Is Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers a creationist?
I don’t know. But this question is making the rounds of the pro-science blogosphere (hat-tip to Panda’s Thumb and The Lippard Blog), and it’s a legitimate one.
According to the Seattle Times, Harriet Miers is a devoted member of the Valley View Christian Church, a fundamentalist church in Dallas, Texas. What’s interesting is that, on the church’s links page is a link to the Creation Evidence Museum. This is a creationist museum run by Carl Baugh, a man known to, ah, stretch the truth. It appears he has inflated his credentials, and he continues to make long-disproven claims about evidence for creation.
This does not mean Ms. Miers is a creationist, but it is pretty interesting indirect evidence. President Bush has made it clear he supports Intelligent Design being taught in the classroom, and has remarked on many occasions about his fundamentalist beliefs.
Since we have no direct evidence of Ms. Miers beliefs, I think a direct question is warranted. Asking about a candidate’s religion is probably illegal and possibly unethical, but asking them if they think creationism should be taught in a science classroom is not only relevant, it is something the Supreme Court has already ruled on once. This makes it more than relevant; this makes it a crucial question.
This has a fundamental (ha ha) impact on Supreme Court decisions, and I think it’s something a Senator on the confirmation committee should ask. I plan on contacting my Senator (who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee) and making sure that it does get asked. I suggest you do too.
October 9th, 2005 at 11:15 pm
From a quick look at the FAQ page http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html.
Q: What is the real cause of “global warming” ?
Doesn’t exist- or if it does- it’s not man-made.
Q: What is the biblical view of NASA and space travel?
Nasa scientists praised the Lord Jesus Christ for making their achievements possible.
Q: Did God create with a ‘big bang’?
“According to the theory of evolution, “all life originated from a super explosion,” known as the Big Bang…”
(uh.. Darwin invented the Big Bang???)
Q: How can we see distant stars (millions or billions of light-years away) in a young (6,000 year-old) universe?
Because- insert meaningless scientific sounding garbage here – so that’s why.
Scary scary scary. These people scare me. I don’t understand their psychology at all. Why would anyone want to be so wilfully ignorant?
October 9th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
According the the LA Times, a couple of months ago Miers joined a splinter group that broke away from the Valley View church. The split was in part because of the efforts of Valley View to update their worship services to attact new young members, spending money that was previously used for missionary work. According to the article “Some of the more traditional members of the church fear that its effort to be more contemporary could dampen its emphasis on social issues, including its teachings against abortion and homosexuality.” It’s hard to imagine that the members of this splinter church are any less creationist than Valley View Church itself.
Link to LA Times Article.
October 9th, 2005 at 11:54 pm
It is frightening. The religious right has managed to bully the left and coopt the religious moderates, to the point that ID and creationism are coming onto the table as real options.
Someone put it very well, that what’s happening lately is that religious extremists are out saying some very wrong things, and that the rest of us are made to feel rude for disagreeing with those beliefs. It reminds me of what irks me about pushy people: they *use* etiquette to make it rude for you to not do what they want you to.
You know, there was a time when I thought all this creationism nonsense was fading away.
There was a time when this stuff looked like what it was: the far right. But now it’s masquerading as being almost mainstream. To paraphrase the Bad Astronomer, it’s so wrong it makes my head hurt.
October 10th, 2005 at 1:03 am
Had a look on the creation evidence website.
This is really really scary stuff, every ‘proof’ is found in the holy scriptures and every real evidence is dismissed as the work of god’s hand.
These people do not like explanations that require to much thinking.
October 10th, 2005 at 1:45 am
To quote a bumper sticker I saw for sale in my old hippie-artist housemate’s catalog: “Dear God, protect me from your followers.”
Or, as Mark Twain so eloquently put it many years ago, “Heaven for climate. Hell for company.”
I have a large and sprawling family (my maternal grandfather was one of thirteen children). All of them lived on the other side of the Mississippi from where my parents and I did, so we got to take a good many long car trips. When I first read **Lolita** at age seventeen, it hit me just how familiar the scenery in that book was, particularly when Humbert Humbert and his little nymphet are taking their “joyride” across the country. Roadside culture hasn’t changed, in some aesthetic respects, since the 1950s. On a different tack, visiting family all over the Southland and the very, very flat middle states exposed me to shades of culture I wouldn’t have seen staying home with my junior-scientist friends and my Isaac Asimov books.
Knowing that there are creationists in my own family is a darn fine proof that, Humane Genome Project aside, not all traits are inherited.
October 10th, 2005 at 6:01 am
Good luck, BA.
Christian, it ssems to me that these people are so insecure that they need all “The Answers” packaged up and neatly presented. They seem unable to deal with a world in which difficult things (like maths and complex scientific theories) exist. Therefore, they try to hide from the truth by shouting their worldview loudly from the rooftops.
That which I say three times is true…
Blake, I, too, have creationist relatives. The strangest thing is that they are really nice people (possibly because they never worry about big questions – God is there to take care of everything. Obviously they’d far rather be happy than right any day…).
October 10th, 2005 at 7:46 am
Slowely anti-science force it’s ugly body forward in the world. The United States of America has earned many Nobel prizes over the years and probably many other science awards as well. The US are a leading science nation but for how much longer if this are allowed to go on unchecked? The rest of the world are still around and are all to willing to absorb any scientific refugees that cannot work effectily in the US anymore. Other are all to willing to absorb thease people, good brains are always in short supply. Sweden are already one of the leading nations in stem cell reserch for instance. If you feel that you don’t need thease people anymore, then we and others gladly take them.
October 10th, 2005 at 8:11 am
In response to christian burnham:
For them it’s not about ignorance vs. knowledge. I don’t believe they think in those terms, per se. Rather, it is more their “rights” vs. everyone else. They identify with their own belief system so much that any challenge to it — yes, even reality (via science) itself — is seen as an attack on their self-worth. So, when you or anyone else offers them up facts contrary to their worldview they see that as a direct assault akin (at least on the emotional level) to, say, accusing them of being “inferior” because of their race or gender. That is where their outrage and sense of “victimization” come from. In effect, they see science in SOCIAL terms and scientists as just trying to force their own self-serving attitudes upon them.
In the end they are acting out of a need for personal and social empowerment.
That is why just offering the “facts” is a iffy strategy at best (thought, perhaps, the only moral one) if you ask me — they don’t really see it in those terms. It’s about maintaining and acquiring social power and respectibility. For many, their identification with Creationism (and other forms of anti-science) is so strong that they could never bring themselves to admit the mistake. So, instead they just externalize the process and blame science for trying to “impose” its views upon them.
Actually, in a sense, you can — ironically — see Creationism as a rebuttal of God. After all, if we assume he or she actually exists then clearly science provides the greatest factual understanding of how he built the cosmos. Therefore, to refute science is to, in effect, refute God (or, more to the point, to insist that God is something other than what he or she is).
October 10th, 2005 at 9:16 am
Nigel (and others):
To preserve peace between myself and my ID relatives (and they’re **family**, after all), I eventually learned to smile and skate on past to other topics of conversation. Holidays have enough stress without an ideological dispute, yes? The tricky part happened in later years, when they would ask me, “So what have you learned at MIT?”
“Um. . . Last month we studied how astronomers proved the universe is billions of years old? And right now we’re talking about how natural law has accounted for everything since an instant after the Big Bang, with no need for outside intervention? Oh, and did I mention I did my thesis on genetic algorithms and the harnessing of natural selection for computation?”
Wrong answer. Sigh. Can’t we all just get along??
October 10th, 2005 at 10:15 am
Alan, an excellent analysis. I think you hit the nail right on the head there.
Blake and Nigel, I too have relatives who are right-wing Christians. I can’t say for sure they’re creationists, as I’ve taken pains not to go there–but they do at least seem to think that our country should be governed according to conservative Christian belief. I deal with it the same way you do–by refusing to talk politics etc.
What’s next, anyway? Faith-based mathematics classes?
