LOL, how do you know I am not? And it was only an opinion. However, Faith is a spiritual thing. And, as you have made the point that Man, on Earth, is the only spiritual being, I don't see how you would object to this?



Careful, now you are putting words...? in my thread?! Never once have I made the statement that there is anything in this World that requires no Faith (or intrinsic belief).





So, you are saying that you do believe in a human-centric view of the Universe.




Although I have not performed any calculations or experiments, the thermodynamics behind the creation of the Universe in 6 days seems a bit unrealistic. But this is just conjecture; me thinking out loud.

I don't! For me to say so, it would require me to be omniscient. Kidding of course.
Okay, so faith is a spiritual thing....are you saying I need to separate spirituality from something else?
Okay, I will concede, unfortunately I don't have time to really go back and check....lol....so I will take you on your word.

Noooooo....I said..."Jesus is the center."
We are getting into semantics again. Jesus is God. In that time, He was God manifest in the flesh. 100% man...100% God. And please don't ask me to prove that, lol.
I guess there really is no response to this.

This is certainly an interesting thread although we seem to have veered far off the original topic -

And I smile reading so many of the posts as time after time a member is challenged to "prove" things. And yet, the statement, "He was God manifest in the flesh. 100% man...100% God. And please don't ask me to prove that" arrives.

How every interesting. Gentle smile.

I agree completely John, thousands of “good Christians” owned slaves. Whether set free at a later date or owned forever, to own anyone is to own a slave. And that’s a fact.

And Budapest, when you say morality does not require a religious basis, I feel like hugging you!!

So, my question: Why would anyone think morality is restricted to those that are religious, in the first place?

Wow, there is a lot there Mara. I could respond to all of it, but you only asked one question....so.

Because it does not spring up out of nothingness. A loving Creator designed it as such. I don't know why thats so offensive to people, particularly atheists.

Thats it in a nutshell. Budapest said himself he has nothing to substantiate his claim.

As an aside, we didn't veer off topic....the original topic is about teaching evolution in schools. That's a vast subject in my opinion. Based on your very own beliefs...if you have a pet, then you own a slave. Especially if you paid for it. Sine we are equals to animals....just as evolution teaches. (I could have made that a run on sentence, instead I elected to go with fragments.)

But you have nothing to substantiate your claim that "A loving Creator designed it as such".

Actually, I think I can substantiate my claim to morality. It rests upon how I want to live my life. I don't want to be murdered, therefore I consider murder immoral. I don't want to have my property stolen, therefore I consider theft immoral. Using this principle one can build up a morality completely divorced from any deity.

That doesn't explain its origin....which was your point. Since the topic is evolution in schools....how do you establish that natural selection evolution randomly mutated the thought process of morality.

Oh...and I base my claims upon the substance of the Bible...You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me.

Re: “A loving Creator designed it as such. I don't know why that’s so offensive to people, particularly atheists”.

Once again I can only speak for myself but the concept of “A loving Creator” doesn’t offend me whatsoever nor does your personal belief in the concept of a “loving Creator” offend me.

Re: "Oh...and I base my claims upon the substance of the Bible...You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me".

Would I try to convince anyone that this was wrong, wrong, wrong? Nope, I’d simply state as I have before, if having Faith makes one happy, this is lovely.

Re: "Since the topic is evolution in schools....how do you establish that natural selection evolution randomly mutated the thought process of morality".

"Since the topic is evolution in schools (and indirectly the complaints re lack of Christianity in schools) ... how do you establish that the people writing the Bible were not just people writing books similar to many other stories and fables written through the centuries".

The answer may be that neither side should have to 'prove' anything.

Rather, perhaps much of the agony in our world can simply be laid at the feet of ‘intolerance’ (and no matter what excuse is given for being intolerance, it's still an ugly thing). Gentle sigh.

Perhaps our future will be a kinder place. Perhaps it will be filled with Christians and people of other Faiths - or lack of - living side by side and accepting other's differences without judgment or intolerance.

"Since the topic is evolution in schools....how do you establish that natural selection evolution randomly mutated the thought process of morality".

In the first place, natural selection doesn't HAVE to account for the origins of "thought processes" at all, nor does it have to show how the idea of morality originated in human beings. In fact, that kind of explanation is not the subject matter of that discipline at all.

