Battle For Intelligent Design

[Storm]

So, it appears that a university in my home state is currently in the midst of a battle to determine if it will allow ID to be taught at Ball State University. In this article, a professor is apparently advocating ideas that ID is legitimate. The school apparently had a hearing to determine if he should be allowed to continue this class. This apparently is such a big deal that our state legislators are looking at it to determine if they want to allow ID to be taught in our schools. Some organization called The Discovery Institute is pushing to see that ID gets into our state school curriculum. I sure hope that they fail. I don't want my daughter to have deal with that when she gets into school. Anyone else have anything like this going on in their state or country?

[Blood]

So, it appears that a university in my home state is currently in the midst of a battle to determine if it will allow ID to be taught at Ball State University. In this article, a professor is apparently advocating ideas that ID is legitimate. The school apparently had a hearing to determine if he should be allowed to continue this class. This apparently is such a big deal that our state legislators are looking at it to determine if they want to allow ID to be taught in our schools. Some organization called The Discovery Institute is pushing to see that ID gets into our state school curriculum. I sure hope that they fail. I don't want my daughter to have deal with that when she gets into school. Anyone else have anything like this going on in their state or country?

 

If it's left up to state legislators, then ID is going to get voted in. "The people" totally want ID to be taught in schools; it's the damn experts with their facts that are the only impediment keeping that from happening. 

 

I thought this was only happening at a high school level. This is the first I've heard of a state university actually pushing for ID. 

[FriendlyChristian]

I think separation of church and state and separation of powers is an important Christian idea that should be maintained in all school systems paid for by tax payers.   Judge Jones, in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, was primarily concerned with whether or not Intelligent Design could ever be bifurcated from the more specific religious belief's of the person advocating it.

 

Indeed it did, in fact, turn out that it was being promulgated by young earth creationists (trying to sneak in young earth ideas)-- which is precisely why so many of the ID witnesses in the case refused to show up and testify on behalf of Dover.  And its why Judge Jones labeled the ID position as "religious."

 

It is an interesting legal question, though.  On the one hand I, obviously, do think ID does make a very compelling case-- on the other hand I can certainly see how the borders of separation of church and state are significantly tested given the obvious implications of the idea.

 

But many universities in countries where the culture is extremely secular, who don't deal with the same issues of constitutionality as we do, are already teaching Intelligent Design.  So I find myself on the fence about it to be quite honest.

[mymistake]

Intelligent Design does not exist anywhere.  Nothing is ever intelligently designed.  Watches are not intelligently designed.  Spacecraft are not intelligently designed.  Animals are certainly not intelligently designed.  Everything evolves.  Living things evolve through biology.  Technology evolves by the drawing board and the sum of countless human failures.

[Roz]

 

 

I think separation of church and state and separation of powers is an important Christian idea that should be maintained in all school systems paid for by tax payers. 

 

Kindly tell your christian brothers and sisters to back the F away from funding ID and "teach the controversy" movements.  It's only going 1 way so far, with the religious pushing ID to be taught in public education.

 

You don't ever see secular professors and teachers banging on church doors to have "evilution" taught in sermons.

[Storm]

 

So, it appears that a university in my home state is currently in the midst of a battle to determine if it will allow ID to be taught at Ball State University. In this article, a professor is apparently advocating ideas that ID is legitimate. The school apparently had a hearing to determine if he should be allowed to continue this class. This apparently is such a big deal that our state legislators are looking at it to determine if they want to allow ID to be taught in our schools. Some organization called The Discovery Institute is pushing to see that ID gets into our state school curriculum. I sure hope that they fail. I don't want my daughter to have deal with that when she gets into school. Anyone else have anything like this going on in their state or country?

 

If it's left up to state legislators, then ID is going to get voted in. "The people" totally want ID to be taught in schools; it's the damn experts with their facts that are the only impediment keeping that from happening. 

 

I thought this was only happening at a high school level. This is the first I've heard of a state university actually pushing for ID. 

 

Its my understanding that the university isn't pushing for ID, but some state legislators are trying to use this situation to push ID into High School and lower curriculum.

[Storm]

I think separation of church and state and separation of powers is an important Christian idea that should be maintained in all school systems paid for by tax payers.   Judge Jones, in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, was primarily concerned with whether or not Intelligent Design could ever be bifurcated from the more specific religious belief's of the person advocating it.

