Posted 2 months, 25 days ago in 
Loading ...
Introspection is not a very strong suit in this country, and neither is any type of serious study or thinking. Most are never taught to do either of them. The trait most often found in most so-called “opinions” are beliefs followed by rationalization. We are, for the most part, a nation of “believers” and not “thinkers.” That is a fatal flaw, not only at the personal level, but more importantly in society as a whole.
Is there something wrong with beliefs themselves? No. That is part of human nature, and we are all creatures of beliefs. The problem is that most individuals do not know where their beliefs come from, have never examined them, and most important, do not realize that they “choose” to believe because they “want to.” That is based upon a single thing, what the individual considers most important. In psychology it is called the “core value” and, in religion, “the godhead” or “god.”
When looking at or listening to opinions, if one is to fully understand, it is necessary to ascertain what standard(s) of measurement is/are being used. If materialistic (money, power, and influence), then whatever subject is being addressed, be it in economics, politics, and even religion, the individual has accepted and is espousing a materialistic value system.
Are such individuals sincere in their “beliefs”? Yes they are. In fact, some “believe” so strongly that, not only are they “right,” but have actually convinced themselves that they are superior because of those “beliefs.” All effort, emotional and intellectual, is then expended, not in any search for truth (they believe they already know) but rather in “not being wrong.” That renders any type of civil or constructive discussion or discourse impossible.
ROBERT I. LAITRES
Delta
51 Responses to “We are a nation of ‘believers’, not ‘thinkers’”
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 11:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
This also helps explain one of our nation’s biggest problems right now: the rejection of science. People don’t believe in evolution, or people don’t believe in global warming. This has become an accepted way of thinking (not thinking), and it is dangerous and could end up taking us backwards many years.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 1:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, it is called the “theory of evolution” because ‘consensus’ does not equate to scientific fact.
The theory of global warming also comes under the ‘consensus’ does not equate to scientific fact also.
According the the scientists dependent on federal funding, global warming is man caused, while those scientists ding independent research state there is no evidence showing such a relationship.
And even if it could be proven, are you really willing to destroy 30% of the US economy for a mere 1/20th of a degree lowering over 50 years?
And why not make the same requirement of all Americas competitors in the global marketplace?
And, would the 1/20th of a degree warmer truly make any difference in anybodies life?
Millions of US jobs just gone, POOF!!!, and for what?
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 2:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I used those evolution and global warming as examples of the rejection of science, not to jack the thread. But I certainly did think of willis as I read the original letter.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 2:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
But you continue to feel that ‘consensus’ is the same as fact.
The Earth is the center of the universe, and all the heavens orbit around us.
The world is flat.
Oil comes from dinosaurs.
Thank God for all those stupid naysayers in the past…
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 2:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
There are many of us who are believers that are also thinkers.
I am an educated (ISU in case you want “proof”) and logical thinking person. I am also an avid reader and a “prove it” kind of person. Yet, there is not one study or article I have read that has made me stop and say, “Oh, that makes perfect sense!” much less proven to me that evolution is anything other than a theory. In fact, all of the studies and papers have made it very easy for me to believe it is truly just a theory. Nothing in Darwin’s theory of evolution has ever been proven so why do intelligent people believe it to be fact? Because it’s easier to take a scientific theory as fact when it has a “scientific” tag word attached to it? As I recall, Darwin tried to create life using his theory and was never successful… nor has any other person in the scientific community been successful in creating ANY life form…. but they don’t teach that in school. They teach the theory as fact.
“It takes more faith to believe the earth and everything in it was created by random chance than it does to believe in a Creator.” is one of my favorites quotes and one that has stuck in my mind as so simple.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If you want to debate the value of scientific consensus, willis, you should read up on it first, because you clearly do not understand. I would suggest, as a starting point, the wikipedia entry: scientific consensus.
In trying to keep with the issue at hand, ‘believers’ and ‘thinkers,’ willis has again demonstrated Mr. Laitres’ point quite nicely.
Also, before you put up the fuss I know is coming, if having read the wiki entry, you find fault with it, please take it up with the proper wiki channels.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 2:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue, you also have some reading to do.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 2:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Someone once said: “Americans find it much easier (or safer, or comforting) to bend their knees rather than stretch their minds.”