October 10th, 2005 at 10:45 am
While I am not in favor ID being taught in science class without scientific facts to support ID, I am more concerned that our Supreme Court justices make their decisions based on the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution. If a case of ID comes before the Supreme Court, I don’t want the court to rule against ID simply because it is not proper to teach ID in science class. I want the court to rule according to constitutional law. That might be for or against ID in any particular case. It is not the role of the Supreme Court to correct all the wrongs in the country. The job of the Supreme Court is to make decisions based on the constitution and the rule of law. Bad law that is constitutional should be dealt with through the legislative process.
For me, an example of this was the Texas anti-sodomy law. This is a law that I personally find stupid and should have been repealed. However, I do not believe that law was unconstitutional (a debate for another time). The Supreme Court did not agree with me and decided to strike down that law. Even though I didn’t like that law, I believe the proper decision would have let the law stand and let the people of Texas or their elected officials deal with the issue.
October 10th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Good question BA. It may all be moot. The firestorm over the Miers pick on the center right seems to be dooming this nomination. Now I’m wondering if it will actually make it to the floor of Congress at all. I think the expectation was for another John Robers caliber pick.
October 10th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
Take a look at the latest Nation magizine they have a cartoon advertising mainly a christian science textbook, but also a faith mathmatics book that is a doubleplusgood book.
October 10th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
I’m not like Joan Crawford on the abortion issue but when it comes to Creationism, that’s a different story.
October 10th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
Many are missing the point here. If Ms. Miers is confirmed, it will be for LIFE! There will be no taking it back at a later time, no “undoing” it through the legislative process, no future correction at the ballot box or otherwise. It will be permanent. And her possibly dangerous views will infect court decisions for years and years and affect all of us in one way or another. My son, for example, has nearly 30 years of science teaching in the public schools ahead of him. I can’t imagine how he would cope with being forced to give “equal time” to ID in his classrooms, when he knows it is flat wrong.
We must act now, as Phil suggested. Link to the Senate Judicial Committee and contact someone. If you don’t have direct senatorial representation, contact chairman Spector. Make your views known. Politely state your concerns and ask for Miers’ views on this issue to be revealed. Suggest that she not be confirmed, if she would support the teaching of ID (BS) in public schools.
Don’t wait. It only takes five minutes or so to do this.
October 10th, 2005 at 7:24 pm
“After all, if we assume he or she actually exists then clearly science provides the greatest factual understanding of how he built the cosmos. Therefore, to refute science is to, in effect, refute God ”
How true. As a “right-wing conservative” Christian, I’m surprised at the fuss. ID is simply a theory that states that life in the cosmos came about through a conscious effort – not some random chance. As long as it employs a scientific approach, it should be taken as seriously as evolution.
VisionEngineer also made a strong point – “It is not the role of the Supreme Court to correct all the wrongs in the country. ” It isn’t. It should be up to the legislative branch, as they are directly responsible to the people.
So, as far as Ms. Mier’s being confirmed, she couldn’t be any worse than Bader-Ginsberg. Hopefully she will bring the Court more into line of what the Founders had intended the Court and less Law-by-fiat.
October 10th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
The First Amendment
Freedom of Religion, Speech and Press.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is the full text of the First amendment of the United States Constitution.
I do not see any words here like; Separation of Church and State, intellectual freedom, progress, or any other number of terms from left wing secular humanistic philosophy.
I do not want to see a Church of the United States established where we would all worship together at the point of a gun and by the force of law. But, free exercise thereof is frequently overlooked, or more to point ignored. No one should be allowed to force their beliefs, philosophies, or other such opinions on any one. This is the case going on right now with the theory of evolution being force fed as some kind of fact. However freedom of speech and free exercise thereof does allow the freedom to express ones religious view in all areas of the public forum, in the public square, on the air waives, and yes, in the public schools.
Maybe, with this next Supreme Court appointment the court may be returned to sanity. Maybe the court will once again interpret the constitution as it was written, not as some judge rules. Maybe the unconstitutional strangle hold that the left wing judges have had on our court system for far too long will finally be broken. If this scares you, it shouldn’t. It is how our government was supposed to work.
When the liberals finally realized that they could not win their arguments in fair public discourse they ran to the courts. These were stacked courts with left wing Trojan horse sympathizers. Rather than forming and by proper majority votes establishing proper constitutional amendments, they found judges who would do their bidding from the bench. It is time for this to stop. It is time for this unconstitutional trend to be set right. If you are afraid that intellectual freedom will suffer from these corrective measures, then take the proper course and pass an amendment to the constitution that allows for that. Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right that has been trampled on in the name of intellectual freedom long enough. I do not want to live like the Amish do; I do not want to go back to the 16 hundreds. There is a vast wealth of true science and technology that evolutionary principles have nothing to do with. There is no valid constitutional road block stopping the teaching of the creation account in the public school system. It should be taught where ever it is germane to the subject. If that class has to do with the subject of origins and it happens to be a science class? Then the creation account should be there too with bells on. Not whispered, proclaimed for what it is; an historical account that has been passed down to us from thousands of years ago. Evolution should be there as well as far too much water has passed under the bridge to properly close Pandora’s Box. Let me be very specific here, there is no valid constitutional argument that would stop the full presentation of the Creation account in all areas of the public forum. If that chaps your hide, get some Vaseline.
“Believe in evolution if you want to, just done try to make a monkey out of me.�
October 10th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Hmmm…
Leaving stuff to the legislative branch? Including our morality? In truth, it’s always been a bad idea to legislate morality. Remember, the Germans tried that in the ’30s and ’40s, writing all kinds of laws that had really positive-sounding names, but really turned out be quite repressive.
For further information on that, I recommend reading “Justice at Nuremburg” by Robert E. Conot
The presidency of a country, particularly ours, is not supposed to be a lever for enforcing religious views on the rest of the citizenry… no matter how “correct” the president in question feels them to be! PERIOD!!!
I do happen to agree that Science is not Anti-God… but the really “faithful” don’t see it that way. Unfortunately, Science has, perhaps, gotten a bit entrenched in its position (maybe rightly so) that not enough of them want to talk about God’s role in the development of the universe.
I read a terrific article in the college that I teach at’s local newspaper. They were saying that Science is talking simply about the “how” and religion and ID is talking about the “why”. The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
IMHO, I think that someday there needs to be a real dialogue between Science and Faith. More questions can be answered by working together than dismissing each other as foolish. Too bad that most folks will think this is the stupidest thing they’ve ever read.
I don’t know what to think yet about this nominee… We’ll see how things pan out.
October 10th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
“Since we have no direct evidence of Ms. Miers beliefs, I think a direct question is warranted. Asking about a candidate’s religion is probably illegal and possibly unethical, but asking them if they think creationism should be taught in a science classroom is not only relevant, it is something the Supreme Court has already ruled on once. This makes it more than relevant; this makes it a crucial question.”
I am not a lawyer, but I would consider asking about here religion to be a violation of the “no religious test for any public office or trust” provision of the original federal Constitution and not to mention the First Amendment.
Asking about creationism in the classroom will likely result in no answer from the nominee. Clearly the Supreme Court is very likely to have to rule on this issue in the next few years. Nominees and justices are not supposed to comment on issues which they are likely to have to rule on in the future. (If they do, they will likely have to recuse themselves as Scalia had to for commenting on the pledge prior to that issue reaching the high court.)
As a general rule, she is going for a job in the law and that is the basis on which she should be judged. This includes her legal experience, her legal philosophy, willingness to listen to the arguments of both litigants, and her willingness to uphold the law.
And in a country where at least 40% are YECs, about half are special creationists who deny common descent of humans and non-humans, and the strong majority holding at least some form of evolution denial including a very significant portion of educated people, I have got to wonder why anyone is surprised to discover the possiblity that a lawyer might not believe in evolution. Until a far better job is done on biological education followed by enough time for it to make an impact, we are going to see creationists almost everywhere outside of scientific circles.
If she is supportive of strong church/state separation then she will be good for us regardless of her personal religious views. If she does not then she could be a disaster for science education. I fear that she will not be supportive, but I really don’t know enough to be sure.
