It goes like this,
When asked about what he would do as Chief Justice concerning precidence, Judge Roberts commented he would "think" really hard before he would overrule precidence.
Well the religous right was highly upset with this.
They strenously oppose anyone "thinking" about anything.
or something like that.
Sep 27, 2005
Rev. Mychal F. Judge 9-11 hero was gay, WOW
Admirers of Fallen 9/11 Hero Disdain the Vatican's Likely Plan to Bar Gays as Priests
By ANDY NEWMAN
Published: September 25, 2005
The Rev. Mychal F. Judge, the Fire Department chaplain who died in the rubble of 9/11, was, and still is, one of the most widely loved Roman Catholic priests in New York City's recent history.
For 40 years, Father Judge tirelessly ministered to firefighters, their grieving widows, AIDS patients, homeless people, Flight 800 victims' families and countless others. At his funeral, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani called him a saint, a sentiment that admirers have followed up by campaigning for his canonization. A simple prayer that Father Judge wrote has been circulated around the world and attached to thousands of donations to the needy. Pope John Paul II accepted the gift of his helmet.
Father Judge was also, according to many of his friends of all sexual orientations, a homosexual. A celibate homosexual, he told friends, but a homosexual nonetheless. And reports last week that the Vatican is likely to try to bar gay men, even celibate ones, from the priesthood stirred anger among those who revere his memory.
The former city fire commissioner Thomas Von Essen, a close friend of Father Judge's, said Thursday that excluding men of his caliber from the priesthood would be simply "a shame."
Mr. Von Essen, a married, practicing Catholic who said that Father Judge came out to him years before his death, added, "To sacrifice your life to God and try to do so much good every day and to be prevented from doing that - it's no wonder they can't get anyone to join the church to become a priest or a nun."
On Thursday, Andrew Sullivan, the outspokenly gay and Catholic journalist, posted on his Web site an oft-reprinted photograph of Father Judge's limp body being carried off by firefighters on 9/11 minutes after he had given last rites to one of their own. Above it was the sardonic headline "Unfit for the Priesthood."
Mr. Sullivan said on Friday that Father Judge's work with the Fire Department mocked the assertion, made by a Catholic official who described the expected new rule, that even celibate gays should not enter the seminary because the temptations arising from being surrounded by men there would be too strong.
"The idea that gay priests somehow cannot serve straight congregants, when you have this priest working with one of the most stereotypically macho organizations - and he gave his life to them - captures some of the cruelty and bigotry we see in the Vatican now," Mr. Sullivan said in a telephone interview.
Father Judge, a gregarious, sandal-shod Franciscan friar who was 68 when he died, was a longtime member of a gay Catholic group, Dignity, and he often spoke up for gay rights. But several of Father Judge's admirers from conservative backgrounds declined on Friday to discuss his sexuality because they said it had no relevance.
A gay man who posted to saintmychal .com, a Web site promoting Father Judge's canonization, said he did not see why anyone would care, either. The man, Ralph W. Vogel, attended Masses that Father Judge offered in the 1990's for gay and lesbian Catholics in a Unitarian church on Staten Island. "I don't know anything personally about his sexual orientation, and it's not really important to me other than 'Wow, he was there,' " said Mr. Vogel, a director of volunteer services at Ronald McDonald House.
In fact, some prominent conservative Catholic commentators said on Friday that the church should not concern itself with the sexual orientation of candidates for the priesthood who honor their vows of celibacy.
"I don't really care, and I don't think most Catholics care if a priest is gay" as long he does not act on his urges, said William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and a fierce critic of what he has called declining moral standards.
The Vatican document on gay seminarians has not yet been completed, and exactly how the authorities would go about screening out homosexuals remains an open question. The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, a conservative Catholic who edits the religious journal First Things, said that he doubted that the final document would include celibate gays in the ban. Such a policy, he said, "would raise enormous theological and moral problems in the teaching of the church."
Mr. Donohue said that the while the Vatican did need to address the sexual abuses committed by priests and damage they have done to the church, "the answer to the problem is not all of a sudden to roll out of bed and have this universal prohibition."
The founder of the saintmychal Web site, Burt Kearns, suggested that Father Judge himself could help repair the church's public image.
"If you look at the work and life of Mychal Judge, this is a man who should be on the recruiting poster for Catholic priests," Mr. Kearns said. "He was a great priest."
Shadi Rahimi contributed reporting for this article.
The church is already struggling to find priests, many are imported.
Now it will be even harder. They really should rethink the celebacy issue.
By ANDY NEWMAN
Published: September 25, 2005
The Rev. Mychal F. Judge, the Fire Department chaplain who died in the rubble of 9/11, was, and still is, one of the most widely loved Roman Catholic priests in New York City's recent history.
For 40 years, Father Judge tirelessly ministered to firefighters, their grieving widows, AIDS patients, homeless people, Flight 800 victims' families and countless others. At his funeral, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani called him a saint, a sentiment that admirers have followed up by campaigning for his canonization. A simple prayer that Father Judge wrote has been circulated around the world and attached to thousands of donations to the needy. Pope John Paul II accepted the gift of his helmet.
Father Judge was also, according to many of his friends of all sexual orientations, a homosexual. A celibate homosexual, he told friends, but a homosexual nonetheless. And reports last week that the Vatican is likely to try to bar gay men, even celibate ones, from the priesthood stirred anger among those who revere his memory.
The former city fire commissioner Thomas Von Essen, a close friend of Father Judge's, said Thursday that excluding men of his caliber from the priesthood would be simply "a shame."
Mr. Von Essen, a married, practicing Catholic who said that Father Judge came out to him years before his death, added, "To sacrifice your life to God and try to do so much good every day and to be prevented from doing that - it's no wonder they can't get anyone to join the church to become a priest or a nun."
On Thursday, Andrew Sullivan, the outspokenly gay and Catholic journalist, posted on his Web site an oft-reprinted photograph of Father Judge's limp body being carried off by firefighters on 9/11 minutes after he had given last rites to one of their own. Above it was the sardonic headline "Unfit for the Priesthood."
Mr. Sullivan said on Friday that Father Judge's work with the Fire Department mocked the assertion, made by a Catholic official who described the expected new rule, that even celibate gays should not enter the seminary because the temptations arising from being surrounded by men there would be too strong.
"The idea that gay priests somehow cannot serve straight congregants, when you have this priest working with one of the most stereotypically macho organizations - and he gave his life to them - captures some of the cruelty and bigotry we see in the Vatican now," Mr. Sullivan said in a telephone interview.
Father Judge, a gregarious, sandal-shod Franciscan friar who was 68 when he died, was a longtime member of a gay Catholic group, Dignity, and he often spoke up for gay rights. But several of Father Judge's admirers from conservative backgrounds declined on Friday to discuss his sexuality because they said it had no relevance.
A gay man who posted to saintmychal .com, a Web site promoting Father Judge's canonization, said he did not see why anyone would care, either. The man, Ralph W. Vogel, attended Masses that Father Judge offered in the 1990's for gay and lesbian Catholics in a Unitarian church on Staten Island. "I don't know anything personally about his sexual orientation, and it's not really important to me other than 'Wow, he was there,' " said Mr. Vogel, a director of volunteer services at Ronald McDonald House.
In fact, some prominent conservative Catholic commentators said on Friday that the church should not concern itself with the sexual orientation of candidates for the priesthood who honor their vows of celibacy.
"I don't really care, and I don't think most Catholics care if a priest is gay" as long he does not act on his urges, said William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and a fierce critic of what he has called declining moral standards.
The Vatican document on gay seminarians has not yet been completed, and exactly how the authorities would go about screening out homosexuals remains an open question. The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, a conservative Catholic who edits the religious journal First Things, said that he doubted that the final document would include celibate gays in the ban. Such a policy, he said, "would raise enormous theological and moral problems in the teaching of the church."
Mr. Donohue said that the while the Vatican did need to address the sexual abuses committed by priests and damage they have done to the church, "the answer to the problem is not all of a sudden to roll out of bed and have this universal prohibition."
The founder of the saintmychal Web site, Burt Kearns, suggested that Father Judge himself could help repair the church's public image.
"If you look at the work and life of Mychal Judge, this is a man who should be on the recruiting poster for Catholic priests," Mr. Kearns said. "He was a great priest."
Shadi Rahimi contributed reporting for this article.
The church is already struggling to find priests, many are imported.
Now it will be even harder. They really should rethink the celebacy issue.
"The problem of evil" by a local psychologist
By Bailey Molineux - 09/25/2005
It is one of the most perplexing philosophical problems, a potential stumbling block to the belief in an all-powerful, all-loving God. I am referring to what is called the problem of evil, which says that there is a contradiction between undeserved suffering in the world and the belief that God is all-powerful and unconditionally loving.
The horrific tragedy in New Orleans brings this problem to the forefront once again. Succinctly put, the problem of evil assumes if God is all powerful, then he allows tragedies to occur such as the Holocaust, wars, earthquakes, hurricanes, famine and diseases. But if He loves us, why would he allow these horrors to occur? Why couldn't he have made a world in which there was less suffering?