 

Indeed it did, in fact, turn out that it was being promulgated by young earth creationists (trying to sneak in young earth ideas)-- which is precisely why so many of the ID witnesses in the case refused to show up and testify on behalf of Dover.  And its why Judge Jones labeled the ID position as "religious."

 

It is an interesting legal question, though.  On the one hand I, obviously, do think ID does make a very compelling case-- on the other hand I can certainly see how the borders of separation of church and state are significantly tested given the obvious implications of the idea.

 

But many universities in countries where the culture is extremely secular, who don't deal with the same issues of constitutionality as we do, are already teaching Intelligent Design.  So I find myself on the fence about it to be quite honest.

Thanks for your honesty. I have deconverted from Christianity, but when I was a Christian, I still had a hard time accepting ID. This mostly stemmed from my having problems with the Genesis story. It had too many problems to be legit, imo, and so I believed it was simply an allegory and nothing more.

[FriendlyChristian]

Again, I honestly think the whole catch-22 is that often times ID is difficult to bifurcate from any one particular religion.  If it can be, then I'm all for teaching it in schools funded by the tax payer. . . but if it can't be, then just like Judge Jones (a Christian) I would strike it down.

 

Separation of church and state, and separation of powers, extends out of the fundamental principle that men are sinful.  So if you ever allow any one point of view, or any one way of thinking, to exert political power over the governed. . . that "ism," or that paradigm will always trend toward suppressing the inalienable freedoms of the governed.

 

The truth is suppose to set people free.  The founding fathers understood this.  And yes, they were hypocrites (owning people who were kidnapped from their native homes), but that only serves as one more example as how an unchecked "ism" (in their case racism) will always lead to the oppression of isms that disagree with it.

 

This is why ID is so tricky.  The U.S. constitution has a fundamental interest in teaching the scientific background of ID in public schools. . . but, perhaps, and even more fundamental interest in severing its scientific background from any, specific, religious point of view.

 

Dover's case lacked this-- as an overwhelming amount of evidence was brought to bear that "Of Panda's and People" was really just hidden young earth creationism (which I do, personally, find lacking in any scientific merit).

[MerryG]

ID is difficult to bifurcate from any one particular religion. 

 

 

Which other religions besided christianity are promoting ID (and more specifically, promoting teaching ID in US schools)?

 

Separation of church and state, and separation of powers, extends out of the fundamental principle that men are sinful.

 

 

Evidence, please? And I don't mean evidence that "men are sinful." I mean evidence that the doctrines of church/state separation and separation of powers are specifically based on the principle that "men are sinful." Sin being a specifically religious concept and not merely a recognition that humans are imperfect or short-sighted.

 

 

The U.S. constitution has a fundamental interest in teaching the scientific background of ID in public schools.

 

Again, evidence, please. I've read the U.S. constitution. It has nothing in it about government schools (which, in fact didn't exist, or didn't exist on any large scale at the time the constitution was written). The constitution has nothing in it about education, scientific or otherwise. Not only that, but until recently the notion that the federal government should have a hand in education would have been ahborrent to most Americans AND a clear violation of the Bill of Rights (9th and 10th amendments).

[mymistake]

The U.S. constitution has a fundamental interest in teaching the scientific background of ID in public schools. . . but, perhaps, and even more fundamental interest in severing its scientific background from any, specific, religious point of view.

 

 

Nonsense.  ID is not scientific.  It is no more science than are alchemy, astrology or sorcery.  People who claim ID is science are trying to give it legitimacy.  Let's save science class for actual science.

[bornagainathiest]

Perhaps the FriendlyChristian would like to present the evidence that makes ID a compelling case for him?

.

.

.

Be warned though, FC!

 

Just a few days ago the "smoking gun" for Cosmic Inflation was announced.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news

Please read, 'Proof of Inflationary Universe to be Announced Today' (March 16) and, 'First Direct Evidence of Big Bang Inflation' (March 17).   Any evidence you cite for ID now has to be seen in the full context of Cosmic Inflation.  Please pay close attention to the last two paragraphs of the 'Infinite implications?' section of the March 16 press release and understand the following points.