In any event, I think that prior the death of the chief justice and the announced retirement of O’Connor that pro-sciece probably had enough votes left to win the ID cases. If Bush gets any more nominations, I fear that we might not have the votes to win. This is especially true if the “Lemon test” is modified. So pro-science people have be prepared for the possiblity of losing at the high court. And even if we do win, the pro-science community as a whole got a bit complacent with the prior court victories. Winning in court does not replace winning the the court of public opinion. Nor will it prevent pressure being placed on schools and teachers to teach creationism. More scientists need get involved in public outreach. (Of course the BA is a good example here.) And if we lose in court, then our side must do better at winning at the grass roots level or else face an educational disaster.
(The good news in the short run is I think that the good guys are going to win big at the district court in the Dover trial.)
Those concerned about these issue might strongly consider joining the National Center for Science Education:
http://www.ncseweb.org/membership.asp
October 10th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
As much as I think that it is a good think to openly discuss what is wrong with the creationist viewpoint, mainly that they deny science and cannot conceive of a God that creates a Universe with certain laws, all of which make the Universe understandable, I cannot believe that it really matters in the selection of a Supreme Court Justice at least not now.
Like someone else here said it , I believe that they will ultimately fail because for the most part, these discussions only seem to occur in the “back woods” and Dover is in the “back woods”. It would probably never make it here in Bucks County (Suburban Philadelphia) where members of the school board usually have advanced degrees in one or another subject.
This is not to say that it couldn’t happen at all but I think it’s more likely not to.
But we should always be aware that there still is a strong current in some areas of the country of “Anti-Intellectualism” of which this discussion is but a part.
Any time you hear the word “Egghead” you know it’s around.
October 11th, 2005 at 12:38 am
Ed said: “There is no valid constitutional road block stopping the teaching of the creation account in the public school system. It should be taught where ever it is germane to the subject. If that class has to do with the subject of origins and it happens to be a science class? Then the creation account should be there too with bells on. Not whispered, proclaimed for what it is; an historical account that has been passed down to us from thousands of years ago.”
*sticks hand up*
Ed, which creation account are you talking about? The Chinese one? The Hindu one? The Maori one?
Oh, you mean the Judeo-Christian one. Why only that one?
I have no problem with the Genesis story being discussed in religious education classes, but not in science classes. It has no science behind it. It belongs in science classes as much as Holocaust Denial belongs in the history class.
October 11th, 2005 at 12:41 am
Kevin said: “ID is simply a theory that states that life in the cosmos came about through a conscious effort – not some random chance. As long as it employs a scientific approach, it should be taken as seriously as evolution.”
But that’s the point. There is *no* scientific backing to ID. It’s main argument is that certain systems in nature couldn’t have arisen naturally, so must have been designed that way. But even this lone argument has been disproven.
ID also provides no predictions. It simply steps up to the plate whenever evolution doesn’t yet have an answer. That’s not science.
October 11th, 2005 at 1:23 am
Well put, Peter B. The whole point of separation of church and state is to prevent the institutionalization of a single state religion, as Ed himself would clearly agree is unconstitutional. As soon as you start teaching creation myths in public school, to students of all religions, then it is perfectly obvious that the Constitution requires you give all the creation myths equal sway. It is very interesting that Ed, who clearly knows a lot about the judicial process and how it should run in a perfect world, does not distinguish between ID and “the creation account”. ID is an effort to avoid citing a particular religion, which disqualifies it from giving any specific creation accounts. But that’s the whole problem with calling it science, for science must be specific or it is not falsifiable by experiment or observation. This is the catch-22 that will keep ID out of our classrooms– for it to be science, it has to provide a specific model for the purposes of falsifiability, but to do so, it will always end up sounding like a state religion. I could almost write the brief myself, and I’m not even a lawyer.
October 11th, 2005 at 1:39 am
Note that I’d also add that science should not be taught in schools as if it were some kind of state religion itself. Every time I see the expression “scientists believe…”, I cringe. Scientists take off their science hats the minute they “believe” anything! The correct statement is that
scientists have hypothesized X, which has withstood the following observational tests and has provided the following practical benefits for organizing and understanding our world. It’s even better if predictions can be cited that have been supported by later observations, such as predictions about how bacteria might develop resistances to various treatments. OK, it’s much faster to say “scientists believe…”, but you can see the crucial difference and why it is causing so much unnecessary strife. Science is a practical endeavor, not a belief system. People who claim that all true scientists must be atheists are not only arrogant, they are incorrect. Thus I can see Ed’s frustration about having things “thrust down his throat”, and I think scientists make a grave error that endangers their craft when they overstep the domain of the proven value of science.
October 11th, 2005 at 8:32 am
Ed said:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is the full text of the First amendment of the United States Constitution.
I do not see any words here like; Separation of Church and State, intellectual freedom, progress, or any other number of terms from left wing secular humanistic philosophy.”
What, do you need it spelt out? Congress shall make no law that favours one religion over another. Neither will it suppress any religion. This means that the government will not get itself involved in making laws about religion.
Who says that secular humanist philosophy is left-wing? Where did you get that from? Left wing philosophies are socialist, and the USSR used to be an atheist state. But that doesn’t mean that all left-wing philosophies are atheist. Look at China. They seem pretty left-wing to me, being the world’s largest and most powerful Communist state. But they have a rich and diverse religious culture.
Oh, I get it, you were trying to argue by association.
Ed said:
“I do not want to see a Church of the United States established where we would all worship together at the point of a gun and by the force of law. But, free exercise thereof is frequently overlooked, or more to point ignored. No one should be allowed to force their beliefs, philosophies, or other such opinions on any one. This is the case going on right now with the theory of evolution being force fed as some kind of fact. However freedom of speech and free exercise thereof does allow the freedom to express ones religious view in all areas of the public forum, in the public square, on the air waives, and yes, in the public schools.”
Yes, quite right. No-one should have someone else’s religious views forced upon them. Evolution is not a religion, it is science. It should be taught in science class. ID, by not making any testable predictions, and by being compatable with any set of facts / evidence / results (and therefore not falsifiable) is not science. From a scientific perspective it is speculation.
If you choose to believe there is a creator, that’s fine. It is your prerogative. But don’t force that belief on anyone else. ID starts from an assumption and tries to find evidence to support that assumption. Science starts from evidence and tries to account for the evidence with a hypothesis. A hypothesis that withstands many tests comes to be regarded as a Theory.
Any citizen should be free to believe any world view they choose. This includes Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. However, no-one is contending that. A group of very right-wing Christians (e.g. the Discovery Institute and its backers) is trying to force the teaching of a religious idea as if it were science. That is unconstitutional.
In short, keep your religious views to yourself. Faith is a very personal thing and I believe it should remain so.
Ken G, I agree mostly, but not quite completely.
The problem with the way science is taught is that it is presented as a set of facts, not as a process of enquiry. I do not perceive this to be a problem caused by scientists so much as educators, and the committees that decide what should be taught in science classes.
The main stumbling block is that, to understand the process by which science progresses (yes, Ed, it does progress), any student needs to be taught the facts about a particular phenomenon first. For instance, to convey understanding of why and how Kepler made such a breakthrough with his laws of planetary motion, you would first need to describe the motion of the planets in quite a lot of detail, including the kinds of predictions that each competing explanation produces (circular orbits, epicycles and so on).
October 11th, 2005 at 10:42 am
Ed said:
“I do not see any words here like; Separation of Church and State,”
In case you missed it Ed, here it is:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
That means church and state are separated. No law can be made by Congress to establish religion in the state. This is quite different from, say, the UK, where high archbishops are actually part of government. In the UK, the Church of England is “established” in government and recognized as a part of government.
The authors of your Constitution knew this, and that’s why that amendment was made.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:54 am
One thing I find at least a small degree of comfort in is that Miers is replacing Rehnquist. Rehnquist (former chief justice) was, as one can read in the link to the SC decition on the Louisiana Creation Act, one of the two dissenters to upholding the lower courts decition that the act was unconstitutional. Hence, even if Miers should follow the creationist line on future cases, she’s at least replacing a Chief Justice who did the same on at least one occation. I’m still far from thrilled with Miers (nor Roberts Jr for that matter) but then I’d have a hard time trusting anyone Bush is willing to nominate after the anti-science crap he’s pulled.
Still, even if Robets/Miers would both vote to keep a creationism/ID teaching bill in a future case that would make three (w/ Scalia if she keeps her line from the previous case) and seven minus three is (fortunatly) four. Still a move in the wrong direction, but perhaps there is at least time to keep working unless one of the others sway.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:59 am
Opps, I called Scalia a she, which he (afaik) isn’t. Sorry ’bout that.
October 11th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
* Evolving Squid Says:
October 11th, 2005 at 10:42 am
Ed said:
“I do not see any words here like; Separation of Church and State,�
In case you missed it Ed, here it is:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion�
That means church and state are separated. No law can be made by Congress to establish religion in the state. This is quite different from, say, the UK, where high archbishops are actually part of government. In the UK, the Church of England is “established� in government and recognized as a part of government.
The authors of your Constitution knew this, and that’s why that amendment was made.
Thanks Evolving Squid you just proved my point exactly. The words Separation of Church and State do not appear anywhere in the First Amendment. If they did, you would have produced them. Since they are not there, and you could not show that they were. By the way they are not there. So thanks once again for proving my point!
You also missed the other key words like:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Which was one of my points as well.
October 11th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Ed Says:
I do not see any words here like; Separation of Church and State, intellectual freedom, progress, or any other number of terms from left wing secular humanistic philosophy.
Another word you won’t find anywhere in the Constitution is democracy. Just because it isn’t explicitly mentioned doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong in our system.
And since when have separation of church and state, intellectual freedom, or progress been left-wing ideas? Those are mainstream values–liberal values, but *not* extremist ones.
October 11th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Ed Says:
Maybe, with this next Supreme Court appointment the court may be returned to sanity. Maybe the court will once again interpret the constitution as it was written, not as some judge rules. Maybe the unconstitutional strangle hold that the left wing judges have had on our court system for far too long will finally be broken. If this scares you, it shouldn’t. It is how our government was supposed to work.
I disagree. Judges are *supposed* to exert influence on the law. The idea is, the legislature writes the laws, the courts interpret them, and the executive executes them. Judicial review is is a part of our separation of powers system–without it, the courts don’t have effective checks or balances over the other two branches of government.
The recent attacks on “activist judges” are dangerous–they represent an attempt to concentrate power in the executive and legislative branches at the expense of the judicial. That’s not how our system is supposed to work.
October 11th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
Ed, which creation account are you talking about? The Chinese one? The Hindu one? The Maori one?
Oh, you mean the Judeo-Christian one. Why only that one?
***********************************************
Why not? Why are you singling that one out to exclude? Would it be permissible to teach the others? Hmmmm. I see no constitutional way to exclude them. I may not like it either, but I see no grounds to ban them.
**************************************************
I have no problem with the Genesis story being discussed in religious education classes, but not in science classes. It has no science behind it. It belongs in science classes as much as Holocaust Denial belongs in the history class.
*************************************************
It belongs in a science class when the subject of origins is being explained. To exclude it would be a violation of the first amendment. The free exercise thereof part. It would be making a law prohibiting the free expression of its concepts and ideas. It would be a violation of the freedom of speech as well. The science class is not just your private domain. It belongs to all of us.
I do think that Holocaust denial does belong in the history class, where it can be completely discredited and shown for the fraud that it is. I have been to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, and my wife lost a Great Uncle in the Holocaust. Oh yes. Sadly it did happen. And we should never let it be forgotten.
October 11th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Leon said:
“I disagree. Judges are *supposed* to exert influence on the law. The idea is, the legislature writes the laws, the courts interpret them, and the executive executes them. Judicial review is is a part of our separation of powers system–without it, the courts don’t have effective checks or balances over the other two branches of government.
The recent attacks on “activist judgesâ€? are dangerous–they represent an attempt to concentrate power in the executive and legislative branches at the expense of the judicial. That’s not how our system is supposed to work.”
I think it is the other way around. Activist judges are dangerous because they impose their own opinions on the country without any recourse. They are acountable to no one. Judicial review is not the same as “exerting influence”. The constitution gives great powers to the executive and legislative braches because they can be voted out of office and bad law can be corrected. The Constitution gives certain powers to the Executive branch and the Legislative branch and also limits their powers. If a law is within their power to create under the Constitution, even if it is a bad/stupid law, the courts are not supposed to interfere. The judicial review process is supposed to determine if a law is unconstitutional or not. It is NOT supposed to fix bad laws. Decisions by the Supreme Court tend to remain in perpetuity or at least for a long time before possible reversals. A judge should suspend his/her personal opinion and rule soley on the basis of the Constitution and rule of law.
Leon said:
“Another word you won’t find anywhere in the Constitution is democracy. Just because it isn’t explicitly mentioned doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong in our system.”
We are NOT a true democracy. A true democracy would have every citizen vote on every piece of legislation. This is not practical. The U.S. is actually a democratic republic. I state this purely for accuracy. Neither democracy nor democratic republic is in the constitution. However, the process of governance described in the constitution is democratic. If I describe a goverment that is controlled by a king with absolute power, we all know what that means. I didn’t have to say “Monarchy”. The first amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
This in no way describes a “separation” of church and state. It merely limits what the goverment can do regarding religion and explicitly states those limits. The founding fathers fully expected that people of faith would be involved in goverment. And it is their right to have their say in goverment as much as anyone else. As soon as you say “Just because it isn’t explicitly mentioned doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong in our system”, we are talking about the realm of opinion, not constitutional foundations. There are lots of things that may be good for this country that are not explicity in the Constitution. Those things are not protected by the Constitution. I stated in an earlier post that I don’t want ID presented in science class if the arguments are not made with scientific facts. This is my opinion. Whether or not it is constitutional to put ID in a science curriculum and whether it is a good thing to do so are two different things.
October 11th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Alright, then every school child will get one class a year where the science teacher explains creationism and intelligent design, then explains exactly why creationism and intelligent design are completely, totally, and utterly wrong. Then creationism “can be completely discredited and shown for the fraud that it is.” Same thing you suggest they do with the Holocaust deniers. Is that acceptable to you? Creationism and ID are just as wrong as Holocaust denial. Teachers already do that with flat Earth theory and the geocentric model of the universe. ID and creationism are just as wrong as those ideas, too.
Incidentally, there are religious fundamentelists who are pushing for the acceptance that the world is flat and the center of the universe. They think they children should be taught what they believe too. Wouldn’t preventing people from learning about how the world is really flat also “be a violation of the first amendment. The free exercise thereof part. It would be making a law prohibiting the free expression of its concepts and ideas. It would be a violation of the freedom of speech as well.” You say “The science class is not just your private domain. It belongs to all of us.” Shouldn’t it belong to flat-Earther’s, too?
October 11th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
Ed you said
“Maybe, with this next Supreme Court appointment the court may be returned to sanity…”
Oh, I agree that it needs to return to sanity but I doubt it. You see this was the same court that appointed George Bush president in the first place.
And it was George Bush who has helped to stir this pot again!
I have trouble realizing that this is a “left leaning” court rather that it just may be a “scientifically challeged” court.
October 11th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
Well put, BC. It would be the ultimate irony if all this ID flap got courts to force science classes to mention it, but leave it up to the teachers whether they would portray it as a valid alternative or simply go over all the reasons why it is a poor excuse for a scientific theory. And then they could throw in young-earth creationism as an example of a just how irrational people can be in their effort to find a magic bullet to answer all the tough questions that actually require a great deal of work and intellectual sophistication to master.
But this solution will please no one, because sensitive teachers want to approach religion with reverence and respect for their students, they won’t want to bash the heck out of them because, c’mon can we just face it, religious stories are simply not science and should not have to stand up to the rules of science. But this is exactly why it would never work to try and teach ID in public schools, the catch-22 is that to be a useful scientific theory, it would have to specific enough that it would really end up sounding like a state religion, and would quickly become an embarassment. I almost feel like we should let the evangelicals have their way on this one, as a kind of trap to show how absurd it is to do your science out of the Bible. Personally, I don’t even count evangelicals as religious people, they are the magic bulleters who have found a way to avoid actually having to do religion as well as science.