When we consider the problem of evil, there are two types of evil — natural and human.
Human evil is easy to deal with. God wants us to love each other unconditionally but will not force us to do so for that would not be genuine love. Accordingly, he gives us free will so we can choose to love one another or slaughter one another.
The more difficult evil to explain is natural evil such as hurricanes, earthquakes, famines and debilitating diseases. Human choice is not involved in these phenomena.
There are many attempted answers to the problem of natural evil. Job's friends told him that God was punishing him or correcting him by giving him suffering. Job, however, protested rightly that he was a good man and did not need correction.
Another explanation for natural evil is that it is caused by Satan. However, if we posit the existence of Satan, we automatically put a limitation on God's power. Satan has much of the power on earth, although we are told that God will eventually triumph in the end over Satan.
The Buddhists tell us that suffering is the result of desire. If we eliminate our desires then we eliminate our suffering. Try providing comfort to a man who is starving or who just lost his family with this philosophy, however.
In effect, there is no fully satisfactory or comforting answer to the problem of natural evil. It is one of God's mysteries that we can never fully understand in this life.
The important question that we need to address, then, is not why is there undeserved suffering, which we will all experience at some time in our lives, but how will we to respond to it. Will we be angry at and reject God or will we come to depend more on Him because of our suffering? Will we be angry at people who are not suffering or will we develop more compassion for the suffering of others as a result of our own suffering? Will we grow or will we regress?
The choice is ours alone.
J. Bailey Molineux, is a psychologist with Adult and Child Counseling, and can be reached at 406-443-1990.
IN THE END AS ALWAYS, ITS ----GOD IS UNKNOWABLE, MYSTERIOUS .....JUST BELEIVE?!
It is one of the most perplexing philosophical problems, a potential stumbling block to the belief in an all-powerful, all-loving God. I am referring to what is called the problem of evil, which says that there is a contradiction between undeserved suffering in the world and the belief that God is all-powerful and unconditionally loving.
The horrific tragedy in New Orleans brings this problem to the forefront once again. Succinctly put, the problem of evil assumes if God is all powerful, then he allows tragedies to occur such as the Holocaust, wars, earthquakes, hurricanes, famine and diseases. But if He loves us, why would he allow these horrors to occur? Why couldn't he have made a world in which there was less suffering?
When we consider the problem of evil, there are two types of evil — natural and human.
Human evil is easy to deal with. God wants us to love each other unconditionally but will not force us to do so for that would not be genuine love. Accordingly, he gives us free will so we can choose to love one another or slaughter one another.
The more difficult evil to explain is natural evil such as hurricanes, earthquakes, famines and debilitating diseases. Human choice is not involved in these phenomena.
There are many attempted answers to the problem of natural evil. Job's friends told him that God was punishing him or correcting him by giving him suffering. Job, however, protested rightly that he was a good man and did not need correction.
Another explanation for natural evil is that it is caused by Satan. However, if we posit the existence of Satan, we automatically put a limitation on God's power. Satan has much of the power on earth, although we are told that God will eventually triumph in the end over Satan.
The Buddhists tell us that suffering is the result of desire. If we eliminate our desires then we eliminate our suffering. Try providing comfort to a man who is starving or who just lost his family with this philosophy, however.
In effect, there is no fully satisfactory or comforting answer to the problem of natural evil. It is one of God's mysteries that we can never fully understand in this life.
The important question that we need to address, then, is not why is there undeserved suffering, which we will all experience at some time in our lives, but how will we to respond to it. Will we be angry at and reject God or will we come to depend more on Him because of our suffering? Will we be angry at people who are not suffering or will we develop more compassion for the suffering of others as a result of our own suffering? Will we grow or will we regress?
The choice is ours alone.
J. Bailey Molineux, is a psychologist with Adult and Child Counseling, and can be reached at 406-443-1990.
IN THE END AS ALWAYS, ITS ----GOD IS UNKNOWABLE, MYSTERIOUS .....JUST BELEIVE?!
CNN adds attached to ID case telling
I wonder how much it would cost to place an add in for my blog?
Do I really want to go there?
Tell me what you think.
Adds attached to this story tells it all for me!
Intelligent Design at God-LovesYou.org
Learn about intelligent design with The Four Spiritual Laws of Christianity. You...
www.god-lovesyou.org Intelligent Design by God?
Read the remarkable, free book that reveals the intelligent design behind...
www.gnmagazine.org Intelligent Designs - Yahoo! Shopping
More Adds on the 2nd day.