 

1.

If the chances of an event happening are non-zero, then the number of times that event will occur in an infinite multiverse are infinite.  That's because any positive number multiplied by infinity will yield infinity. 

 

2.

Therefore, since the number of known life-bearing planets is one (ours), there will be an infinite number of life-bearing planets in the entire multiverse.

 

3.

Therefore, since the number of known planets with intelligent life is one (ours), there will be an infinite number of planets with intelligent life in the entire multiverse.

 

4.

Therefore, since there is one Earth, there will be an infinite number of totally identical Earths in the entire multiverse.

 

5.

Therefore, the finely-tuned 'special' conditions ID supporters say that humans need to exist are replicated an infinite number of times throughout the multiverse.  

 

6.

Therefore, there is no fine-tuning and nothing special or favored about the Earth or human beings.

Something that occurs an infinite number of times isn't special, favored or fine-tuned.  It's commonplace.  Ordinary.  Average.  It's the norm, not the exception.  It's the rule, not an exception to the rules.  

.

.

.

So, perhaps the FriendlyChristian would like to present the evidence that makes ID a compelling case for him?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[FriendlyChristian]

 

ID is difficult to bifurcate from any one particular religion. 

 

 

Which other religions besided christianity are promoting ID (and more specifically, promoting teaching ID in US schools)?

 

Well, again, the issue is whether or not ID can be bifurcated from any one particular religion in the context of American society.  In secular countries, its easy to do this. . . but in American society its certainly not.  If it truly can not be bifurcated in the context of an American society then it is, by definition, unconstitutional-- and any judge would be correct to strike it down (as Judge Jones did in Dover vs. Kitzmiller).

 

If, however, ID can be bifurcated from any one particular religion then it is perfectly constitutional.  The issue is, though, if you are talking to a Muslim promoting ID then it is incredibly difficult for a young mind to separate what he is saying from the fact that he thinks ID points toward Allah.  If you are talking to a Hindu promoting ID then it is incredibly difficult for a young mind to separate what the Hindu teacher is saying from the fact that the Hindu teacher thinks that ID points toward Brahman. . . and so on.

 

Secular countries don't deal with this issue. . . but we, as Americans, certainly do.  That's why it is such a truly difficult legal question.

 

 

 

 

 

Separation of church and state, and separation of powers, extends out of the fundamental principle that men are sinful.

 

 

Evidence, please? And I don't mean evidence that "men are sinful." I mean evidence that the doctrines of church/state separation and separation of powers are specifically based on the principle that "men are sinful." Sin being a specifically religious concept and not merely a recognition that humans are imperfect or short-sighted.

 

You are right to ask for evidence. Any thinking person would. 

 

Well, first, Judeo-Christianity teaches a few very basic doctrines.  One of them is that mankind is basically sinful.  If this is true, then no one single worldview can ever be trusted with power (even if that worldview is Christianity itself).  The founding fathers of the United States of America had a fundamental distrust in mankind's nature as a result of this doctrine, and so they set up a system of "checks and balances" in response to it.  They made the argument that from this basic doctrine, it could be shown that any "ism" if given unchecked power, would eventually usurp the God given rights which are due to every human being regardless of their point of view.

 

And I think a strong case can be made to show that they were right.  The Crusades, Communism, the Salem witch trials, Nazis, the list goes on and on.  Christianity, atheism, every kind of paradigm can be found in history being used to justify ever kind of human's rights violation.

 

Perhaps the true irony is that the founding fathers were not an exception to this rule either. . . since they all lived in a system in which racism was given unchecked power.  And in that system, that particular ism (racism) found itself justifying incredibly evil atrocities.

 

 

 

 

 

The U.S. constitution has a fundamental interest in teaching the scientific background of ID in public schools.

 

Again, evidence, please. I've read the U.S. constitution. It has nothing in it about government schools (which, in fact didn't exist, or didn't exist on any large scale at the time the constitution was written). The constitution has nothing in it about education, scientific or otherwise. Not only that, but until recently the notion that the federal government should have a hand in education would have been ahborrent to most Americans AND a clear violation of the Bill of Rights (9th and 10th amendments).