October 11th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Just random thoughts.
I saw a lecture by Simon Singh (spelling?) on CSPAN. He talked about the Big Bang initially being resisted by the scientific community because it seemed to leave open the door for a creator, i.e. God. My, how times have changed.
I have long been involved in the evolution debate, as a high school science teacher, kind of hard to avoid. My students bring it up sometimes and ask, “Do you believe in evolution?” and are always shocked when I say no. I tell them I accept it as the best explanation based on currently available evidence. Show me good evidence for something else, and all bets are off.
I also remind them that this does not involve just trying to poke holes in some of the things evolution does not fully explain. Just because we do not fully understand it now does not mean we will never understand it. The reason evolution is THE theory is that it has a heck of a lot of evidence backing it up and now we are working on the fine details.
My cheap analogy is to pretend my car is the theory of evolution and it they find a flaw in the theory(car) and it turns out to be something small (a bad air filter). I figure out the solution to the small flaw rather than throwing out my car!
Anyway, my speciality is astronomy and cosmology. Even I can pick out most creationist flaws in biological arguments and just relish anyone who tries to pick on astronomy! When I hear someone spout off about the second law of thermodynamics not allowing evolution, I know the only thing they can prove is that they don’t understand thermodynics!
Anyway,I could go on…maybe I will later.
Rob
October 11th, 2005 at 10:10 pm
I am glad we have people like h_b on the front lines in the high schools. As long as that is the case, the Supreme Court won’t matter that much! And I wholeheartedly agree that the question “do you believe in … [insert scientific theory]…” is a question that completely misses the point of what a scientific theory is for. The purpose of a theory is to organize and make sense of a body of observations, and to guide the kinds of questions that future observations should be targeted at, so that you are not just wandering blindly through a morass of random factoids. Its purpose is not to generate a belief system, and what scientists “believe” is just as much a personal decision as anyone entering into a religion. This is why scientific theories employ Occam’s razor while belief systems rarely do.
October 12th, 2005 at 4:48 am
Ed says:
“It belongs in a science class when the subject of origins is being explained. To exclude it would be a violation of the first amendment. The free exercise thereof part. It would be making a law prohibiting the free expression of its concepts and ideas.”
This is just wrong, Ed. Just because creationism / ID are not science, does not mean anyone is suppressing your freedom (or anyone else’s) to discuss them anywhere else.
A science class should teach science. That means sticking to topics that have merit in a scientific context. I have no idea what you mean by “the subject of origins”. Any discussion of the origin of life is speculative, and probably not on most curricula for science. That is not what evolution is about.
Science deals with what is testable i.e. ideas that can be tested by observation, experiment and so on. The Theory of Evolution by natural selection from common descent has withstood tests for 150 years.
ID in its most sensible form makes no predictions that can be tested. Therefore it is not science. Did you get that, Ed? It is not science. Therefore, it should not be taught as if it were.
Biblical literalism makes predictions that have been shown to be false time and time again, using standards of evidence higher than those required in a court of law. Therefore, this also has no scientific merit.
Try looking at it this way: Do you think scientists should be able to dictate what should or should not be taught in religious education classes?
Alternatively, try looking at it this way: certain types of fossil, if dicovered, would challenge the very foundation of the Theory of Evolution by natural selection from common descent. These could include a bird-mammal transitional, or an ape-whale transitional, and so on. Is there any potential evidence that might come to light that would flatly, undeniably contradict the idea of ID? No? Then ID is not science. End of story.
October 12th, 2005 at 7:01 am
VisionEngineer Says:
Leon said:
“Another word you won’t find anywhere in the Constitution is
democracy. Just because it isn’t explicitly mentioned doesn’t
mean it doesn’t belong in our system.�
We are NOT a true democracy. A true democracy would have every citizen vote on every piece of legislation. This is not practical. The U.S. is actually a democratic republic. I state this purely for accuracy. Neither democracy nor democratic republic is in the constitution. However, the process of governance described in the constitution is democratic. If I describe a goverment that is controlled by a king with absolute power, we all know what that means. I didn’t have to say “Monarchy�.
Ok, since we’re stating things for accuracy…we ARE a democracy–a representative one, not a direct democracy. I use the international definition of the word, not the narrow American one. Internationally and historically, a democracy is any of various forms of gov’t by the people; a republic is a government without a monarch. So the US is both a democracy and a republic; the UK is a democracy but *not* a republic. North Korea, OTOH, is a republic but not a democracy.
October 12th, 2005 at 7:59 am
Ed said:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is the full text of the First amendment of the United States Constitution.
I do not see any words here like; Separation of Church and State, intellectual freedom, progress, or any other number of terms from left wing secular humanistic philosophy.�
True, those words aren’t in the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court has interpreted it that way on more than one occasion. From EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) the Court wrote:
“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State’.”
This quote in this ruling specifically relates back to Reynolds v United States 98 U.S. 145 (1878) where the Court stated “Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions.
This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a “Memorial and Remonstrance,” which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated “that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,” was not within the cognizance of civil government. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, “for establishing religious freedom,” drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. In the preamble of this act religious freedom is defined; and after a recital “that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,” it is declared “that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.” In these two sentences is found the true distinetion between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State…..
At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account to noneother for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, — I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.”
Any questions?
October 12th, 2005 at 8:39 am
Matt Said:
>The presidency of a country, particularly ours, is not supposed to be a lever for enforcing religious views on the rest of the citizenry… no matter how “correct� the president in question feels them to be! PERIOD!!!
Agreed.
>I do happen to agree that Science is not Anti-God… but the really “faithful� don’t see it that way. Unfortunately, Science has, perhaps, gotten a bit entrenched in its position (maybe rightly so) that not enough of them want to talk about God’s role in the development of the universe.
Which God’s role in the development of the universe? Zeus? Odin? Quetazlcoatl? Krishna and Vishnu? There are gods too numerous to mention, and each religion has it’s own creation story, where their god/gods played the key role in the origin of the world/universe. Well, these are mutually exclusive, they can’t all be right. However, they *can* all be *wrong*. Yours too.
The point is that any role gods played is either buried in the structure and rules that we are already studying, in which we will be finding out how anyway, or else it is not included in the results, so it can’t be studied. Saying “Jehovah did it” does nothing to explain the process, so it is irrelevant to science class – it has no place there.
>I read a terrific article in the college that I teach at’s local newspaper. They were saying that Science is talking simply about the “how� and religion and ID is talking about the “why�. The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
The “non-overlapping magesteria” premise is debatable, but ID is not. Again, people have a misconception about ID. ID is not just religious belief. It is not just the premise that God (I mean an unnamed intelligent creator) is working behind the scenes. ID is the specific premise that the processes discovered and described by science so far are not sufficient to explain the results determined by science – from evolution to astronomy. ID proceeds to attempt to identify the so-called tell-tale marks of intelligent intervention. This is where ID crosses the bounds from mere religious belief to statements about how the world works. It is these statements that are being evaluated by scientists as *possible* science, and being found lacking of merit.
Mechanisms proposed by ID so far include Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity. Note that both terms use the word “complexity”, but they do so in completely different meanings. Both have been shown to be flawed – flawed assumptions, flawed interpretation, flawed premises.
ID also fails to offer positive evidence on its own behalf. It relies on a logical fallacy – it couldn’t be your explanation, therefore is has to be mine. They pick some small point not fully explained by evolution (details not yet worked out, things not studied yet) and on that basis declare the whole of Evolution wrong and throw it out, to be replaced in whole by a different “explanation” that has no evidence, an “explanation” which explains nothing.
Here’s an analogy of ID: “My car sputtered and died, the fuel gauge reads E. I must be out of gas.” “No, I opened the tank and I smelled gas, so you can’t be out of gas. It must be Gremlins in the engine.”