Remember that electricity and gravity, too, are only theories, not scientific fact. Just the same as human evolution and global warming. However, each one of these “theories” has (or will, at some point) affect you in profound ways, regardless of your chosen belief system. Do we have “consensus” on the fundamentals of gravity & electricity quite yet? Shall we order further studies? The answer is yes on both accounts.
What is the “loss of jobs” argument founded on, anyhow? We could easily stabilze CO2 levels in the atmosphere by restructuring our transport systems and energy-production systems, protecting our remaining forests (and planting more trees) for a small fraction of our current annual military budget. Talk about creating jobs in innovation & implementation.
Why is it so hard to think beyond the status quo? Perhaps a good place to start is to get up off your knees and stretch your mind for a change.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 2:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, toaa… I am not talking theory or scientific consensus, I’m talking fact. Scientific consensus is not fact, it’s theory. It’s “the best answer we can come up with until we do more experiments and change our minds”.
And no, I didn’t go read your article. As I said, I’ve read many others. Unfortunately, it is doubtful yours is any more believable than they were. Although, I will reserve judgement until such time as I do have an opportunity to read it. If I have a epiphany and suddenly believe in evolution, I’ll be sure to lt you know. Fair enough?
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 2:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue,
Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
The “fact” of evolution is that all creatures are related. The evidence for this is found in homology, biology and more recently, genetics.
The “theory” of evolution is the scientific explanation for all this evidence. Keep in mind that science doesn’t “prove” anything. All science can do is disprove theories. As they say, proof is for mathematics and alcohol.
In the last 150 years, the theory of evolution has withstood every test that has been conducted. Darwin knew nothing of genetics or DNA, yet he predicted that organisms had some method of passing along information from one generation to the next. More recently, a group of Swedish paleontologists used evolution to predict the location of a tetrapod (fish-amphibian transitional) fossil. They went to that location, and found Tiktaalik. Look it up. It’s fascinating.
New flu shots are created each year using the principles of evolution. Bacterial resistance to antibodies is a perfect, albeit short-term, example of evolution. Evolution works. It is not, as commonly mis-stated by detractors, “random chance.” Natural selection is the very opposite of random chance.
And lastly, evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about the origins of life. That is a whole different subject called abiogenesis. Darwin had some speculations on that, but that is all.
If you’re truly interested in making an informed choice about evolution, you need to study it from actual scientific sources. Your summary of it demonstrates that you do not know much about what evolution really is. Please don’t take that wrong. I don’t mean to sound condescending, but to say that evolution is just random chance is just plain wrong.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 2:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue, theories are not fact. They are, however, built upon facts. the facts come first, then the theory comes to explain the facts, then the theory is tested by more facts, and eventually there is scientific consensus. Please, everyone read about the concept.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 2:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue,
Wikipedia is an online “reference” system that can be added too, or subtracted from, by just about anybody with an agenda.
For instance, toaaronuu, can logon, put in anything he wants that will support his agenda, and POOF!!! instant credibility.
It’s not a reliable source for much of anything.
And if they choose to believe that “consensus” equals scientific fact, letem’ have at it.
Evolution stopped being a theory years ago when it took on a religious status.
globular worming is rapidly approaching the same status.
Mr Laitres was correct in his letter, we have a lot of believers, and very few thinkers.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 2:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now, Sue - here’s a little conundrum for “thinkers” like you:
Suppose your trusted physician informed you that eating raspberry yogurt will make you invisible. Would you, A) accept it soley on faith, or B) demand a bit more from the facts & evidence department?
Now, apply the same little quiz to other aspects of your life. Like, for example, your obvious religious underpinnings. Do you demand the same of your religion?
Is it so?
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I ate raspberry yogurt for a while, then my feet disappeared.
Same thing?
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 2:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Best you find a new doctor, or historical text to worship.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 3:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, did you read the wiki? The entry is entirely factual, there is no disputing anything in it. There is no agenda, no hidden meanings. Your understanding of wikipedia is flawed. Once again, your words support Laitres’ thoughts about ‘believers.’
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 3:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, the general consensus is that wikipedia is factual?
keep believing, and don’t forget to pray that you are right and most everybody else is wrong.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 3:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Getting back to Laitres letter–as this thread illustrates, the difference between knowing something and believing something is very difficult for some to keep separate. Thank you Mr. Laitre, this has been fascinating.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 3:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The Earth is the center of the universe, and all the heavens orbit around us.