 

 

Well I think no person will argue that the U.S. constitution was invented to protect first and foremost the rights of individuals, and then after that the common welfare of the governed.  I would argue that Science is always in the best interest of the governed, but that the rights of individuals has to come before it.

 

One of those rights is the separation of Church and state-- that the governed ought not be compelled to fund the promulgation of religious belief's that neither believe in or agree with (kudos to this website, by the way, for allowing me to type all of this on its own dime).

 

So while I agree the constitution does not address science directly, it does address a hierarchy of priorities.  The well being of the governed (which science serves) is secondary.  Ensuring the God given rights of the governed is primary.

 

That's why ID is such a sticky issue that I'm on the fence over.  The existence of the Christian foundation upon with U.S. was built throws a wrench into it.

 

Quote that might serve as food for thought:

 

Patrick Henry

Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

 

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

 

-- The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

ID is difficult to bifurcate from any one particular religion. 

 

 

Which other religions besided christianity are promoting ID (and more specifically, promoting teaching ID in US schools)?

 

Well, again, the issue is whether or not ID can be bifurcated from any one particular religion in the context of American society.  In secular countries, its easy to do this. . . but in American society its certainly not.  If it truly can not be bifurcated in the context of an American society then it is, by definition, unconstitutional-- and any judge would be correct to strike it down (as Judge Jones did in Dover vs. Kitzmiller).

 

If, however, ID can be bifurcated from any one particular religion then it is perfectly constitutional.  The issue is, though, if you are talking to a Muslim promoting ID then it is incredibly difficult for a young mind to separate what he is saying from the fact that he thinks ID points toward Allah.  If you are talking to a Hindu promoting ID then it is incredibly difficult for a young mind to separate what the Hindu teacher is saying from the fact that the Hindu teacher thinks that ID points toward Brahman. . . and so on.

 

Secular countries don't deal with this issue. . . but we, as Americans, certainly do.  That's why it is such a truly difficult legal question.

 

 

 

 

 

Separation of church and state, and separation of powers, extends out of the fundamental principle that men are sinful.

 

 

Evidence, please? And I don't mean evidence that "men are sinful." I mean evidence that the doctrines of church/state separation and separation of powers are specifically based on the principle that "men are sinful." Sin being a specifically religious concept and not merely a recognition that humans are imperfect or short-sighted.

 

You are right to ask for evidence. Any thinking person would. 

 

Well, first, Judeo-Christianity teaches a few very basic doctrines.  One of them is that mankind is basically sinful.  If this is true, then no one single worldview can ever be trusted with power (even if that worldview is Christianity itself).  The founding fathers of the United States of America had a fundamental distrust in mankind's nature as a result of this doctrine, and so they set up a system of "checks and balances" in response to it.  They made the argument that from this basic doctrine, it could be shown that any "ism" if given unchecked power, would eventually usurp the God given rights which are due to every human being regardless of their point of view.

 

And I think a strong case can be made to show that they were right.  The Crusades, Communism, the Salem witch trials, Nazis, the list goes on and on.  Christianity, atheism, every kind of paradigm can be found in history being used to justify ever kind of human's rights violation.

 

Perhaps the true irony is that the founding fathers were not an exception to this rule either. . . since they all lived in a system in which racism was given unchecked power.  And in that system, that particular ism (racism) found itself justifying incredibly evil atrocities.

 

 

 

 

 

The U.S. constitution has a fundamental interest in teaching the scientific background of ID in public schools.

 

Again, evidence, please. I've read the U.S. constitution. It has nothing in it about government schools (which, in fact didn't exist, or didn't exist on any large scale at the time the constitution was written). The constitution has nothing in it about education, scientific or otherwise. Not only that, but until recently the notion that the federal government should have a hand in education would have been ahborrent to most Americans AND a clear violation of the Bill of Rights (9th and 10th amendments).

 

 

Well I think no person will argue that the U.S. constitution was invented to protect first and foremost the rights of individuals, and then after that the common welfare of the governed.  I would argue that Science is always in the best interest of the governed, but that the rights of individuals has to come before it.

 

One of those rights is the separation of Church and state-- that the governed ought not be compelled to fund the promulgation of religious belief's that neither believe in or agree with (kudos to this website, by the way, for allowing me to type all of this on its own dime).