1. Why does smelling gas prove gas is still there, and not just vapors, or dregs of fuel that can’t get pumped out?
2. Why ignore the fuel gauge reading?
3. What are Gremlins, how did they get in the engine, how did they shut off the engine, why did they shut off the engine, and what can be done to get the engine running again?
ID is the Gremlins in the engine – it explains nothing and has no evidence to support it, it’s contrary to facts we do know (fuel gauge, gas fumes), but some people prefer Gremlins.
October 12th, 2005 at 9:19 am
Irishman says:
ID is the Gremlins in the engine – it explains nothing and has no evidence to support it, it’s contrary to facts we do know (fuel gauge, gas fumes), but some people prefer Gremlins.
That points up an important part of the whole debate that tends to be overlooked–there’s an important practical side to science. The findings of science are used to build things–earthquake-resistant buildings, more efficient automobiles, spacecraft, etc. Evolution as a science builds on other sciences (geology, astronomy, et al.). ID and creationism try to pull certain disciplines outside the realm of science, to artificially divorce them from other studies of naturalistic phenomenon.
An excellent (if somewhat strongly worded) essay about the practical side of the evolution vs. creationism debate is at http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/science.html.
October 12th, 2005 at 9:33 am
(By “practical side”, I mean to say it’s an engineer’s perspective on the debate. And, I meant to say phenomena, not phenomenon. Oops.)
October 12th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
• TheBlackCat Says:
October 11th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
I like black cats, one lives with me. You really don’t own them after all.
*********************************************************
Alright, then every school child will get one class a year where the science teacher explains creationism and intelligent design, then explains exactly why creationism and intelligent design are completely, totally, and utterly wrong. Then creationism “can be completely discredited and shown for the fraud that it is.
********************************
Obviously I disagree with you on this. I do not see it as fraud, nor falsifiable.
*********************************************
Same thing you suggest they do with the Holocaust deniers. Is that acceptable to you?
*********************************************
Clearly not.
**********************************
Creationism and ID are just as wrong as Holocaust denial. Teachers already do that with flat Earth theory and the geocentric model of the universe. ID and creationism are just as wrong as those ideas, too.
***********************************
Why is everyone so hung up on the flat earth theory? Just show any photo taken of the Earth from the moon and flat Earth goes down in flames.
***********************************
Incidentally, there are religious fundamentelists who are pushing for the acceptance that the world is flat and the center of the universe. They think they children should be taught what they believe too. Wouldn’t preventing people from learning about how the world is really flat also “be a violation of the first amendment. The free exercise thereof part. It would be making a law prohibiting the free expression of its concepts and ideas. It would be a violation of the freedom of speech as well.� You say “The science class is not just your private domain. It belongs to all of us.� Shouldn’t it belong to flat-Earther’s, too?
**************************************
True freedom as enumerated in our Constitution does not have to pass through my filter nor yours in order to be true freedom. True freedom is exactly that, true freedom. Either it exists, or it does not. If it exists it has to be cherished and protected. Whether I like it or not, that would have to include, the theory of evolution, flat earth and a number of other deeply held beliefs.
Let me state that one more time, true freedom does not have to pass through any body else’s filter, or else it is not true freedom. This is something we all could learn, including the Supremes.
October 12th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
I asked: “Ed, which creation account are you talking about? The Chinese one? The Hindu one? The Maori one? Oh, you mean the Judeo-Christian one. Why only that one?�
Ed replied: “Why not? Why are you singling that one out to exclude? Would it be permissible to teach the others? Hmmmm. I see no constitutional way to exclude them. I may not like it either, but I see no grounds to ban them.�
G’day Ed. I’m not singling out the Judeo-Christian story of creation. I’m saying that it, along with all other creation myths, has no place in the science classroom, due to their lack of science content.
I also said: “I have no problem with the Genesis story being discussed in religious education classes, but not in science classes. It has no science behind it. It belongs in science classes as much as Holocaust Denial belongs in the history class.�
And Ed replied: “It belongs in a science class when the subject of origins is being explained. To exclude it would be a violation of the first amendment. The free exercise thereof part. It would be making a law prohibiting the free expression of its concepts and ideas. It would be a violation of the freedom of speech as well.�
But how broadly should that part of the constitution be interpreted? If you think that the Judeo-Christian creation story should be raised when discussing origins, you can’t exclude ALL other creation stories. You also can’t exclude ALL explanations for ALL other phenomena. For example, should kids be taught maths using Roman numerals? Greek numerals? Maya numerals? The result of this would be classes where you didn’t actually get time to learn much except for different ways of explaining phenomena.
“The science class is not just your private domain. It belongs to all of us. I do think that Holocaust denial does belong in the history class, where it can be completely discredited and shown for the fraud that it is. I have been to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, and my wife lost a Great Uncle in the Holocaust. Oh yes. Sadly it did happen. And we should never let it be forgotten.�
I’m sorry for what happened to your wife’s great uncle, and I agree that Holocaust Denial should be exposed for the fraud it is.
But if you apply the same rules of evidence used to determine the falsity of Holocaust Denial, you will also see that the Judeo-Christian story of creation has no reality behind it. It’s a wonderful story, and an integral part of our Western heritage, but nothing more.
October 12th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
Perhaps I should explain myself a bit more.
For one thing, I’m Australian, so discussion of the US Constitution is a bit alien to me.
But in Australia, the curriculum is set by the Departments of Education in the various states and territories (and as we have only 6 states and 2 territories, that’s somewhat easier than in the USA). In all cases, the science curriculum is based on current scientific knowledge, within the limits required to produce new text books based on recent discoveries.
But science goes a little beyond simply explaining scientific knowledge. The process of *doing science* is also taught. Therefore, after doing an experiment, we were taught how to write up the experiment and its results, and to explain what we’d found.
We were occasionally taught a bit of the history of science. The bits which come to mind were the development of theories about the structure of atoms, and how the theory of phlogiston was discarded in favour of oxygen.
At no point was any religious story introduced into the science class room, except perhaps in the context of early explanations for some phenomenon or other.
October 12th, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Ed says:
“Obviously I disagree with you on this. I do not see it as fraud, nor falsifiable.”
There are people who do not see Holocaust denial as a fraud, and nor is it any more falsifiable than creationism. I am only using your rules for Holocaust denial and applying it to creationism in the exact same way. They are equally wrong, that is a fact whether you want to admit it or not.
And the fact that it is not falsifiable is one of the main problems. If you cannot prove something wrong, it is not science.
“Why is everyone so hung up on the flat earth theory? Just show any photo taken of the Earth from the moon and flat Earth goes down in flames.”
Just show someone a fossil, or DNA, or a bat and human skeleton side-by-side, or a picture from a telescope, or the grand canyon and creationism goes down in flames. That doesn’t prevent people from believing in it. The “scientific” arguments used in support of creationism are no better than those used in support of flat Earth. And once again flat Earth is no more falsifiable than creationism, you cannot disprove anything involving an omnipotent diety.
“True freedom as enumerated in our Constitution does not have to pass through my filter nor yours in order to be true freedom. True freedom is exactly that, true freedom. Either it exists, or it does not. If it exists it has to be cherished and protected. Whether I like it or not, that would have to include, the theory of evolution, flat earth and a number of other deeply held beliefs.
Let me state that one more time, true freedom does not have to pass through any body else’s filter, or else it is not true freedom. This is something we all could learn, including the Supremes. ”
In the US we don’t HAVE “true freedom”. “True freedom” is allowing people to do whatever they want. It is the abuse of the weak by the strong. It is the abuse of the minority by the majority. We don’t live in a society of “true freedom”. True freedom is anarchy, violence, and chaos. We live in a constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, there are limits on what people can do. In a constitutional republic, we give up some of our rights so that nobody can take our other rights away. One of those limits is that the government cannot support religion in any way, as stated by Thomas Jefferson. This is to protect people of minority religions from oppression by the majority religion. Creationism is a religious belief. As such, the government can not push that belief on people. It is part of the limits we put on the government immediately after it was formed. This is not some left-wing athiest conspiracy, this a fundamental part of our government created explicitly by the founding fathers for the protection of the people. This is not a filter of truth. This is a filter of law. The law is clear, it was set up for a very specific purpose, and teaching creationism is a clear violation of the law and a clear violation of the rights that the constitution provides us. It is clear abuse of power by those who control the government. It is illegal to teach creationism, regardless of whether it is true or not. Doing such would be “establishing” a state religion.