The world is flat.
Oil comes from dinosaurs.”
I can’t help but point out the irony that two out of the three examples Willis used were religious dogma that was eventually overcome by science.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 3:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t think it’s only rasberry yogurt, my feet disappeard after eating jelly donuts.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 3:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, if you’re so worried about the credibility of Wikipedia, the beauty of it is that you can change it. Go ahead and try to fluff some article with some of your ‘beliefs’ or facts, and see how far you get. Everything is reviewed and cited. Any part of any entry that may be in dispute is flagged as such. It is not the be-all and end-all of references, but it is a great starting place, and many, if not most, entries are non-disputable.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 3:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Way to jack the thread by the way, and I’m sorry to everyone else for taking the bait.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tee hee, Willis
I have a bit of the “feet disappearing” thing going, too.
No, Nigel, I wouldn’t accept it solely on faith. Although that’s a theory that could be fun if true! Except can I choose strawberry??? I’m not much of a fan of raspberry. Anyway, I couldn’t even begin to make you understand in this arena how my faith in God (notice I did not say religion) is sustained.
Scott, you know, you are correct. I stand corrected as I was equating origin of life with evolution. I fell into the trap of not expanding my summary in an effort to not be longwinded. Also because many equate the origin of life with the theory of evolution… primordial soup that evolved into humans after millions of years is their definition of evolution. I took the simple path. Rest assured, however, biology and chemistry professors would be happy to know their classes were not wasted time… I do know the difference, I just didn’t take the time to state it well.
Sorry, boys, you’ll have to continue this discussion without me… I have other places I need to be. I’ll check back in tomorrow
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 4:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“- Scott
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 3:17 pm PM This User Report this comment
“The Earth is the center of the universe, and all the heavens orbit around us.
The world is flat.
Oil comes from dinosaurs.”
I can’t help but point out the irony that two out of the three examples Willis used were religious dogma that was eventually overcome by science.-”
Actually, it was ‘consensus’, not dogma.
And keep us posted when science overcomes the religious dogma of evolution and globular worming.
On the subject of wikipedia credibility, go check out the section on everything the ‘muslim’ community has given us over the years.
‘Tis simply amazing that they did everything, ‘cept go to the moon in the early 19th century. They would have gone to the moon, but it wasn’t on the route they took to mars.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Yes, it was the consensus of the religious (based on dogma) that held on to the claim that the world was flat and at the center of the universe. Science was changing in response to new information, which is its greatest strength. You have heard of Galileo, I assume?
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 5:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have only one thing to say to those of you who believe in evolution as fact. If I am wrong in believing in a Creator, I have nothing to worry about, however, if you are wrong with your “Theory of Evolution” you will have ALL eternity to think about it.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 5:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hate to disagree with you, willis, but the muslims, in fact, have given the world much over the years with concern to math, science, and medicine….bagdad had at one time the best of univerities during the early to mid 13th centuries as did iran….just because their over-zealous brethren (just trying to put it mildly) have a disturbing habit of targeting large populations of their own people due to religion, don’t make the mistake of thinking them unintelligent…
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 5:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ok, religious dogma.
Now we are discussing the current religious dogma of evolution, and globular worming.
No difference. Both of those subjects have become religions in their own right.
And neither are subject to the separation of church ans State that we keep hearing about.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 5:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Pascal’s Wager once again.
But what if we’re both wrong? What if the Norse gods are the “true” gods, or the Greek pantheon or any of the other gods that have been worshiped throughout history?
There are thousands of gods that you don’t believe in either. It’s not “either/or” as you suggest.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 5:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If you want to continue to think of evolution as a religion, go right ahead. You’re missing out on a whole lot of very interesting topics and information, but understanding always requires effort. Some people just aren’t willing to put forth that effort.
Science in general, and evolution in particular, are difficult to understand. Anyone can do it, but they have to work at it. Fortunately, it usually pretty easy to tell who has and who hasn’t.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 5:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This is a great letter, RL. Thanks for speaking the truth, and opening up some real moral & ethical questions and dilemmas for the future discourse of the USA. Hopefully this letter appeared in the Senile’s print copy today (or manana). I’ve even re-read it several times to savor it. Somehow the responses managed to veer off course - imagine that - once the easy chord is struck with the trolls, hijackers, and ever-so faithful crowd.