Philosophy, sociology, psychology,history, and anthropology can adequately do this, not biological science. Certainly the insights of these sciences are preferable to a Biblical mythology, which does not explain the origins of "thought processes" at all except as a fiat.

Lastly, I am certainly unclear about what is meant, if anything, about the "mutation of any thought process," let alone morality. Does it make sense, for example, to say that logic (or rationality) mutated, as if the syllogism behaved like a breed of cows over time?

Cheers,
John

Jwinathome, you just made another point as to why evolution is just so much foolishness. !!!DNA!!! Besides, we Christians and Jews know from our Bible that animals are here for the benefit of humans. Thank you

BTW, thou non-believers, we don't mind your personal beliefs, we just want you to share the joy we get from God's grace and make sure you have gotten all the info we can offer.

But here in the U.S., some animals get more protection than American children, depending upon who noticed the attack upon some child, and the ongoing stupidity of political correctness. Oh, how dangerous is our liberal left. A beautiful young girl was recently murdered by a policeman who had a terrible performance rating, but was not fired. There would have been a rash of "this is racism" cries by his peers, and no one was up to the fight. (No offense, NoOne).

Continuing references to slavery in ancient times that can be counted in centuries are nothing but backpeddling. And we will never have peace until we realize that a political organization that teaches murder should be classified as a hate-group like the KuKluxKlan and not be respected as a religion. Liberals are just louder because they own the mainstream media, and our "Watchdog" has been poisoned. Everyone has seen Al Gore's corotid artery pound!!!

But this is no joke. We must set aside Political Correctness and call a spade, a SPADE. That cop was a bad cop and a bad man, period. It has nothing to do with his race, color or creed. And the sooner Americans can come together on this, the better off we will be. Unfortunately, we have two dangerous enemies: Radical Islam and Illegal Alliens. If we don't start to wake up the silent majority, there will soon be no America to run to for anything.

Great post, jgweed! Looking forward to a response to your questions.

With respect, Joygreen, the words, "BTW, thou non-believers, we don't mind your personal beliefs, we just want you to share the joy we get from God's grace and make sure you have gotten all the info we can offer", do make me ponder.

Ponder how hard it could be for anyone, with religous beliefs or not, to simply accept others for who they are without trying to change them.

For instance, and I mean this in the kindest way, how thrilled would a person with strong religious beliefs be if someone such as myself said, "we don't mind your religious beliefs, we just want you to share in the joy and freedom we have in not believing in religion and make sure you have all the info we can offer"(ergo, to prove you wrong and myself right). Gentle sigh.

Please don't take this personally, JoyGreen - the below is quoted simply as an example of what is often said in so many ways by so many, even when no offense is intended. ...

" you just made another point as to why evolution is just so much foolishness".

Imagine - gentle smile - if I made a comment of "you just make another point as to why Christianity is just so much foolishness". Eep! Another gentle sigh and smile.

Christianity isn't foolish. Nor is any other Faith. Nor is being someone like me foolish. 'Live and let live and let's all live in peace'.

Mara, my dear, you keep missing my point: Islamic Jihad is a dangerous "religion" for you and for me and for any innocent bystander. Their Koran teaches them to murder "non-believers". I am suggesting that Islam be considered a political organization rather than a religion. If you are not familiar with it, the KKK is a political organization that supports white supremecy. It is known as a hate-group.

I NEVER said you were foolish or any other assault... I am sorry you might have missed all my compliments. I'd love to have you for a neighbor. I hear you and DSTM live next door to each other (big smile).

I love you, Mara. I have nothing against you. I am decrying the use of "religion" to gain protection for a barbaric group of people who teach their children to murder all those who are not like them, or are Jewish, or are American. As I understand it, America is Canada's nuclear protection and Canada gives the U.S. fly-zones so we can get to Alaska. Right? We're buddies!!!

As an aside, let me ask you about Canadian politics. I worked with Bell-Sygma in Montreal for some time and there was some animosity between French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians. Is that still so? You might have seen some of my posts that oppose Spanish translations in America. We have a plethora of laws requiring legal documents to be translated at voter expense, and it supports the illegal aliens using our Southern borders. I have quoted the "Tower of Babel" parable from the Bible, where a group of people lived. They angered God, so God made everyone speak a different language. This was the destruction of Babel. Stories like this from the Bible give us common references, like any saying that got popular from some movie. I can't think of one now...