Creation or Evolution?
Why is serious discussion of creation often forbidden? We examine the...
www.ucg.org Evolution
Check out Evolution. Get music downloads. Watch free music videos. See artist...
music.yahoo.com Darwinian Evolution vs. Creation Science
Overview of scientific disciplines.
www.pilgrimtours.com
Do I really want to go there?
Tell me what you think.
Adds attached to this story tells it all for me!
Intelligent Design at God-LovesYou.org
Learn about intelligent design with The Four Spiritual Laws of Christianity. You...
www.god-lovesyou.org Intelligent Design by God?
Read the remarkable, free book that reveals the intelligent design behind...
www.gnmagazine.org Intelligent Designs - Yahoo! Shopping
More Adds on the 2nd day.
Creation or Evolution?
Why is serious discussion of creation often forbidden? We examine the...
www.ucg.org Evolution
Check out Evolution. Get music downloads. Watch free music videos. See artist...
music.yahoo.com Darwinian Evolution vs. Creation Science
Overview of scientific disciplines.
www.pilgrimtours.com
First witness called
'Intelligent design' goes on trial
Evolution cases date back to 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial
Tuesday, September 27, 2005; Posted: 11:19 a.m. EDT (15:19 GMT)
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A school district is undermining science education by raising false doubts about evolution and offering "intelligent design" as an alternative explanation for life's origins, a biologist testified at the start of a landmark trial.
"It's the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the scientific process," said Brown University's Kenneth Miller, the first witness called Monday by lawyers for eight families suing the Dover Area School District.
Dover is believed to be the nation's first school system to require that students be exposed to the intelligent design concept.
District policy requires school administrators to read a statement before classes on evolution that says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.
Intelligent design holds that Darwin's theory of natural selection over time cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.
Eight families suing district, The eight families say the district policy promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state. But the rural school district of about 3,500 students argues it is not endorsing any religious view and is merely giving ninth-grade biology classes a glimpse of differences over evolution.
"This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda," said Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in his opening statement. The center, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, lobbies for what it sees as the religious freedom of Christians and is defending the school district.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs began their case by arguing that intelligent design is a religious concept inserted in the school district's curriculum by the school board.
"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," attorney Eric Rothschild said.
Miller, the first witness, sharply criticized intelligent design and questioned the work that went into it by one of its leading proponents, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who will be a witness for the district.
The statement read to Dover students states that "because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact."
Witness: Theory undermines science
Miller testified that the statement is "tremendously damaging" by falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution.
"What that tells students is that science can't be relied upon and certainly is not the kind of profession you want to go into," he said.
"There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory," he added. On the other hand, he said, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."
Miller also challenged the accuracy of "Of Pandas and People," the intelligent-design textbook to which Dover students are referred. Miller said the book omits discussion of what causes extinction. Since nearly all original species are extinct, he said, any intelligent design creator would not have been very intelligent.
During cross-examination, Robert Muise, another attorney for the law center, repeatedly asked Miller whether he questioned the completeness of Darwin's theory.
"Would you agree that Darwin's theory is not the absolute truth?" Muise asked. "We don't regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth," Miller said.
Evolution trials date to 1925
The history of evolution litigation dates to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution.
The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50, and the law was repealed in 1967.
In 1968, the Supreme Court overturned an Arkansas state law banning the teaching of evolution. And in 1987, it ruled that states may not require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism. President Bush has also weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.
The non-jury trial before U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III is expected to take five weeks.
These Adds attached to this story tells it all for me! No religious motive my ass!
Intelligent Design at God-LovesYou.org
Learn about intelligent design with The Four Spiritual Laws of Christianity. You...
www.god-lovesyou.org Intelligent Design by God?
Read the remarkable, free book that reveals the intelligent design behind...
www.gnmagazine.org Intelligent Designs - Yahoo! Shopping
Evolution cases date back to 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial
Tuesday, September 27, 2005; Posted: 11:19 a.m. EDT (15:19 GMT)
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A school district is undermining science education by raising false doubts about evolution and offering "intelligent design" as an alternative explanation for life's origins, a biologist testified at the start of a landmark trial.
"It's the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the scientific process," said Brown University's Kenneth Miller, the first witness called Monday by lawyers for eight families suing the Dover Area School District.
Dover is believed to be the nation's first school system to require that students be exposed to the intelligent design concept.
District policy requires school administrators to read a statement before classes on evolution that says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.
Intelligent design holds that Darwin's theory of natural selection over time cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.
