Torcaso v Watkins is available online at http://www.justia.us/us/367/488/case.html )

One can repeat ad nauseum that "...facts are based on evidence that has to be interpreted according to ones worldview" but the "facts" in the first quotation from Torcaso are facts and not subject to interpretation according to "worldview".

The U.S. may have been founded by people who were mostly "Christian" but that does not make the U.S. a "Christian" nation. To the contrary, when the First Amendment was ratified, the mostly "Christian" U.S. made it clear that there was a high level of concern regarding a government's ability to "... impos[e] burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs."

That was what the mostly "Christian" U.S. professed to believe in 1791. It is what the Supreme Court decided in 1961. And it's the issue that's being debated again in various guises today (evolution, stem cells, abortion, right to die, etc).

DaveO wrote "The humanists are the loudest criers of the notion of separation of church and state.."

John 18:36 NIV (for example): "Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

It's possible that one could argue that this is my interpretation of "facts" according to my "worldview", but I think the above quote is a prime example of Jesus being a crier "... of the notion of separation of church and state..". If someone could cite a biblical passage where Jesus advised his followers to fight the power of the secular state or overthrow the Jewish/Roman government I might be willing to modify the above. Until such time I think "my kingdom is from another place." is the loudest cry of the notion of separation of church and state.

So, I repeat: What is the proper role of religion in government?

Apparently, according to the U.S. Supreme Court and Jesus in the bible, none.

[mpcook]

John 18:36 NIV (for example): "Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

It's possible that one could argue that this is my interpretation of "facts" according to my "worldview", but I think the above quote is a prime example of Jesus being a crier "... of the notion of separation of church and state..". If someone could cite a biblical passage where Jesus advised his followers to fight the power of the secular state or overthrow the Jewish/Roman government I might be willing to modify the above. Until such time I think "my kingdom is from another place." is the loudest cry of the notion of separation of church and state.

So, I repeat: What is the proper role of religion in government?

Apparently, according to the U.S. Supreme Court and Jesus in the bible, none.

This is quite an excellent point to be made to those who would impose a fundamentalist Christian notion of creation/origin through the public schools.

In fact, the original notion of a messiah in the Hebrew bible was "of this world", in other words, "The messiah will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The messiah is often referred to as "moshiach ben David" (messiah, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments. (Isaiah 11:2-5) He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being." So consequently we may at least have two "messiahs" operative in the discussion, and the argument of creationists and ID-ists would need to include discussion of both (as well as the many many religious theories of origin).

[GomJabbar]

There are a lot more than "two Americas today", but, on issues like this one there are two. On one hand there are those who want their religious beliefs enacted into law and on the other hand there are those who don't. An example of the difference I've already cited is the differing official positions of the Lutheran and Baptist churches on the role of religion in government.

I find myself agreeing with the above statement.

There are many religeous people - people that believe in God, a Creator, or even something else. Yet many of these do not feel themselves part of the Evangelical movement. They do not feel that their leaders should be participating in, and be part of government. Many follow the teaching of Jesus who said: "My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source" (John 18: 36). And Jesus further said: "If YOU were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because YOU are no part of the world, but I have chosen YOU out of the world, on this account the world hates YOU." (John 15:19). It is noteworthy that the apostles and early Christians did not involve themselves with government.

That is not to say that throughout history, some did not use the government for protection on occasion. The apostle Paul, when arrested, said: "If, on the one hand, I am really a wrongdoer and have committed anything deserving of death, I do not beg off from dying; if, on the other hand, none of those things exists of which these [men] accuse me, no man can hand me over to them as a favor. I appeal to Caesar!” Then Festus, after speaking with the assembly of counselors, replied: “To Caesar you have appealed; to Caesar you shall go." (Acts 25: 11, 12). Likewise today, people of different faiths rely on government for protection (usually from the majority) from time to time.

EDIT: dsvochak, you beat me to it! (John 18:36). I was replying after K. Eng, but in the meantime, two of you snuck in.

[K. Eng]

I acknowledge that sometimes the courts use dicta, but I have always gotten the impression that this practice is highly discouraged.

I don't know if the writers of answersingenesis.org themselves subscribe to notions of judicial restraint, but if they do, it would be extremely hypocritical of them to cite a footnote as good law when it is dicta.

While I was off doing some searching in order to provide a proper answer, K. Eng and mpcook were kind enough to point out some of the problems with the facts in the Answers In Genesis article cited by DaveO. I thank them.

K Eng wrote "The statement that answersingenesis.org provides is in a footnote in the opinion and does not directly address the issue the court decided. It is therefore dicta, and implying that it is citable law is a serious misstatement of the law." which is correct as far as it goes. It would be inappropriate, and somewhat misleading not to acknowledge that, at times, dicta has been cited in subsequent cases as a legal basis for decision in the subsequent case. As an example, see the famous "Footnote 4" in US v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938) http://www.justia.us/us/304/144/case.html