I REALLY NEVER INTENDED to offend you, Mara! Really. I do sincerely apologize. It's late and I'm logging off. I hope we all have lovely dreams tonight!

Oh dear, I was afraid I'd worded my last post badly and it would either hurt your feelings or given the impression you had somehow offended me, JoyGreen. Truly, this is not the case at all. Gentle smile.

In fact, I should have made it ever so clear that although I was using a quote, it was not who typed the words - rather it was the words themself as an example of how issues can be turned around.

How difficult it can often be to express ourselves without the physical vision and hearing most of us use to interpret what is being 'said' - not just the context of the words themselves but the nuances and facial expressions, etc. But how nice it is when we feel that there are no 'personal barbs' thrust - in fact, our Bleeping gives us a chance to discuss so many things and it's rare that a member 'picks and attacks' just for the sake of a reaction.

Not for a moment did I think that you intended anything as an insult, truly I didn't, JoyGreen - and there is honestly no need to apologise - another gentle smile.

While some may not believe my wee theory - and that's okay too - I feel, for all the different religions and those of us with none, there are far fewer differences between us than some zealots would have us believe. Now, if you and I and everyone else could figure out how to avoid those pesky zealots, what a lovely peaceful world we could live in! Huge happy smile!

Please explain to me how a Mexican breaking border laws in order to find employment is anything like a suicide bomber.
I feel it's important to point out that's true of Islamic fundamentalist extremists, but not of the mainstream Muslim community. Islam is a peaceful religion, one that stressfully states that non-combatants should never be killed. Nearly every religion has its extremists that pervert their original teachings. Christianity not being an exception, the extremists that blow up crowded Jewish squares are the same sort of ilk that bomb abortion clinics in the US.

You're gonna have to provide the passages in the Quran or the Hadith, of course, to back up your claim. If the mainstream of islam is against terrorism, I'm sure you can provide me with several links to show them speaking out against the terrorist acts, no?

Ill leave your attack against Christianity alone.

im talking about the theory of evolution, and yes it most certainly does NEED to account for the origins of thoughts, emotions, reasoning, etc.
See above...what mutations took place that explain the origins of these thought processes.
Thats actually funny. Its now Biblical mythology...I did not realize you are omniscient as well. Funny how we have the same facts to interpret, different presuppositions, and yet I am not allowed to use the Bible as a basis of building thought and explanation. However, "science" is allowed to use whatever fantasy they can come up with. Very interesting indeed.

No, it does not make sense at all. Science has no explanation for the origin of thought, or the mutation of the mechanism behind it.

Im not sure what you are trying to say with the bold.

There can be no such universal principles as "right" or "wrong" in an evolutionary system as there is no higher authority for such principles than man himself, �who is no more valuable than his own opinion would deem him to be.

Disclaimer: No offense to Joygreen, but I do not share many of her beliefs, nor have the same manner of thinking on many subjects. Mara...Christianity...the true "spikenard" gospel of Jesus Christ not only teaches acceptance, it teaches to lay down our lives for others. I believe that often some "believers" think that the job of "saving" people is theirs. Many times people will learn things, and without looking into the issues deeply, run with it and share with everyone they know. However, the Bible clearly illustrates that Jesus is the one that saves. When I look at people (believers or not), I see precious life created by God, therefore, I accept them. I completely understand why people think that we are trying to "change" people. In my eyes however, the change takes place on its own, once one has the revelation of Jesus Christ.
I don't know if you are aware of the humanist movement in America. If you truly just live in the breeze of life and don't care about ever knowing why you exist, or care if something will indeed happen to you after you "pass", thats great.
The difference...is that evolution is taught in schools, and is built on speculation and fantasy, and requires more faith than Christianity. The Christianity account of creation is not taught in school. "Gentle smile."
The bold part: Its almost as if you have no concept of evil. I guess I shouldn't suspect an atheist to, so that could be my fault in thinking. Mara...(putting humans aside, since you believe we are part of the animal kingdom) should we look to the animal kingdom on how to live in peace?

Here is a fair place to start.


