Destroy the house of reason

no gay sperm donors, no democrats in churches, no choice for women, no non-christian judges, no science… brick by brick, the house of reason is being demolished…

(more)

“Evolution is a great theory, but it is flawed,” said Martin, 59, a retired science and elementary school teacher who is presiding over the hearings. “There are alternatives. Children need to hear them…. We can’t ignore that our nation is based on Christianity — not science.”

[…]

[H]earings in Topeka, scheduled to last several days, are focusing on two proposals. The first recommends that students continue to be taught the theory of evolution because it is key to understanding biology. The other proposes that Kansas alter the definition of science, not limiting it to theories based on natural explanations.

it’s ironic in a way… since the renaissance and the scientific revolution, science has often been decried as a religion of its own… in some ways that’s true… but, while scientific rigor has occasionally conspired to silence alternative voices, the scientific method still stands as the most fundamental system of solid reason we have… it appears now, if our fundamentalist christian fellow citizens have their way, it may soon be gone…

2 Comments

rba on May 6, 2005 at 4:24 pm

Look back to go forward. The following is from a history of the Scopes Trial:

The Scopes trial by no means ended the debate over the teaching of evolution, but it did represent a significant setback for the anti-evolution forces. Of the fifteen states with anti- evolution legislation pending in 1925, only two states (Arkansas and Mississippi) enacted laws restricting teaching of Darwin’s theory.

[edit]

The defense’s goal was not to win acquittal for John Scopes, but rather to obtain a declaration by a higher court–preferably the U.S. Supreme Court–that laws forbidding the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional. (That goal, however, would not be realized for another 43 years, in the case of Epperson v. Arkansas.) [link below]

I think that if challenged the policy will fail:

Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, (104) and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of noreligion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.

As early as 1872, this Court said: ‘The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.’ Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728, 20 L.Ed. 666. This has been the interpretation of the great First Amendment which this Court has applied in the many and subtle problems which the ferment of our national life has presented for decision within the Amendment’s broad command. [Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, Decided Nov. 12, 1968]

ATinNM on May 7, 2005 at 9:28 am

Good diary.

I don’t know what to think.

The Christian Right has had great success with conflating the two different definitions of “theory” and spreading the idea that ID is a “theory” (a bunch of words strung together into a suppostion) having the same intellectual coherence as the Theory (exposition of the principles of a science) of Evolution.

This is a good example of the Verbal Logical Fallacy of Amphiboly – using the same word in two different senses – but logical arguments do not trump rhetorical blatherskite using the Art of Persuasion.

These loons have an additional advantage as all they have to do is string a bunch of words together whereas scientists have to conform to a rigourous intellectual standard.

In the last paragraph one is supposed to sum up and conclude but I don’t have a conclusion.

rba on May 6, 2005 at 4:24 pm

Look back to go forward. The following is from a history of the Scopes Trial:

The Scopes trial by no means ended the debate over the teaching of evolution, but it did represent a significant setback for the anti-evolution forces. Of the fifteen states with anti- evolution legislation pending in 1925, only two states (Arkansas and Mississippi) enacted laws restricting teaching of Darwin’s theory.

[edit]

The defense’s goal was not to win acquittal for John Scopes, but rather to obtain a declaration by a higher court–preferably the U.S. Supreme Court–that laws forbidding the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional. (That goal, however, would not be realized for another 43 years, in the case of Epperson v. Arkansas.) [link below]

I think that if challenged the policy will fail:

Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, (104) and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of noreligion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.

As early as 1872, this Court said: ‘The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.’ Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728, 20 L.Ed. 666. This has been the interpretation of the great First Amendment which this Court has applied in the many and subtle problems which the ferment of our national life has presented for decision within the Amendment’s broad command. [Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, Decided Nov. 12, 1968]
ATinNM on May 7, 2005 at 9:28 am

Good diary.

I don’t know what to think.

The Christian Right has had great success with conflating the two different definitions of “theory” and spreading the idea that ID is a “theory” (a bunch of words strung together into a suppostion) having the same intellectual coherence as the Theory (exposition of the principles of a science) of Evolution.

This is a good example of the Verbal Logical Fallacy of Amphiboly – using the same word in two different senses – but logical arguments do not trump rhetorical blatherskite using the Art of Persuasion.

These loons have an additional advantage as all they have to do is string a bunch of words together whereas scientists have to conform to a rigourous intellectual standard.

In the last paragraph one is supposed to sum up and conclude but I don’t have a conclusion.

Destroy the house of reason

About The Author

profmarcus

2 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments