A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

Opening orientation: I'm not an ID proponent, because, as a YEC, although I certainly agree with them that intelligent design is apparent in this universe, for me the literal account in Genesis is fundamental. I'm also not a proponent of fighting to get any kind of creationism into the schools. I think creationists, but Christians in particular, should leave the public schools, if only because the acrimony generated by the dispute should be avoided. Also, the idea of a homogeneous school system run by the government in such a pluralistic society as ours strikes me more and more as a very bad idea.Having said that, I very much like your idea of teaching the interconnectedness of all the disciplines. Not sure what exactly it will solve but it should be good critical training as you suggest, and I see no conflict between it and YEC -- or ID either. I believe it would be quite possible to teach everything you listed without even getting into the EvC argument too. It's all necessary knowledge in itself no matter what interpretive system is applied to it. I don't think it will happen, not on this planet, but I like the idea.I'd mainly like to comment on this statement of yours: If the effort to get creationism into the schools produces such paranoia in the opponents this is a very strong reason to abandon the project. To break it down: My impression of ID is that they want to be able to include a whole raft of creationists under their umbrella and that's their only ulterior motive, if it is ulterior at all. Creationists don't all have the same view of God or even the same religion. So I believe it is an honest attempt to acknowledge a Creator without getting sectarian about it. This appeal to a generic unspecified designer is of course one of my objections to ID, but I don't suspect them of subterfuge.About the Separation of Church from State, this is SO misunderstood these days it seems hopeless to rescue it. The idea that religion can't be taught in the public schools on account of this principle is utterly ridiculous. The First Amendment, which supposedly codifies this principle of separation, says in its first clause that CONGRESS may not MAKE A LAW that ESTABLISHES a State Religion, that's all. We have no state religion. Congress has not made a law establishing one. The amendment has not been violated and the public schools cannot violate it because they are not Congress.Also, a state religion in the time of the Constitution meant a Christian denomination.Also, some public schools in early America taught their students from the Bible and from various Christian catechisms and confessions. If this were forbidden by the First Amendment it would have been prohibited at the time.But the second clause of the First Amendment says that CONGRESS may [also] NOT MAKE A LAW THAT PROHIBITS THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.Well, an argument could be made that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment to prohibit all teaching of religion in the public schools is really a violation of the Amendment, as they are interpreting the law made by Congress in the Amendment itself in such a way as to prohibit the free exercise of religion by ordinary citizens in the public schools. I believe this is in fact what has been happening.So I believe you have the false revisionist understanding of the idea of separation of church from state that in fact reverses its meaning and produces the very government tyranny against Christians it was intended to prevent. If the creationists do hope to teach creationist criticism of evolution (it's not criticism of the "natural sciences" despite the usual false equation you make between the sciences and evolutionism) they are not in any way violating the First Amendment but merely exercising the rights that were originally conferred by it.HOWEVER, I think Christians should not fight this problem by forcing any form of creationism on the public schools. Public schools were not a good idea for Christians in particular in the first place.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-27-2005 07:57 PM

Obviously I mean TEACHING religion itself, and preaching it, not teaching ABOUT religions. Certainly that was obvious enough. And this is what I discussed is the totally wrong result of the current misinterpretation of the First Amendment, as religion WAS taught this way in the public schools in early America. As I said.Parents and a community should certainly determine curriculum it seems to me, but this only works against religion in practice it seems, not for parents who are FOR religious instruction in the schools.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-27-2005 10:43 PM

"Respecting" means "regarding." I didn't state it accurately but neither did you. Congress shall make no law whatever with respect to the establishment of a religion is what it means. It's none of Congress' business is what it means.Even if all governmental bodies are restricted from making a law respecting the establishment of a religion, this does not restrict any other entity from making such a law, and originally the restriction on Congress was intended to reserve the right to the states, but that has since been violated by the extension of the First Amendment to the states as well. The justices are just plain wrong and have violated the whole spirit of the amendment.Nonsense about the seizures bit.