And more here: http://www.islam101.com/terror/faqTerror.htm

Now I've only done some fairly cursory studies on Islam, nothing terribly in-depth, but that was enough to make it immediately obvious that Islam itself does not in any way condone the terrorism and violence that's being conducted by the terrorist extremists we know today.

I'd also like to make it clear that I'm not attacking Christianity as you say, in the same way that I am not attacking Islam. That could be problematic for me, being Christian myself. Rather, I'm condemning the extremists that take religions intended for peace and charity such as Christianity and Islam and pervert them, misrepresent them, and wave them as a banner of hatred. This is what the Islamic extremists have done by taking verses in the Quran out of their historical context, twisting its meaning to serve their own purposes.
Such perversions could happen to the Bible just as easily. Note in Deuteronomy 20 where God calls for the all out destruction of the cities of the Hittites, Canaanites, and of other unbelieving nations. Or in the New Testament, where Jesus remarked " Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Such verses stripped of their historical and cultural contexts seem to advocate anything but peace, but giving a proper reading it's very clear that Jesus' message was as far from advocating violence as one could get.

"Thats actually funny. Its now Biblical mythology...I did not realize you are omniscient as well. Funny how we have the same facts to interpret, different presuppositions, and yet I am not allowed to use the Bible as a basis of building thought and explanation. However, "science" is allowed to use whatever fantasy they can come up with. Very interesting indeed."

First, I was using mythology in a precise way.
The hallmarks of mythology ( as discussed, for example, in Wikipedia, are:
1.Myths are subject to localisation to a particular historical culture that believes its truth-value. Certainly the creation myth in the Bible meets this criterion, as does the Rig Veda.
2.Uses the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. God's creation and subsequent intervention meets this criterion.
3.Myths are narratives (often following oral tradition) about divine or heroic beings, arranged in a coherent system, passed down traditionally, and linked to the spiritual or religious life of a community, endorsed by rulers or priests.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck.........

Now to call the Biblical account of creation a "myth" is in no way to disparage its tremendous symbolic value as a deep parable, but it is to suggest that its origins preclude it being taken as an actual account of real events, and therefore at conflict with a scientific explanation. In fact, I further suggest that as a profound myth, or "higher truth" it makes a far stronger case---one that is not subject to ordinary truth value--- for a Christian perspective than any attempt to make it a scientific account of creation.

My use of mythology, then, was an attempt at precision in the use of the word, and not used in a derogatory sense. This was not the case, I think, with the use of "fantasy" for scientific endeavors. I leave it to our readers to decide whether the scientific or the mythological explanation is more "fantastic."
Regards,
John

"There can be no such universal principles as "right" or "wrong" in an evolutionary system as there is no higher authority for such principles than man himself, �who is no more valuable than his own opinion would deem him to be."

As Nietzsche wrote: "There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena."
Yes, it is correct to say that moral right/wrong or good/evil, have no place in an evolutionary system, which is a descriptive theory about the material world. To ask of a scientific explanation whether it is morally good, or "right" (or to give an account for these phenomena) is not only to ignore its origins but more importantly to ignore its deliberate, disciplined, and self-imposed eschewing of ethical and moral questions in its attempt to explain the world.
Regards,
John

When I read a sentence such as, “When I look at people (believers or not), I see precious life created by God, therefore, I accept them”. I wonder in what way “accepted”. As equals that walk this earth with the same rights to believe in their individual faith? Or as people who are somehow ‘inferior’ or just plain ‘wrong’ because they don’t believe the exact same thing?

How hard it can be for we humans to simply ‘accept’ – accept differences whether they be in appearances, nationalities or religions. And perhaps, if it seems impossible to accept that what is right for us may be just that, right for us and not others, we can, with even the best intentions, alienate others with our efforts.

A gentle thought I’d like to share is …

(Quote) “Be gracious. Too many Christians become bullies when it comes to expressing their faith. Stop arguing with people, and begin developing a relationship of compassion and trust. … I don’t have to go far to meet people with a multitude of different religious beliefs. If I’m going to be an effective witness in today’s world, I have to begin with a gracious relationship and act out of genuine love”. (Unquote) (Written by Phil Cooke, Ph.D. in Theology)

- - - -
On a personal note re: “Its almost as if you have no concept of evil. I guess I shouldn't suspect an atheist to, so that could be my fault in thinking Mara”

I suppose it would depend on one’s concept of “evil”. My sense of ‘evil’ is based upon the horrors we humans inflict on each other, knowingly and willfully, made by choices we and we alone are responsible for. Oddly enough, I also have a “concept” of evil in the Biblical sense – it’s just not part of my personal belief system. That doesn’t mean I’m ‘right’ – it just means my beliefs are ‘right’ for me.