 

So while I agree the constitution does not address science directly, it does address a hierarchy of priorities.  The well being of the governed (which science serves) is secondary.  Ensuring the God given rights of the governed is primary.

 

That's why ID is such a sticky issue that I'm on the fence over.  The existence of the Christian foundation upon with U.S. was built throws a wrench into it.

 

Quote that might serve as food for thought:

 

Patrick Henry

Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

 

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

 

-- The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.

 

stevebennett, please stop trying to explain how it would be okay to teach ID if only it could be separated from religion.  The simple fact is that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of intelligent design anywhere in the universe.  It doesn't matter if it is religious or not.  It is simply not true.  Accept the fact that ID is just as false as your religion and move on.

[buffettphan]

Patrick Henry

Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

 

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

 

-- The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.

Here's some more "food for thought" to broaden your reading experience:

 

If Our Founding Fathers Were All Christians, Why Did They Say This?

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/18/1285607/-If-Our-Founding-Fathers-Were-All-Christians-Why-Did-They-Say-This

 

[Margee]

Stupid Design.

[Guest]

 

That's why ID is such a sticky issue that I'm on the fence over.  The existence of the Christian foundation upon with U.S. was built throws a wrench into it.

 

Quote that might serve as food for thought:

 

Patrick Henry

Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

 

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

 

-- The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.

 

 

Patrick Henry was a founding father who spoke against ratifying the constitution because it gave too much power to the Federal government, and he urged Virginia not to sign it.  On top of that, he was not a member of the Constitutional Convention, which were the only ones who could ratify the constitution.  

 

Your post illustrates another problem with creationists/ID'ers, which is lying and/or quote mining out of context in order to support preconceived notions.  So I did a quick google search of the phrase and found it is traceable to an unknown author in 1956, and is not attributed to Patrick Henry.

 

If your claim that America was founded upon christianity was true, one would think you would be able to show examples without having to lie and obfuscate easily researched facts.  I would think it would be clearly written out in our founding documents.  Yet the closest thing they come to it is "nature's god", which could mean just about anything.

[thereisnoperfect]

The Founding Fathers were not so much driven by the idea of people being sinful as being imperfect and corruptible. They were much more concerned with their recent evidence that tyrannical government could be really, really bad--so they divided up power.

 

That this works so well is evidence of one of the principles of evolution--that diversity wins. 

 

And the reason that secular countries don't have a problem with ID is that they don't have anybody shoving a religious agenda into science classrooms.

[mymistake]

 

Separation of church and state, and separation of powers, extends out of the fundamental principle that men are sinful. 

 

No, it extends out of the experience that churches are sinful.  The Constitution was written at a time when many other nations had established Churches.  The men writing the Constitution could see with their own eyes what pastors and priests do with political power.  Isn't it odd how Jesus never seems to care what is done in his name?  No matter how much suffering it causes Jesus can never be bothered to intercede.

 

 

The truth is suppose to set people free. 

 

And yet Christianity enslaves people.

 

 

This is why ID is so tricky.

 

ID is tricky because it deceives people into thinking ID is science when really it follows the format of religion.  The answer is assumed before we begin and then we look for ways to justify the assumed answer.  That is not science.  Science uses the opposite method where observation and prediction are used to chart new theories which are then tested in an effort to prove they are wrong.  Every idea is greeted with skepticism until it has passed many attempts to disprove it.  And even then it can still be tossed aside as soon as a better explanation survives the tests or new data is found that disproves it.  ID is deception.

[MerryG]

 

 

ID is difficult to bifurcate from any one particular religion. 

 

 

Which other religions besided christianity are promoting ID (and more specifically, promoting teaching ID in US schools)?

 

Well, again, the issue is whether or not ID can be bifurcated from any one particular religion in the context of American society.  In secular countries, its easy to do this. . . but in American society its certainly not.  If it truly can not be bifurcated in the context of an American society then it is, by definition, unconstitutional-- and any judge would be correct to strike it down (as Judge Jones did in Dover vs. Kitzmiller).

 

If, however, ID can be bifurcated from any one particular religion then it is perfectly constitutional.  The issue is, though, if you are talking to a Muslim promoting ID then it is incredibly difficult for a young mind to separate what he is saying from the fact that he thinks ID points toward Allah.  If you are talking to a Hindu promoting ID then it is incredibly difficult for a young mind to separate what the Hindu teacher is saying from the fact that the Hindu teacher thinks that ID points toward Brahman. . . and so on.