Let me ask you a simple question: If teaching a certain religious belief as fact to all children in state-run schools is not the establishment of a state religion, what is? I personally cannot think of a clearer example of the establishment of a state religion than teaching all children that religion is correct.
And I find it a bit hypocritical that you think it is okay to pass holocaust denial, a belif you disagree with, through your own “filter of truth”, when you refuse to allow creationism, a belief you agree with, to pass through the same filter using the exact same rules you yourself applied.
October 12th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
LarrySDonald, Miers is not replacing the chief justice, she is replacing, if confirmed, O’Connor. O’Connor voted to strick down the “balanced” treatment of creationism law.
October 12th, 2005 at 8:30 pm
Irishman said: (a lot of great points about why Creationism/ID and Science can’t coexist peacefully)
Nice. The point you make about “which god” was particularly good. (I wasn’t meaning the one from the Bible… my own beliefs are not able to be held in any one of those books.)
I have a lot of things to say on that issue, some of which I touched on… but they’re actually off the topic of this new justice nominee so I’ll re-direct.
It’s really hard to say what this lady’s gonna do if she gets into the Supreme Court. That worries me. With no track record in the courtroom, how can anyone guess what she’ll do?
October 13th, 2005 at 10:21 am
I guess that I am way too late for this one but…
It may interest those concerned about US Constitution decisions that there is this in a Section 8 Clause 8 “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”
October 14th, 2005 at 6:52 am
Yeah, technically she’s replacing O’Connor. I appologize for writing it backwards – I’ve been ranting about it so much that I mix myself up. I do feel that while technically Miers is replaing O’Connor (if she indeed does) and Roberts Jr is replacing Rehnquist, from a balance of stance POV it feels like Roberts will tend to act more (though certainly not exactly) like O’Connor while Miers will act more like (though possibly much worse then) Rehnquist. Since I’m really out of my league and have to simplify rather grossly on this, I tend to “thought experiment” more along the lines of how much further she’d be willing to go then Rehnquist and how much further Roberts would go compared to O’Connor just because they seem to relate more closely.
This is no reason to get it backwards of course, but that’s how it happened. Since it was a rather fragile balance at best, it’s certainly still a cause for concern, but can you imagine if it would have been, say, Miers/Roberts instead of Brennan/Powell? There’d be no reason to even debate if we’re screwed, it’d be a slam dunk.
October 14th, 2005 at 10:48 am
This has become a very interesting thread on the proper role of science in education, and the reason that it is Constitutional (as well as practical) to exclude ID from a classroom. I note that Nigel’s “end of story” challenge has not been taken up by Ed (who by the way should be appreciated as providing a testbed for seeing what arguments can be parried by IDers and which ones have to be simply passed over, so be nice). The key point to me, constitutionally, is that freedoms are intended to have their own proper place and time. I’m free to get naked in my shower, but not in Times Square. So the issue is not whether people should be free to think in ID terms, it’s whether it belongs in science class. We should not bother to argue that ID is wrong, we should argue that it does not conform to the standards of science. The definition of science is our bastion.
But keep in mind, the ID camp do have a valid beef here. If we miss it, we will never be able to satisfy them enough to get them off our backs as we try to advance the mission of science. This beef relates to the tendency for scientists to over-interpret science. That is the part that has to be left out of the classroom, and if it were, the ID bunch could relax a bit. My point is, a scientific theory, even if widely held by scientists, is not a belief system and should not be put forth as one. If types like Ayn Rand want to believe that determinism, a useful construct in scientific theories, implies that the world has no underlying purpose or cause, it just is, it is certainly her prerogative to do so. Science *informs* belief systems, as does experience, as does human nature. None of those things are science, and science is not responsible for what people use it for.
I think IDers, and creationists, could relax if we would just teach students what science really is. It is a process for reaching self-consistent logical and quantitative conclusions about how to organize a huge array of observations and phenomena into a much smaller conceptual framework that is testable and has predictive capability. But when scientists go beyond practicality into philosophy, it ain’t science any more and should not be taught in science classes either. The point is, every conclusion is inextricably connected to the process that was used to arrive at it. The falseness or truth of a conclusion are not absolute, they are only defined within the contexts of a given process. Science class should only include what is correct within the prescriptions of science, and conforms to the scientific process as explained by Nigel, so ID does not belong there. But scientific conclusions never emerge as something unconnected to the processes that generated them. Science never transcends itself, I’m sorry to say, even though the language of convenience often applied by scientists could easily be interpreted as saying that it does.
Honestly, the gall of humanity, scientific or religious zealot alike.
Now, this is an awfully sophisticated argument for a high-school science class. Science is not a religion, as it uses different standards, and its practical value is proven. But it is a system that must stay within itself, or it is not playing by its own rules. This is the rock on which the priveleged educational status of science if built, and if we forget this, we may lose our footing. Constitutionally as well as societally.
October 14th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
TheBlackCat Said:
>>Creationism and ID are just as wrong as Holocaust denial. Teachers already do that with flat Earth theory and the geocentric model of the universe. ID and creationism are just as wrong as those ideas, too.
Ed Said:
>Why is everyone so hung up on the flat earth theory? Just show any photo taken of the Earth from the moon and flat Earth goes down in flames.
And why should we believe those atheist scientists and their “pictures from the moon�? Satellites? Pah! It’s all part of the anti-Christian lies being spread to build the foundation for Satan’s Evilution. Pictures from space prove nothing!!
One has a certain dilemma to overcome. The Bible proclaims the Earth to be flat and describes it as effectively as the center of the Solar System (and thus universe – the two were not separate at the time). One approach is to hold to the inerrancy and literalness of the Bible. If so, then the Earth must be flat and the center of the universe, so heliocentrism and spherical Earth are lies. That’s a pretty stubborn and blatantly idiotic point of view to hold. Thus the alternative is to accept that the linguistic phrasings of the time are not meant to be an accurate scientific description of the world, any more than we would use the phrase “4 corners of the Earth� or “sunrise� and “sunset� today.
But if you are willing to accept that the descriptions of the Earth for the geocentric and flat portions are metaphoric and not literal, then why are you unwilling to accept that other portions of the Bible are also metaphoric and non-literal? Genesis is a poetical description of the origins of the Earth and humanity, and should not be expected to be a literal description. It’s just as metaphoric as describing standing on a tall mountain (or high place) and seeing the whole world at once. If you can accept that, you should realize that nothing in Genesis refutes Evolution, and Evolution is not really in conflict with Genesis (because Genesis isn’t a scientific description).
The same arguments you use to defend Creationism are used by the Geocentric crowd, in just the same way. You fully admit that the Geocentric folks are wrong. How can you not see it with Creationism?
Ed Said:
>True freedom as enumerated in our Constitution does not have to pass through my filter nor yours in order to be true freedom. True freedom is exactly that, true freedom. Either it exists, or it does not. If it exists it has to be cherished and protected. Whether I like it or not, that would have to include, the theory of evolution, flat earth and a number of other deeply held beliefs.
>Let me state that one more time, true freedom does not have to pass through any body else’s filter, or else it is not true freedom. This is something we all could learn, including the Supremes.
So you’re saying I should have the true freedom to smack you in the head with a big stick? No? What about falsely setting off a fire alarm in a high-rise office building? Shouting “Bomb!� in a crowded airport? That’s True Freedom, and it shouldn’t have to be filtered through anybody’s filter.
The truth is we have laws, which are enacted to codify behavior for the betterment of everybody. They are filters we all agree upon. The Constitution is itself just a big filter, telling what the government can (and in some cases cannot) do.