Eight families suing district, The eight families say the district policy promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state. But the rural school district of about 3,500 students argues it is not endorsing any religious view and is merely giving ninth-grade biology classes a glimpse of differences over evolution.
"This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda," said Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in his opening statement. The center, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, lobbies for what it sees as the religious freedom of Christians and is defending the school district.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs began their case by arguing that intelligent design is a religious concept inserted in the school district's curriculum by the school board.
"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," attorney Eric Rothschild said.
Miller, the first witness, sharply criticized intelligent design and questioned the work that went into it by one of its leading proponents, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who will be a witness for the district.
The statement read to Dover students states that "because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact."
Witness: Theory undermines science
Miller testified that the statement is "tremendously damaging" by falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution.
"What that tells students is that science can't be relied upon and certainly is not the kind of profession you want to go into," he said.
"There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory," he added. On the other hand, he said, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."
Miller also challenged the accuracy of "Of Pandas and People," the intelligent-design textbook to which Dover students are referred. Miller said the book omits discussion of what causes extinction. Since nearly all original species are extinct, he said, any intelligent design creator would not have been very intelligent.
During cross-examination, Robert Muise, another attorney for the law center, repeatedly asked Miller whether he questioned the completeness of Darwin's theory.
"Would you agree that Darwin's theory is not the absolute truth?" Muise asked. "We don't regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth," Miller said.
Evolution trials date to 1925
The history of evolution litigation dates to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution.
The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50, and the law was repealed in 1967.
In 1968, the Supreme Court overturned an Arkansas state law banning the teaching of evolution. And in 1987, it ruled that states may not require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism. President Bush has also weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.
The non-jury trial before U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III is expected to take five weeks.
These Adds attached to this story tells it all for me! No religious motive my ass!
Intelligent Design at God-LovesYou.org
Learn about intelligent design with The Four Spiritual Laws of Christianity. You...
www.god-lovesyou.org Intelligent Design by God?
Read the remarkable, free book that reveals the intelligent design behind...
www.gnmagazine.org Intelligent Designs - Yahoo! Shopping
Sep 26, 2005
Opening Statements
'Intelligent design' debate back in court
Monday, September 26, 2005; Posted: 2:11 p.m. EDT (18:11 GMT)
RELATED
New evolution battle goes to court
• Dover Area School District
• National Center for Science Education
• Thomas More Law Center
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- "Intelligent design" is a religious theory that was inserted in a school district's curriculum with no concern for whether it had scientific underpinnings, a lawyer told a federal judge Monday as a landmark trial got under way.
"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," said Eric Rothschild, an attorney representing eight families who are challenging the decision of the Dover Area School District.
But in his opening statement, the school district's attorney defended Dover's policy of requiring ninth-grade students to hear a brief statement about intelligent design before biology classes on evolution.
"This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda," argued Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan. "Dover's modest curriculum change embodies the essence of liberal education." The center, which lobbies for what it sees as the religious freedom of Christians, is defending the school district.
Eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, the opening of the trial in federal court marked the latest legal chapter in the debate over the teaching of evolution in public school.
The eight families argue that the district policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
About 75 spectators crowded the courtroom of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III for the start of the non-jury trial. But the scene outside the courthouse was business as usual except for a lone woman reading the Bible.
Arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory, not science, Rothschild said he would show that the language in the school district's own policy made clear its religious intent.
Dover is believed to be the first school system in the nation to require students be exposed to the intelligent design concept, under a policy adopted by a 6-3 vote in October 2004.
It requires teachers to read a statement that says intelligent design differs from Darwin's view and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.
Intelligent design, a concept some scholars have advanced over the past 15 years, holds that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.
Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism -- a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation -- camouflaged in scientific language, and it does not belong in a science curriculum.
Brown University professor Kenneth Miller, the first witness called by the plaintiffs, said pieces of the theory of evolution are subject to debate, such as where gender comes from, but told the court: "There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory."
On the other hand, he said, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."
Miller also challenged the accuracy of "Of Pandas and People" and said it almost entirely omits any discussion of what causes extinction. If nearly all original species are extinct, he said, the intelligent design creator was not very intelligent.
The history of evolution litigation dates back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50, and the law was repealed in 1967.
In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an Arkansas state law banning the teaching of evolution. And in 1987, it ruled that states may not require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.
The clash over intelligent-design is evident far beyond this rural district of about 3,500 students 20 miles south of Harrisburg. President Bush has weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.
In August, the Kansas Board of Education gave preliminary approval to science standards that allow intelligent design-style alternatives to be discussed alongside evolution.