Again, Para, in the days when the amendment was written, the Christian religion was clearly taught in the public schools which was not regarded as a violation of the amendment, just as Congress opened with Christian prayer which was not regarded as a violation of the amendment they had themselves written. This ought to be a clue to what was intended by the amendment which was simply a restriction on CONGRESS with respect to ANYTHING having to do with the religious practices of the people. Which religion was not a problem as Christianity was the religion of some enormous percentage of the population, no doubt pushing 98% or so.It is a problem NOW, yes, but this is a matter left to the people and the states and they can accommodate such changes by vote as they see fit. Also, the Constitution prescribes directives for changing its provisions too, to accommodate such changes as they occur, but what has happened is that instead of following those directives, the courts have redefined the First Amendment to suit their biases and effectively hijacked the Constitution. Who knows how it would have worked out if the rules for such changes had been followed, considering that the nation is still predominantly Christian.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-28-2005 03:36 PM

The fourteenth amendment was either badly worded, is wrongly interpeted itself, or unconstitutional in itself as it effectively reversed the intention of the first amendment.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-28-2005 03:39 PM

No, it vitiated its intent which was to reserve this matter for the states that Congress was not allowed to rule on.

Funny how everybody is wilfully ignorant and silly who doesn't see things your way, jar.

You had "respecting" meaning "supporting." Get a clue.

Sorry, you are right. You were talking about "establish." Well, what you need to do is read up on the history of the establishment of religion because it has the specific meaning in the amendment of establishing a state church, such as Britain had and still has, and Europe had since the Middle Ages, and nothing else. Make firm, settle or support is not the meaning of the establishment clause, it is strictly about creating a state church and you are just playing semantic games.

Thank you crashie. Nice when you are being fair.

All it meant was that the state was not to have an official National Church, that is ALL. The whole point was to protect the church from government, not government from the church as it is now misread. Madison argued that this association with power corrupts the church, meaning it is bad for the church, not government, and the Baptists that Thomas Jefferson reassured in his famous letter about the separation of church and state were concerned about the persecutions of minority sects such as themselves by an official state church which is what had happened in Europe. These were the reasons for the first amendment, NOT restricting religion's influence on the state in any way whatever, but only the reverse. Congresses funded religious activities then and that is not in any way a violation of the separation idea, as Christian influence in the nation and in government too was considered a good thing, and some of the founders are on record saying so. It was ONLY a National Church being corrupted by and wielding the power of the governemnt against other churches that was prohibited, NOT the encouragement of Christian influence at all levels of American life. To DISCOURAGE this as is now done in the name of government is in fact a violation of the amendment.

Of course. It was true then and it's true now.

I have no intention of continuing this topic as I agree at least that it is a side issue.However, the context in which it is valid on this thread is that Tim accused IDers of deceit in trying to "get around" the principle of the separation of church and state as he defines it, when the truth is that no deceit is involved and Tim is simply wrong and committing slander against them and there is nothing wrong with my coming to their defense.They simply do not agree with his definition of the idea of separation, but hold to the one I was defining as the original intent of the framers. This came up in order to explain how it exonerates them from deceit. They are acting completely honestly on their belief that they have been given the right based on the First Amendment to promote their religious or any other views in the classroom through democratic channels. They are also not being deceitful to describe what they want to teach as science as they sincerely believe this. All Bible believers believe that there is no such thing as science that does not conform to God's revelation.They are not deceitful and in answering that slam by Tim I was not off topic although I agree that it is a subordinate issue and at this point should be dropped.It would be good of Tim to put a PROPER end to the discussion of this side issue by conceding the point, rather than have admin do it.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-29-2005 09:00 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 11-29-2005 09:01 PM

There is no shifting of any topic here, merely a perfectly legitimate answer to your slander of the IDers as dishonest. And I am writing this to protest your further accusation of dishonesty of anyone who defends them as motivated by the desire to change the topic. You aren't God, Tim, you cannot read people's motives. Try giving your opponents the benefit of the doubt. It's good form in debate.

They are being honest to stick to the purely scientific point that a designer is implied by scientific facts themselves, avoiding the whole irrelevant question in that context of who the designer is. They don't want to discuss it as it is irrelevant to ID's SCIENCE focus.But it is known that many IDers do believe in the Biblical God. Others may believe in other religious views of God. It doesn't matter. All creationist views can be accommodated by ID.But when you accuse them of trying to sneak God into the classroom, you need to be answered that there is nothing wrong with ANYBODY's believing God belongs in the classroom and everywhere else in American society.IDer's don't need to say this if they believe it because they are concerned about the science question as stated above. I don't see them trying even to get God into the classroom, as they consistently argue that scientifically speaking the created world itself demonstrates a designer and no particular religious view need be discussed.But again, IF they were, your insistence on your own definition of separation is going to get challenged as revisionist.