Free Expression (as guaranteed in the First Amendment) is not a blank check to say anything you want at any time you want. It is a limitation on the government to protect against restriction of governmental criticism and freedom of conscience. Teaching Evolution in school is not a violation of the Establishment Clause or the Free Expression clause, because Evolution is not religion – and it is not a declaration of atheism – any more than the Bohr atomic model, Newton’s laws of motion, or Relativity. ID *is* a violation if taught as advocated because it is founded on the belief in and advocacy of a supreme intelligence – god by any other name. Public schools are state agents, acting on behalf of the government in some respects. Government advocacy of any religion is a clear violation of the words and intent of the First Amendment.
Science class is the place for discussion of the findings, methods, and practices of science. It is not the place for advocating religion (either generally or specifics) or non-religion.
October 14th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Chet Said:
>I guess that I am way too late for this one but…
It may interest those concerned about US Constitution decisions that there is this in a Section 8 Clause 8 “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;�
Not sure what this posting is regarding, but Section 8, Clause 8 is meant to be the establishment of Patent laws and Copyrights.
October 14th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
Here’s another “filter” for testing if ID is science or not. Would Ed, or any given ID believer, say that the design and creation act was a natural process, explained by natural laws, or a miracle, outside of natural laws? The conundrum is inescapable. If the former, then God is really just the man behind the curtain, pulling the levers that hook up to naturally explainable machinery. He’s the Wizard of Oz! His power is a matter of degree– I’m a god because I can throw a rock, but he’s a more powerful God because he can create a universe. Just a difference in degree! I doubt any religious ID type has this kind of process in mind. But if the design/creation is a miracle, then it is quite obviously outside the purvey of science! Science would be so easy if we’re allowed to cite miracles. I can just see my next final exam: describe how gravity controls the orbit of the Earth: it’s a miracle. Why do some stars look white and others red: it’s a miracle. Easy– 100% A+ for Kenny.
Science is by definition the study of natural phenomena, not miracles. Miracles are mysteries, by definition, the only things that belong in science class are things that used to be thought of as miracles but are now viewed as natural processes. When the design/creation act passes from miracle status to the status of a natural process, then it will be science, but religioius people won’t see it as God any more (because they generally use a playschool definition of God, but that’s another story altogether).
October 17th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
One starts with a hypothesis. Just because a miracle is outside natural law, doesn’t mean you cannot prove that it happened. A creation event cannot be proved, as the only evidence left behind is that things exist. But, a global flood would have massive impact and leave large amounts of evidence. And, it could be physical, considering the hydroplate theory. So it could be science. The hydroplate theory is an alternative to the plate techtonics theory, but because it supports the Bible is ignored. I have found it neatly fits into the evolutionary theory. Actually, it works better than the plate techtonics theory when applied to fit the evolutionary model. Isn’t that odd?
October 17th, 2005 at 7:18 pm
We agree that a creation miracle is outside science, because in effect it occurs before there is science. So that’s all we need to establish at this point, creation models are nonscientific. Even Big Bang models, as they now stand, in effect require a creation miracle in my view! But it is outside the purvey of a scientifically addressable question, for the above reason. Science is the study of what happens next.
The flood is another matter, you are right that it could be science if it occurred due to natural, studyable processes. And if it was a miracle, or didn’t happen at all, either way it’s not science. I’m confused which of these various possibilities is being advocated for? Your position sounds to me like, “I have faith that a flood occurred. I don’t know if it happend naturally, so that it could be addressed scientifically, or if it was a miracle, but either way, I believe it happened. So it should be taught in schools as science.” Does that sound like a scientific position to you? Please note, I think it’s fine for you to have faith in anything you want, it’s your personal choice, and if you believe that miracles happen, that is your prerogative. But by definition a miracle can’t involve natural processes, or it is not much of a miracle– anyone with the power could do it. Science has its own rules that we are not allowed to just choose for ourselves, and miracles are not part of those rules. I frankly don’t understand why you would want to lower the level of your own faith-based religion to the level of natural reproducible processes.
October 17th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
Floods do occur all the time. And there are times that there are enormous floods too. Just think about Hurricanes and the occasional Asteroid or Comet that drops by and lands just for a visit:)
The question isn’t that did a flood happen but was Noah really able to load all those animals in that ship. The answer is no, but there have been great extinctions with no Noah and no boat.
Creationists, ID ers and the like forget that the world is a great deal larger than what the ancient hebrew scribes knew at the time they wrote the Old Testament.
October 17th, 2005 at 11:07 pm
Yes, I’d be curious what is the creationist or ID take on the scientific plausibility of the Noah story, complete with an estimate of how many species of animals he would have been responsible for saving. This is a valid scientific debate, if the claim is being made that the story has scientific evidence it its favor. Note however that the connection to creationism or ID, scientifically speaking, is only coincidental. It is true that creationism tends to come with a complete suite of claims whose only unifying principle is that they all appear in the Bible, but since appearance in the Bible is not scientific evidence, it has no bearing on the issue of scientific plausibility. If 99 things in the Bible turned out to be true, it would not be scientific evidence that the 100th thing would also be, if it was a fundamentally different issue. And if 99 things were wrong, it would not be evidence that the 100th was also wrong. That’s how science works– a theory can get it right in 99 situations, but if the 100th is a different regime, the theory could be wrong there! Likewise, a theory that was wrong 99 times might still get it right in some special 100th situation. Each regime, each claim of a scientific paradigm, must be judeged on its own merits.
Thus the Noah story has no relevance to the issue of whether or not creationism is science. It’s only relevant if you think you are testing the authoritativeness of the Bible, scientifically. But that’s a fools errand– science is not based on authority, you have to do the experiment for every new regime you encounter. There is simply no way to scientifically test the idea that any particular section of the Bible is the word of God, or any section of the Torah, or the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
The entire concept of a pre-existing text being authoritative in advance of examination of any particular piece, or any new regime of experience, is definitively nonscientific. I see scientific textbooks all the time that have 99 things stated correctly, according to our current understanding, but the 100th thing is in error. Should I conclude that since the text is “authoritative” the other 99 times, that the 100th thing must necessarily be right? Simiilarly, no statement made by the Bible has any scientific bearing on creation whatsoever, other than the statements that directly relate to creation, and those are far too vague and open to interpretation to be falsifiable. Creationism, and for similar reasons ID, would not be science even if every other statement made in the Bible were definitively and categorically proven to be correct–the bit on the creation could still be in error, scientifically speaking. So why confuse the issue? It only exacerbates the animosity.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
Ken Gayley Says:
Yes, I’d be curious what is the creationist or ID take on the scientific plausibility of the Noah story, complete with an estimate of how many species of animals he would have been responsible for saving.
There have been several creationist attempts to estimate the size of the ark and the number of animals, etc. They make interesting reading, but sidestep many of the tougher questions, such as how a single family managed to feed and care for so many animals, how Noah could have stored enough food for those animals, and how he kept the carnivores from eating prey animals on board.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
M Duke said: “The hydroplate theory is an alternative to the plate techtonics theory, but because it supports the Bible is ignored.”
Is that so? I suspect that actually hydroplate theory is ignored because as science it explains things less satisfactorily than plate tectonics (no “h”).
“I have found it neatly fits into the evolutionary theory. Actually, it works better than the plate techtonics theory when applied to fit the evolutionary model. Isn’t that odd?”
Yes, it’s odd. Would you care to provide us a link? Perhaps this is something better discussed at the BAUT Forum rather than here.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:50 am
I observed how the hydrolplate theory neatly described the early earth (as in, the time of the dinosaurs) described by my biology textbook. Shallow seas, tropical climate, then suddenly everything dies and things become more like modern times. The hydroplate theory describes things in that way.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:02 pm
Well, M Duke, can you give us a link so we can read some more, please?
Remember, plate tectonics is no barrier to shallow seas and tropical climates.
Anyway, as I said before, perhaps this is better discussed at the BAUT forum.
October 28th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
Plate tectonics doesn’t wipe out the dinosaurs. Go to
http://www.creationscience.com
for info on the hydroplate theory. I cannot really put a link to my textbook, sorry.