Richard Thompson, the Thomas More center's president and chief counsel, said Dover's policy takes a modest approach.
"All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community," Thompson said.
Creation or Evolution?
Why is serious discussion of creation often forbidden? We examine the...
www.ucg.org Evolution
Check out Evolution. Get music downloads. Watch free music videos. See artist...
music.yahoo.com Darwinian Evolution vs. Creation Science
Overview of scientific disciplines.
www.pilgrimtours.com
Monday, September 26, 2005; Posted: 2:11 p.m. EDT (18:11 GMT)
RELATED
New evolution battle goes to court
• Dover Area School District
• National Center for Science Education
• Thomas More Law Center
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- "Intelligent design" is a religious theory that was inserted in a school district's curriculum with no concern for whether it had scientific underpinnings, a lawyer told a federal judge Monday as a landmark trial got under way.
"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," said Eric Rothschild, an attorney representing eight families who are challenging the decision of the Dover Area School District.
But in his opening statement, the school district's attorney defended Dover's policy of requiring ninth-grade students to hear a brief statement about intelligent design before biology classes on evolution.
"This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda," argued Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan. "Dover's modest curriculum change embodies the essence of liberal education." The center, which lobbies for what it sees as the religious freedom of Christians, is defending the school district.
Eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, the opening of the trial in federal court marked the latest legal chapter in the debate over the teaching of evolution in public school.
The eight families argue that the district policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
About 75 spectators crowded the courtroom of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III for the start of the non-jury trial. But the scene outside the courthouse was business as usual except for a lone woman reading the Bible.
Arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory, not science, Rothschild said he would show that the language in the school district's own policy made clear its religious intent.
Dover is believed to be the first school system in the nation to require students be exposed to the intelligent design concept, under a policy adopted by a 6-3 vote in October 2004.
It requires teachers to read a statement that says intelligent design differs from Darwin's view and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.
Intelligent design, a concept some scholars have advanced over the past 15 years, holds that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.
Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism -- a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation -- camouflaged in scientific language, and it does not belong in a science curriculum.
Brown University professor Kenneth Miller, the first witness called by the plaintiffs, said pieces of the theory of evolution are subject to debate, such as where gender comes from, but told the court: "There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory."
On the other hand, he said, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."
Miller also challenged the accuracy of "Of Pandas and People" and said it almost entirely omits any discussion of what causes extinction. If nearly all original species are extinct, he said, the intelligent design creator was not very intelligent.
The history of evolution litigation dates back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50, and the law was repealed in 1967.
In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an Arkansas state law banning the teaching of evolution. And in 1987, it ruled that states may not require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.
The clash over intelligent-design is evident far beyond this rural district of about 3,500 students 20 miles south of Harrisburg. President Bush has weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.
In August, the Kansas Board of Education gave preliminary approval to science standards that allow intelligent design-style alternatives to be discussed alongside evolution.
Richard Thompson, the Thomas More center's president and chief counsel, said Dover's policy takes a modest approach.
"All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community," Thompson said.
Creation or Evolution?
Why is serious discussion of creation often forbidden? We examine the...
www.ucg.org Evolution
Check out Evolution. Get music downloads. Watch free music videos. See artist...
music.yahoo.com Darwinian Evolution vs. Creation Science
Overview of scientific disciplines.
www.pilgrimtours.com
Sep 19, 2005
Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School Board
Education
Intelligent Design Case Goes to Trial
Talk of the Nation, September 16, 2005 · The case of Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School Board pits "intelligent design" proponents against those who want to keep the idea out of science classs. The proceedings begin this month.
Guest:
Nicholas Matske, public information project director at the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif.
This will be a cliff hanger. This is a must see.
Intelligent Design Case Goes to Trial
Talk of the Nation, September 16, 2005 · The case of Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School Board pits "intelligent design" proponents against those who want to keep the idea out of science classs. The proceedings begin this month.
Guest:
Nicholas Matske, public information project director at the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif.
This will be a cliff hanger. This is a must see.
Sep 15, 2005
Here we go again with the pledge
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal judge declared Wednesday that the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional, a decision that could potentially put the divisive issue back before the U.S. Supreme Court.
I cringe when I see this type of story in the news.
I have torn feelings about this issue.
It gives people like Jerry Falwell a chance to rail against us so called "evil" secularists.
he said, or was it Pat Robertson? ...."they are solely responsible for everything that is wrong with this nation". RIGHT, NOT!
Wow, I was so surprised to hear our small, tiny demographic has so much power. I wish!
I support those trying to reinstate the original pledge. But I don't have the stomach for the fight.
I cringe when I see this type of story in the news.
I have torn feelings about this issue.
It gives people like Jerry Falwell a chance to rail against us so called "evil" secularists.
he said, or was it Pat Robertson? ...."they are solely responsible for everything that is wrong with this nation". RIGHT, NOT!
Wow, I was so surprised to hear our small, tiny demographic has so much power. I wish!
I support those trying to reinstate the original pledge. But I don't have the stomach for the fight.
Sep 1, 2005
Not-so-intellegent design----FUNNY
Open Mike: Not-so-intelligent designby Michael MahoneyWednesday, August 24, 2005
Queen City News, Helena MT.
If you’re like me, you’ve been reading a lot lately about a growing movement to introduce the concept of “intelligent design” into public school science curriculum.So what’s all the fuss? Intelligent Design Theory or ID (not to be confused with ED) was crafted by folks who, for a variety of reasons, disagree with the theory of evolution. They think that the “scientists” are trying to debunk their religious beliefs by insinuating that natural evolutionary processes created life as we know it, not the Big Guy Upstairs. This is an unfair accusation because we all know that scientists don’t have the time to debunk anything. They spend the majority of their time chasing after government research grants.ID proponents argue that many things in our environment cannot be satisfactorily explained by mere evolutionary theory, for example, why movies such as “Deuce Bigelow: European Gigolo” get made. Therefore, they believe that a “higher power” or some intelligent force out there must have created us and most of the stuff that makes up the natural world.However, if the intelligent design people think that a higher power is responsible for many of the wonderfully complex things in our world, I think they should admit to some of the obvious flubs found in nature as well.People of a certain age may remember the 1977 film “Oh, God!” starring the late George Burns in the title role. In the movie, even he admitted that he got the avocado wrong. (“The pit’s too big.”) There are many other questions that this so-called intelligent designer must answer to. Why does healthy food not taste as good as unhealthy food? Why are weeds ugly? Why does “weekend” time go by faster than “weekday” time?The opponents of ID (scientists) are adamant about preserving the separation of church and state and protecting the sanctity of the public education system. They feel that ID is nothing more than a thinly veiled reintroduction of creationism into our otherwise spiritually antiseptic public schools. The say “veiled” because ID proponents cleverly disassociate themselves from mainstream religious beliefs by not specifically identifying the intelligent designer. It could be God. It could be alien beings. (I’m sure sci-fi fans are thrilled with the latter.)As you may recall, a fellow named Charles “Chuck” Darwin invented the theory of evolution more than 100 years ago, most likely in an effort to secure a government grant. His theory is that living things “evolve” over time to adapt to changing environmental conditions. If a plant or animal doesn’t adapt to its environment, it’s toast. Most agreed that his was a swell theory.Unfortunately, Chuck didn’t stop there. He further theorized that humans are descended from monkeys. Now this notion rubbed some people the wrong way, but Darwin’s supporting evidence is quite compelling: we like bananas; we scratch our heads when we’re confused, and we sometimes screech for no apparent reason.Ironically, the current intelligent design vs. evolution debate supports his theory. We are behaving like a bunch of monkeys.The simple fact is the debate is moot. ID can exist in tandem with any scientific theory. Religious faith and/or science fiction trumps ordinary science every day of the week. Let’s just say God (or the aliens) invented evolution and that’s the end of it. Sorry, Charlie.While no one can completely discount intelligent design theory, I believe that teaching ID in science class is not a good idea. The role of public education is to provide our young people with the basic knowledge and skills to navigate through life. The Three Rs: readin’ (w)ritin’ and ‘rithmetic. Add to that gym class, which teaches us humility, embarrassment, and, in many ways, the practical application of evolutionary theory, e.g., survival of the fittest. ID would just complicate matters.ID in the science class would make it too easy on students. Since ID, by its very nature, does not require observable, measurable proof that it exists, it can explain, in one fell swoop, even the most complex systems in the realm of the natural sciences. It is the academic equivalent of, “Because I said so.” No more drawing a blank on the science quiz; “ID” is always a plausible answer.Students will undoubtedly use ID to their advantage in other ways. Instead of the time-worn excuse, “The dog ate my homework,” which is a perfectly sound excuse by ordinary scientific standards, teachers will now hear ID-inspired excuses such as, “A higher power directed me to play my X-box ‘til 3 a.m., which did not afford me the opportunity to complete the assignment.”My real concern is if people start questioning the appropriateness of teaching the theory of evolution in school, what’s next? I can think of several subjects that would be in jeopardy.How many times have perplexed algebra students wondered aloud, “Will I ever use this later in life?” “Do I really need to know this?” The answer is, quite frankly, no. Not unless you are planning to be an engineer, math teacher or, God forbid, a scientist.(Michael Mahoney, aka “Open Mike,” and Curious George are distant cousins.)