How True 'MaraM' There are Members on this Forum,no doubt with strong Religious convictions,who in my opinion are complete bullies when it comes to expressing their views on other members beliefs and opinions.To disect another Members Posts and Opinions in such an agressive manner,whether intensionally or not,adds nothing to their own credability in my eyes.
We all have opinions, we like to share with our fellow Members,but it's the manner in which we do this is so important.We all think our views are the right ones,but at the same time, we should have the utmost respect for others views,at all times.To do this makes for a more enjoyable experience in Speakeasy.IMHO.

As equals, to answer simply. And actually, the Bible teaches to place others before yourself...

Some could interpret your post as also being aggressive.

So should something that is not concrete be taught as fact in school? Its the subject of the thread. Evolutionary processes should be able to explain how morality evolved. How language evolved. How emotions evolved. Should it not?

Doubt it, judging by the number of PM's I have recieved, congratulating me on a well worded Post.

Thats great.

I tend to look at this the other way around. Why do you need a higher authority to judge what is right or wrong?

If in your mind there is no accountability, whats the point of doing whats right Budapest?

From a debate between two evolutionists. Lanier is a computer scientist; Dawkins is a professor at Oxford and an ardent atheist.

Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’

Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’

‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.

The point for me is to live in the type of society that I want to live in. If nobody behaved ethically then society would crumble and we would be living in a Hobbesian nightmare.

Why would you do whats right if there is no accountability?

Heres a neat little quote.

"given a large enough group of people who share a Darwinian worldview, especially given a culture in which a small group of convinced Darwinists has the power to impose their will on the population, one will overall see more immoral behaviour, even atrocities. The 20th century of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot made this clear. Hitler made his debt to evolution abundantly clear. The ideology of the other three, Marxism-Leninism, is firmly based on the notion of materialism, which means by definition that everything just evolved." - Dr. Carl Wieland

Here is an intriguing approach to life from a young man...The Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) program on Radio National, called Life Matters, was aired on May 4, 2000.

"‘Hi, my name is Gerard. I’m just a bit concerned by the tendency of the medical profession and society in general to want to put a label on us as depressive people and therefore that there’s something wrong with us. I think that some people may have an inability to cope, and maybe this might sound a bit extreme, but that might be Darwinian theory, the Darwin theory of survival of the fittest. Maybe some of us aren’t meant to survive, maybe some of us are meant to kill ourselves because the only people that really suffer are the ones left behind, but the person who kills themself may in fact be liberated from this body."

How do atheists feel about this young mans personal view, particularly the bold? Do you condone suicide for those that are suffering in their present living state?

Here is yet another interesting quote from mass murderer Jeffrey Dahmer who made the following comment on the Dateline NBC program, on November 29, 1994.

'If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing,..."

If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses, or countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilization, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical—if we evolved.

This is an ideal held by Richard Dawkins, a prominent atheist evolutionist.

But there is accountability. Society has recognised the need for accountability - that is why society has drafted laws which are inforced by the police and the courts.

Why is there a need for accountability? Your post here seems contradictory to this...



Why do you need society to recognize a need for accountability?

I think it works on two levels. At an individual level people can know right from wrong; but, the details may differ somewhat. Almost all people recognise that murder and theft are wrong. But other items are not so clear cut, such as abortion. Because of these differences society as a whole chooses laws and then enforces them.

Based upon what belief system Budapest?

Craig Palmer is one of two evolutionist academic authors of the book, A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion (MIT "That there is obviously some evolutionary basis to rape just like there is some evolutionary basis to all aspects of living things. In the book we narrow it down to two plausible specific evolutionary reasons for why we are a species in which rape occurs. One is just a by-product of evolved differences between the sexualities of males and females. Or, two, rape might be an adaptation. There might have been selection favouring males who raped under some circumstances in the past. And therefore there might be some aspects of male brains designed specifically to rape under some conditions."