Overall, Mediocre County certainly wouldn’t peg the needle in the green on the “critical thinking” meter; however, I’m relieved and glad that there are folks like you penning letters like this.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 6:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The argument (and that is all it is) as to religious beliefs arises from an inability by some to keep each in their separate spheres.
A theory, I would define as a construct seeking to explain relationships following physical observations and against which any future discoveries or observations can be judged; i.e. it provides a plausible framework. That is the basis of the science. One observes, then formulates.
It does not, as those falsely claiming that it is a religion, begin with a conclusion then proceed to look around, I call it flailing, for something, anything, to rationalize or justify the conclusion. That is totally unscientific.
Religion, on the other hand, begins with a belief, some call it “faith” then begin looking around for some evidence, physical or otherwise, is re-interpreted so as to conform or “fit in” to the original belief.
Can both coexist. Yes, but only if we recognize that we are speaking of different beasts; i.e. different worlds so to speak, and those who confuse the two are apparently unable to do so.
One could compare the different processes if we think of it as how a pyramid-type structure is built. The scientist will begin with a wide base and proceed to build towards the pinacle. The pinacle will therefore rest on a wide base, and the structure is stable.
On the other hand, the religious dogmatists will begin with the pinacle at the bottom and begin widening such that the largest, or widest part is at the top. Such a stucture is not only unstable in the physical world, it is just as unstable in the intellectual or emotional ones. That explains the panicked state that religious dogmatists constantly find themselves in, and their constant denial of any intellectual “breeze” that might cause the collapse of the unstable stucture they have constructed.
Some believe that there is a “god.” From my observations, limited by the physical constraints of my five senses, as well as my intellectual limitations, there is no way that I can either prove or disprove that a “god” does or “does not” exist. To maintain either with absolute certainty would be to pretend that I am able to move beyond the constraints of my own existence.
Neither I, nor myself, should ever pretend that they can. Those who do, are merely deluding themselves, pretending that they are more than they actually are.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 6:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh darn!
I made the “smarter than you are” crowd angry again.
It wuz an accident guys, I didn’t mean it.
Sometimes it’s difficult to operate on your level.
I need to come up from below the gutter to breathe fresh air.
“- Neither I, nor myself, should ever pretend that they can. Those who do, are merely deluding themselves, pretending that they are more than they actually are. -”
That does seem to fit you nicely RL.
And to think we were having a nice, rousing round of discussion, when you found yourselves on the short end and resorted to denigrating your opponents again.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 7:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
rl, very well stated. And we get the additional bonus of seeing it give Willis Leon Johnson a case of heatburn. Rational thought aggravates his ARD.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 7:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Religion or theory?
“- A theory, I would define as a construct seeking to explain relationships following physical observations and against which any future discoveries or observations can be judged; i.e. it provides a plausible framework. That is the basis of the science. One observes, then formulates. -”
Charles Darwin ‘observed’ previously unknown creatures on the Galapagos islands.
“- It does not, as those falsely claiming that it is a religion, begin with a conclusion then proceed to look around, I call it flailing, for something, anything, to rationalize or justify the conclusion. That is totally unscientific. -”
Chuck made the conclusion that all that inbreeding throughout the centuries caused ‘evolution’ to occur.
“- Religion, on the other hand, begins with a belief, some call it “faith” then begin looking around for some evidence, physical or otherwise, is re-interpreted so as to conform or “fit in” to the original belief. -”
So far, there has been no scientific data that supports Darwins belief, only ‘observations’ of different looking critters.
However, the supporters of evolution keep ‘flailing’ away looking for something to support their faith in evolution.
The same problems exist with globular worming.
No scientific data that proves ant actual warming trends that are not cyclical in nature.
New reports out this morning indicate that the Northern Hemisphere may be in for a cooling trend over the next decade.
They are both religions that require a lot more ‘faith’ than Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 8:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m curious as to why in a thread with so many polarized, absolute opinions, no one has mentioned the concept of Intelligent Design….of course, maybe both sides will pounce on that one.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 8:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Fascinating! Our own little micro-laboratory on human thought and anti-intellectualism in the US. Belief good, thought bad. End of story.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 8:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon,
Because as the label states, it requires ‘intelligence’ to discuss it.
