AiG Follows DI

Someone from DI actually said that about AIG? Wow, why does DI hate the free and open discussion of ideas?

Ken Miller wrote the following column. Unsurprisingly, its very good:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/01/22/remove_stickers_open_minds/

Fundamentalists Christians have no problem dismissing Ken Miller since they consider him a "liberal", who is "mislead by Satan" (the "Father of Lies"). It's a complete worldview that allows fundy nutjobs to ignore what he writes. Although, I do hope he gets through to a few fundies who have not completely closed their minds.

All Lemon prongs must be satisfied, not just one.

The Court's decision established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for United States legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs: The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose; The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion. If any of these three prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I understand how the Lemon test is applied. I think I misunderstood what Reed meant by "satisfied." (I.e., I was thinking in terms of how a judge need only show that one prong is violated.) Nevermind.

Last night I happened to catch a few minutes of this evangelical Jim Wallis on Charlie Rose.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.display_staff&staff=wallis

Compared to the sorts of Christians we are used to discussing here, this guy is from another planet. Among other commendable sober statements Mr. Wallis has made, he appears to accept that evolution is a solid fact. I am not aware of any specific criticisms of "ID theory" but I have no doubt, based on what I heard him say to Mr. Rose, that he would have some harsh things to say about the Johnsonite Christians at the Discovery Insitute.

One of his take home points was that he believes that the fundamentalists we are familiar with have stolen Christianity and turned it into a funhouse version of religion that is designed to promote a political ideology. Issues like abortion, homosexuality and spreading freedom are made to appear as if they were fundamental Christian principles while peace and helping the sick and poor, referred to hundreds of times in the Bible, are essentially forgotten.

And it occurred to me that while we often note here the hypocricy of the "ID theory" peddlers when it comes to their dishonest habits (behavior which is expressly forbidden by one of the commandments in their holy book) we neglect to point out that, on a somewhat more abstract level, they are also thieves. Now that the conservative fundamentalists have stolen Christianity, they want to steal science and we can rest assured science in their hands will be warped in the same way, to promote a political agenda that is anti-science and anti-knowledge, that is backward-looking and not forward-looking.

Moreover, the manner in which Johnsonite Christians seek to achieve their goal involves the intellectual theft of the work of scientists. Because there is no such thing as "creation research," the Johnsonites can only kidnap the work and critical thinking of other scientists and pretend that it is their own, or pretend that they have murdered their hostage and display the phony corpse at school board meeting or cable TV.

Fundamentalists Christians have no problem dismissing Ken Miller since they consider him a "liberal", who is "mislead by Satan" (the "Father of Lies").

— Don T. Know

So, what should be done with those stickers, now pasted into thousands of textbooks? I'd pass along a suggestion I received from a science teacher in Cobb County itself: Glue an American flag on top of each and every one of them.

— Kenneth R. Miller

"When the public school says you have to teach every aspect of reality without any acknowledgement of God or the Bible, you're saying that God has nothing to do with reality. This is not a neutral position towards religion. It's actually a religious position that says that everything can be explained without God."

Ham concluded with the general observation that the Bible tells us there is no such thing as being neutral. Luke 11:23 says a person is either for Christ or against Him. Thus the battle in America's public schools is really a clash of worldviews---one explains life with God; and one, without God.

The judge found that the disclaimer-stickers hurt biology education and did not foster critical thinking, despite the board's best intentions.

In fact, he found that the disclaimer-stickers hurt education in such a way that only sectarian interests (creationism et al.) benefited. This caused a violation of the Lemon test.

The decision is neither activist nor bizarre. All Lemon prongs must be satisfied, not just one.

You know, DaveScot, if you have actually read and understood his opinion, you wouldn't be saying such things.

What did he base that finding upon?

Again, not a single bit of empirical evidence to support that. Judge Clarence Cooper imagined he was an average Cobb County resident and then found that in his average mind the sticker sent a message that made political outsiders of evolutionists and political insiders out of creationists.

The decision is certainly activist and bizarre.

I read the entire original finding and many analyses by third parties. I understand how Judge Cooper arrived at his finding - through subjectivity and liberal bias. I'm not the only person to read it that way either.

You know, Reed, if you actually read and understood the the Federalist papers and the constitution of the United States you wouldn't be agreeing with Judge Cooper.

Davescot, your arguments seem to be based mostly on your own bias which may help understand why you see to be shying away from actual adressing his claims and rather feel satisfied to reject them as liberal bias.

If you actually read AND understood the Cooper ruling you might be able to formulate a more logical position. That you are not the only person to misread Cooper's ruling that way should be no argument for the validity of your misreading, in fact it is more of an indictment of those who hold similar opinions that they feel it necessary to accuse Cooper as you did.

DaveScot,

Care to explain in detail what the Federalist papers have to do with this decision?

If you're going to argue that this decision goes against "states' rights," I will remind you of the existance of section II of the conclusions of law in the opinion.

Mr. Wallis ... believes that the fundamentalists we are familiar with have stolen Christianity and turned it into a funhouse version of religion that is designed to promote a political ideology. Issues like abortion, homosexuality and spreading freedom are made to appear as if they were fundamental Christian principles while peace and helping the sick and poor, referred to hundreds of times in the Bible, are essentially forgotten.

Mr. Wallis is the kind of Christian Jerry Falwell loves to hate - a liberal one. I'm glad to see Mr. Wallis and other mainstream religionists becoming more vocal, reclaiming the moral high ground from the right-wing fundamentalist bigots who are anything but Christ-like.

Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity by BRUCE BAWER
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609802224/

Evolution is the ONLY theory of life taught in primary school biology class ...

That might have something to do with the fact that it's presently the only viable scientific "theory of life." When another scientific theory comes along that makes sense of the same body of data that evolution does, it will deserve a place in the science classroom.

...despite a huge majority that object to it being the only theory exposed.

How many times do people need to be reminded that science is not a democratic institution? Believing the earth is 6,000 years old does not make it so. Nor does it mean that science should be dumbed-down because the reality of the age of the universe might intrude on the faith of some people. Should germ theory not be taught because it will offend Christian Scientists?