 

Secular countries don't deal with this issue. . . but we, as Americans, certainly do.  That's why it is such a truly difficult legal question.

 

 

 

 

 

Separation of church and state, and separation of powers, extends out of the fundamental principle that men are sinful.

 

 

Evidence, please? And I don't mean evidence that "men are sinful." I mean evidence that the doctrines of church/state separation and separation of powers are specifically based on the principle that "men are sinful." Sin being a specifically religious concept and not merely a recognition that humans are imperfect or short-sighted.

 

You are right to ask for evidence. Any thinking person would. 

 

Well, first, Judeo-Christianity teaches a few very basic doctrines.  One of them is that mankind is basically sinful.  If this is true, then no one single worldview can ever be trusted with power (even if that worldview is Christianity itself).  The founding fathers of the United States of America had a fundamental distrust in mankind's nature as a result of this doctrine, and so they set up a system of "checks and balances" in response to it.  They made the argument that from this basic doctrine, it could be shown that any "ism" if given unchecked power, would eventually usurp the God given rights which are due to every human being regardless of their point of view.

 

And I think a strong case can be made to show that they were right.  The Crusades, Communism, the Salem witch trials, Nazis, the list goes on and on.  Christianity, atheism, every kind of paradigm can be found in history being used to justify ever kind of human's rights violation.

 

Perhaps the true irony is that the founding fathers were not an exception to this rule either. . . since they all lived in a system in which racism was given unchecked power.  And in that system, that particular ism (racism) found itself justifying incredibly evil atrocities.

 

 

 

 

 

The U.S. constitution has a fundamental interest in teaching the scientific background of ID in public schools.

 

Again, evidence, please. I've read the U.S. constitution. It has nothing in it about government schools (which, in fact didn't exist, or didn't exist on any large scale at the time the constitution was written). The constitution has nothing in it about education, scientific or otherwise. Not only that, but until recently the notion that the federal government should have a hand in education would have been ahborrent to most Americans AND a clear violation of the Bill of Rights (9th and 10th amendments).

 

 

Well I think no person will argue that the U.S. constitution was invented to protect first and foremost the rights of individuals, and then after that the common welfare of the governed.  I would argue that Science is always in the best interest of the governed, but that the rights of individuals has to come before it.

 

One of those rights is the separation of Church and state-- that the governed ought not be compelled to fund the promulgation of religious belief's that neither believe in or agree with (kudos to this website, by the way, for allowing me to type all of this on its own dime).

 

So while I agree the constitution does not address science directly, it does address a hierarchy of priorities.  The well being of the governed (which science serves) is secondary.  Ensuring the God given rights of the governed is primary.

 

That's why ID is such a sticky issue that I'm on the fence over.  The existence of the Christian foundation upon with U.S. was built throws a wrench into it.

 

Quote that might serve as food for thought:

 

Patrick Henry

Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

 

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

 

-- The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.

 

 

Wow, you managed to completely evade two of my questions and to answer the third with stunning ignorance of history and reality.

 

I won't even try to address all your howlers. But just for samples:

 

"Well I think no person will argue that the U.S. constitution was invented to protect first and foremost the rights of individuals"

 

The constitution was written with no regard at all for the rights of individuals. It was written (by and for the "big government" faction of the day, the federalists) solely to create a federal government structure and define its powers. The Bill of Rights -- the only protector of the rights of individuals involved -- was forced upon the constitution's creators only because the states wouldn't have ratified the constitution if not for the promise of a BoR.

 

As to Patrick Henry, he not only opposed the constitution, he said of it, "I smell a rat .... It squints toward monarchy."

 

http://www.globusjourneys.com/travel-stories/us/east-coast/

 

He most certainly was not a ratifier of the document he hated and feared as a desroyer of liberty.

 

Also, one man's opinion about the influence of christianity proves nothing except that one man has an opinion. You're overlooking all manner of other evidence, including the Deism of various founding fathers, the fact that the constitution says that there can be no religious test for holding office, and the fact that the first amendment mandates religion to stay out of government and government to stay out of religion.