My position is not pro anything.
Just anti pseudo religions of evolution and global warming.
And JohnB finally got it right, belief without thought is not a good thing.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 8:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis approves! My life now has meaning. I can check out now knowing that I FINALLY got something right. You can’t imagine how exhilarating it is to know you have positive recognition from the ORACLE of the western slope, possibly the world. Now let’s get busy on Intelligent Design and explore what kind of gems we can dredge up.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 9:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
An above poster asks why the issue of “intelligent design” has not come up. The issue of “intelligent design” has, at its foundation, the assumption that there is some being; i.e. god. Some believe that there is one then, based upon this “belief” presume that they know not only “what” that assumed being “thinks” but actually “how” he thinks. That, unfortunately, is without foundation as everything in this line is based upon assumptions. The real truth is that we can only judge based upon what we know; i.e. our own concept of what constitutes intelligence. If there is some “supreme being” in some other dimension (we know not which), there is no way that we can possibly know, not only what that being “thinks” or even “how” it thinks. We may believe and assume that that we do, but that is truly pretentious on our part and ignores the very real limitations we have as human beings. The problem is really that most fail to realize that perhaps our own way of “thinking” is the only way, and what we are actually looking at is but a projection of our own standards and values; i.e. projected outward and that then come back as a reflection. A better treatment of the difficulty in thought when dealing with what we call “god” is found in what is by now perhaps a classic on the subject. It was written by a Jewish theologian and titled “The Eclipse of God”, year 1967. It can be found in many places, one being the book “Great Ideas Today”, year 1967.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 9:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Before you claim once again that there is no evidence to support evolution, I suggest you look up Endogenous Retroviruses - as a start.
Remember, learning about complicated subjects takes effort. Prove that you’re willing to make that effort. Otherwise, you just another anti-evolutionist who knows not of what he speaks.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 9:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Don’t do it, Willis! He’s just trying to RickRoll you!!
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Not taking sides here. May I suggest, however, that those interested in the subject of rationalizing and justifying conclusions read “The Black Swan” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Black Swans do come along. (I think Darwins’ visit to the Galapagos qualifies as such.) When they do, we must be careful how we arrive at conclusions. We are frequently dead wrong.
Oh, and are we now talking about the fact of the evolutionary process, or the theory of Creation? I am a liberal and therefore have limited mental capacity. So please, have mercy.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Where’s Willis when we so badly need him? Everybody needs an anchor and some sense of certainty in their life and we are fortunate to have the wild and wonderful Willis World here in Happy Valley. Surely he’s not absent because of not having the absolute, final word on Intelligent Design? Our world is crumbling before our very eyes.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
psssst… JohnB….
‘intelligent design’ is not the topic currently under discussion….
My world isn’t crumbling, what planet are you on? Do I need to send the mothership for you?
What can I do to help?
If you vote to lower my taxes, I could send money…
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You guys are so much fun. Seriously.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
On I.D., here’s my favorite–Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District. The decision comes from a conservative judge, hand-picked by the Bush administration, and the argument for I.D, was so pitiful, not even he could say anything even nice about it. Here’s some qoutes from the decision:
On 20 December 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.
“For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child” (page 24)
“A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.” (page 26)
“The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism” (page 31)
“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” (page 43)
“Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.” (footnote 7 on page 46)
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.” (page 64)
“[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.” (pages 86–87)
“ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.” (page 89)
“Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.” (page 132)
Judge John E. Jones III issued the decision in the case
Judge John E. Jones III issued the decision in the case
In his Conclusion on pages 136–138 of 139 of this decision he writes:
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. […]
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 11:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
toaarunuu, you are out of order. Willis ruled it so. Only he can ramble on any subject regardless of the original subject of the discussion. In any event, we all know that those are just the judges opinions and not really the all-important facts. Sooner or later we’ll be set straight but probably in a string on another topic.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 11:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, my plan to cut-and-paste the entire “Good Will Hunting” screenplay is a bad idea?
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 11:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
My favorite part of the Dover trial testimony was when Michael Behe (of Darwin’s Black Box fame) admitted that in order for ID to be considered science, astrology would also qualify as science.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 12:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon, go ahead with “good will hunting”, I’m currently working on getting “War and Peace” on here in this thread.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.