How do you feel about this viewpoint?

Like I said before: my beliefs are based on the type of society that I want to live in

Thats circular reasoning.

I certainly don't see it as such. The point is that my individual beliefs may differ from the rules of society. But I accept these rules for the greater good.

So lets say you are against murder...but slowly population comes around to the "population control" side of things and starts to pass laws that enable population control killings. Since society voted the majority and enacted the laws....will you now accept that rule and live by it?

Why was it wrong for Hitler to do what he did? He got most of Germany agreeing with his ethics, which he sincerely believed were good and right. Because of this, many people perished. Are you willing to say that he was right? If you think he was wrong, on what basis are you deciding that it is wrong?

What is the greater good?

When I said that I accept the rules of society for the greater good I meant the currently rules, not the rules of Nazi Germany nor of some hypothetical future State. By the greater good I meant a stable society where I may live in relative peace and security. Obviously there can always come a point where I no longer accept the rules of society - and this point is when these rules no longer reflect the type of society I want to live in.

So what is the accountability? If you are the only one that can accept or deny the rules of society, on what basis of accountability do you make your choices?

Again, what is "the greater good"

Why is evolution taught as fact? The flip side is why do some folks insist that a few lines written by authors unknown thousands of years ago without any knowledge of the sciences is absolute "truth"?
Here is a part of the court findings (conclusion) in the Dover, Pennsylvania case. The entire transcript of the trial is available on several sites online. If anyone wants to see how willingly the organizations and individuals supporting the teaching of creationism are to lie, read the trial transcript.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitz...sion3.html#p294
H. Conclusion
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

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.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when consid ered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions. Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants' ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.
Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules
s/John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

The next part you have most certainly does not answer this question.
I find the bolded particularly amusing.
Yet we allow textbooks plastered with lies presenting evolutionary theory in schools? Do you also have outrage against that?

I don't have time to read through all that...but you are setting up a strawman argument. The bottom line is evolution is a horrible explanation for the origins of life, and requires much faith and assumption to work, therefore it should not be taught as fact. Thats the subject of the thread.

I agree with the contention of Dr. Walt Brown...Wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court said just the opposite. A few evolutionist organizations, the ACLU, and many media outlets have propagated that myth. The Supreme Court actually said that the scientific evidence for any theory of origins, including creation, has always been legal in the classroom. Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life.

Of course, our issue is whether the evidence against evolution will be taught along with that for evolution. Besides, the U.S. Constitution only states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."� Our founding fathers, who acknowledged the Creator in many places, including the Declaration of Independence, did not want a national religion such as the Church of England. (The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. Nor is the word "separation" or the word "church.")

"So should something that is not concrete be taught as fact in school? Its the subject of the thread. Evolutionary processes should be able to explain how morality evolved. How language evolved. How emotions evolved."

I am reminded of the Dickensian schoolmaster who taught only "facts,facts,facts." For the most part, facts do not stand without a theoretical and interpretative framework, nor can the concrete exist apart from the universal. The least concrete of subjects, logic, is certainly (or should I say hopefully) taught in schools.


Why should a physical science be able to explain the "evolution" of morality, or language, or emotions? I repeat that this is asking of biology (and the related natural scientific disciplines) things that they do not consider. I am sure that one could show through evolution how the brain increased in size in a chain of species, and that this was an adaptive response. But over and over again, the questions of morality, language, and emotions are NOT part of the evolutionary theory, despite the confusion caused by using the world "evolution" in the scientific and in the more vulgar sense.
The only attempt of which I am aware to use evolution to explain the other topics mentioned, was what the history of philosophy labels "social Darwinism;" this line of thinking, however, is no longer current, having been rejected by both science and philosophy.
Regards,
John

I guess John, I should have said..."Should something that is a blatant lie be taught as fact in schools to children who are at a very influential stage of life?"

Then where did they come from? In your opinion.

Are you opposed to teaching evidence that is against evolution?

If you walked into a school you could claim that Evolution is being taught as fact, Yet if you walk into a church You could claim that the church is teaching Intelligent design (I'm sorry if this isn't the correct word, I may have to look it up) as fact.

So to make a counter point

Why is Intelligent design taught as fact?
(Note: I'm just posing a question I'm going to remain neutral on this topic if possible at this time)