[BlindersRemoved]

Wow, my brother was a professor at Ball State, but left recently for a Christian university. He's one of those highly educated and very intelligent people that believe in ID.

 

This is the kind of thing we deal with in the south. My friends roll their eyes at the theory of evolution. I remember going to the same church as my high school biology teacher. She didn't believe in evolution so we got a very quick overview and that was it. I didn't learn anything about it until I deconverted and started reading for myself.

[FriendlyChristian]

 

Patrick Henry

Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

 

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

 

-- The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.

Here's some more "food for thought" to broaden your reading experience:

 

If Our Founding Fathers Were All Christians, Why Did They Say This?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/18/1285607/-If-Our-Founding-Fathers-Were-All-Christians-Why-Did-They-Say-This

 

 

 

Great link!  Let me immediately concede that patriotism does not require some particular faith.  I'm only saying that the founders of our constitution based their arguments on Christian theology.  They thought men were, basically, evil and sinful (regardless of what belief's they held) and so a system of checks and balances had to be implemented to keep them in check.

 

Sure, they can debate, but give any one single point of view unchecked power and watch as it becomes a tyrant.

[FriendlyChristian]

Stupid Design.

 

 

 

I know. . . design is really, really stupid.   I actually agree here.

 

The F-16 is so persnickety that if even a tiny bird gets sucked into its intake the entire plane gets downed.

 

Compare this to a Warthog that is so incredibly slow. . . you'd think its designers would be smart enough to find some way so it could do its job without getting shot down.

 

Aeronautical engineers are incredibly stupid-- totally unworthy of our trust.  Why do we even waste our tax payer money on them?

[kolaida]

Wow, my brother was a professor at Ball State, but left recently for a Christian university. He's one of those highly educated and very intelligent people that believe in ID.

 

This is the kind of thing we deal with in the south. My friends roll their eyes at the theory of evolution. I remember going to the same church as my high school biology teacher. She didn't believe in evolution so we got a very quick overview and that was it. I didn't learn anything about it until I deconverted and started reading for myself.

 

Hoooow!! Even in the South, I mean, I get it's the South, I've lived there.... but a biology teacher, yikes! I guess it's not unheard of, just seems like she'd at least be a Christian who believed in evolution; they exist! Maybe she also rushed through it due to parent complaints she'd get as well (though she did go to your church...). I work at a school (elementary) and it's CRAZY the amount of parent contact I have (and usually it's not the positive, "I wanna volunteer and help out", just people yelling and screaming and acting like fools and wondering why their kids are acting out). 

 

Dang, though, that's crazy.  I don't know. I took a lot of the Bible pretty literally-- mostly the New Testament.  Genesis was something I always went back and forth on. My parents never seemed to care too much about the creation story, whether taken literally or figuratively (they are cherry pickers, but the stuff they cherry pick, then believe it, no holds barred and take it literally).  I heard so many things and in the end, it seemed to just be some ancient form of poetry anyway. 

 

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it sounds, though. And to have people teaching it on a college level, that is truly sad.  Maybe the further and further you distance yourself from Christianity, the more ridiculous it becomes. It just seems like some weird fantasy world some people live in that I used to participate in (kinda like a freaky version of the Matrix or something). 

 

Anyway, I hope that doesn't go through, but I guess we'll have to wait and see >> 

[older]

[snip]

 

But many universities in countries where the culture is extremely secular, who don't deal with the same issues of constitutionality as we do, are already teaching Intelligent Design.  So I find myself on the fence about it to be quite honest.

FC:

Can you please provide some reference for this claim. Please provide some source where it can be verified that universities in extremely secular countries teach ID in courses outside those dealing with religious or philosophical subjects. Thanks.

[mymistake]

 

[snip]

 

But many universities in countries where the culture is extremely secular, who don't deal with the same issues of constitutionality as we do, are already teaching Intelligent Design.  So I find myself on the fence about it to be quite honest.

FC:

Can you please provide some reference for this claim. Please provide some source where it can be verified that universities in extremely secular countries teach ID in courses outside those dealing with religious or philosophical subjects. Thanks.

 

 

 

I don't think Steve B. is allowed to answer but perhaps he meant countries like Narnia.