Queen City News, Helena MT.
If you’re like me, you’ve been reading a lot lately about a growing movement to introduce the concept of “intelligent design” into public school science curriculum.So what’s all the fuss? Intelligent Design Theory or ID (not to be confused with ED) was crafted by folks who, for a variety of reasons, disagree with the theory of evolution. They think that the “scientists” are trying to debunk their religious beliefs by insinuating that natural evolutionary processes created life as we know it, not the Big Guy Upstairs. This is an unfair accusation because we all know that scientists don’t have the time to debunk anything. They spend the majority of their time chasing after government research grants.ID proponents argue that many things in our environment cannot be satisfactorily explained by mere evolutionary theory, for example, why movies such as “Deuce Bigelow: European Gigolo” get made. Therefore, they believe that a “higher power” or some intelligent force out there must have created us and most of the stuff that makes up the natural world.However, if the intelligent design people think that a higher power is responsible for many of the wonderfully complex things in our world, I think they should admit to some of the obvious flubs found in nature as well.People of a certain age may remember the 1977 film “Oh, God!” starring the late George Burns in the title role. In the movie, even he admitted that he got the avocado wrong. (“The pit’s too big.”) There are many other questions that this so-called intelligent designer must answer to. Why does healthy food not taste as good as unhealthy food? Why are weeds ugly? Why does “weekend” time go by faster than “weekday” time?The opponents of ID (scientists) are adamant about preserving the separation of church and state and protecting the sanctity of the public education system. They feel that ID is nothing more than a thinly veiled reintroduction of creationism into our otherwise spiritually antiseptic public schools. The say “veiled” because ID proponents cleverly disassociate themselves from mainstream religious beliefs by not specifically identifying the intelligent designer. It could be God. It could be alien beings. (I’m sure sci-fi fans are thrilled with the latter.)As you may recall, a fellow named Charles “Chuck” Darwin invented the theory of evolution more than 100 years ago, most likely in an effort to secure a government grant. His theory is that living things “evolve” over time to adapt to changing environmental conditions. If a plant or animal doesn’t adapt to its environment, it’s toast. Most agreed that his was a swell theory.Unfortunately, Chuck didn’t stop there. He further theorized that humans are descended from monkeys. Now this notion rubbed some people the wrong way, but Darwin’s supporting evidence is quite compelling: we like bananas; we scratch our heads when we’re confused, and we sometimes screech for no apparent reason.Ironically, the current intelligent design vs. evolution debate supports his theory. We are behaving like a bunch of monkeys.The simple fact is the debate is moot. ID can exist in tandem with any scientific theory. Religious faith and/or science fiction trumps ordinary science every day of the week. Let’s just say God (or the aliens) invented evolution and that’s the end of it. Sorry, Charlie.While no one can completely discount intelligent design theory, I believe that teaching ID in science class is not a good idea. The role of public education is to provide our young people with the basic knowledge and skills to navigate through life. The Three Rs: readin’ (w)ritin’ and ‘rithmetic. Add to that gym class, which teaches us humility, embarrassment, and, in many ways, the practical application of evolutionary theory, e.g., survival of the fittest. ID would just complicate matters.ID in the science class would make it too easy on students. Since ID, by its very nature, does not require observable, measurable proof that it exists, it can explain, in one fell swoop, even the most complex systems in the realm of the natural sciences. It is the academic equivalent of, “Because I said so.” No more drawing a blank on the science quiz; “ID” is always a plausible answer.Students will undoubtedly use ID to their advantage in other ways. Instead of the time-worn excuse, “The dog ate my homework,” which is a perfectly sound excuse by ordinary scientific standards, teachers will now hear ID-inspired excuses such as, “A higher power directed me to play my X-box ‘til 3 a.m., which did not afford me the opportunity to complete the assignment.”My real concern is if people start questioning the appropriateness of teaching the theory of evolution in school, what’s next? I can think of several subjects that would be in jeopardy.How many times have perplexed algebra students wondered aloud, “Will I ever use this later in life?” “Do I really need to know this?” The answer is, quite frankly, no. Not unless you are planning to be an engineer, math teacher or, God forbid, a scientist.(Michael Mahoney, aka “Open Mike,” and Curious George are distant cousins.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
