The First Amendment and Intelligent Design (832 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -0.48 on 38 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by SilvrWolf (View user info) at 2005-11-23 17:23:20 EST
I normally do not foray into charged political issues (or anything political, for that matter), but I've been thinking a lot about the recent debate on intelligent design (ID) and how it pertains to the first amendment. This post is pretty much inspired by Jack McCallum's well-written piece but from a slightly different stance. If you're not from the U.S., I'm not sure that this op-ed piece will entertain you much, so feel free to leave your "Fuck Americans" and -2s. As always, this isn't about ratings or hits.
The first amendment to our constitution says: "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 to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
First off, I'd like to deal with the issue of "separation of church and state". I have no idea how that interpretation of the wording of the first amendment ever got into the American vernacular, but it's an erroneous one at best. I haven't researched it, but my best guess would be that that phrase originated during the legal battles to remove prayer from public schools. At no point does the amendment say anything about a "separation". It simply states that the government shall neither establish a religion as law nor create any laws in regards to the abolition of any particular religion. How we Americans were perverted into believing otherwise is beyond me. It speaks highly of our complacency concerning our illustrious media. Perhaps we just love to parrot the latest catch phrase spouted by either our left- or right-wing news outlets. The bottom line is that the separation of church and state is simply not what the first amendment states. It is an all-encompassing statement of our freedom to express ourselves in this country as we see fit, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the freedom of others to do the same.
It seems that most people who fight the hardest against the notion of ID being taught in our schools believe that teachers will be pushing the concept of the Christian God. Conversely, it seems to be that the most fanatical people pushing for the teaching of ID are devout Christians. Where are the people giving the fanatics on both sides the gut-check they deserve? Neither side is correct in their assumptions and should most definitely be enlightened to the true meaning of the battles they fight. If they truly understood what they were fighting about, would they still fight so voraciously?
The objective interpretation of ID would be that a being or beings (not at all limited to the Christian God) laid out a plan or started an experiment that resulted in our existence in this universe. At this point in our "understanding" of the cosmos, I see that as being no different than the teaching of the big bang. It seems to me to be just another theory on how we got here. I can no more disprove the big bang theory than I can the existence of gods or even other intelligent beings in this universe.
Maybe both sides are right. Perhaps the big bang was created by God. Perhaps the big bang created God, who in turn created us. It boils down to theory and speculation and that is all. Our entire universe could be an experiment in an infinitely large Petri dish by a being or beings so vast that we simply don't possess the ability to comprehend it. This planet could be cosmic zoo, serving solely as an entertainment to highly advanced extra-terrestrials. We could have descended from apes, as evolution theorizes, until we were nudged or manipulated by a higher being. Can anyone truly disprove these notions? To dismiss them without the slightest consideration only serves to further our ignorance.
I see no reason ID couldn't be taught in public schools, provided that it is not perverted to serve anyone's particular agenda. It must be allowed to cover all creation theories, regardless of popularity. When we lose our objectivity in our struggle to understand our own existence, we become fanatics of an ignorant cause.
I do, however, believe that it shouldn't be taught as a required course. It could be an elective study taught in high school to an age group capable of forming their own opinions on the topics presented. If it is to be included in the general studies, it should be done so only at length, serving to provide another theory versus or encompassing evolution. I neither claim to have all the answers on the issue of an ID curriculum nor do I have any desire to try to find them. I merely think that the opportunity to do so should be available to everyone taught in the public school system. That, to me, is what the first amendment was created for in the first place.
<Should anyone even care, I don't know that I'll be able to stick around to debate my stance with anyone tonight, but I'll try to address any questions or comments first thing in the morning. Feel free to bicker amongst yourselves, of course. :) >
User Reviews
Submitted by WingedFoote (user info) at 2006-08-27 17:34:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
can't understand why this has a negative rating. perhaps people are so polarized that they refuse to listen to a moderate opinion?
Submitted by ILoveJackDaniels (user info) at 2006-02-09 04:13:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
>It seems that most people who fight the hardest against the notion of ID being
>taught in our schools believe that teachers will be pushing the concept of the
>Christian God.
That would be because the stated aim of ID (according to the founder of ID) is to have Creation taught in science classes.
>The objective interpretation of ID would be that a being or beings (not at all
>limited to the Christian God) laid out a plan or started an experiment that
>resulted in our existence in this universe.
Well, that depends on who you listen to. ID has been known to include that evolution is guided but still happens, that evolution didn't happen and everything has been designed as-is, that ID was responsible for the origins of life and evolution took over from there, and plenty of other "theories". The reason it hasn't been actually put into simple terms is that it isn't scientific. In the same vein, it doesn't belong in a religion studies class - it presents itself as science and fails to meet the criteria of science, and that really should be the end of it.
The problem is that there are plenty of people out there who'll listen to and believe anything without thinking it through.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-11-25 02:20:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Akira (user info) at 2005-11-24 00:52:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Corkers (user info) at 2005-11-23 23:10:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
"the scientifically accepted probability that there is no such thing as global warming"????
WHERE DO YOU HEAR THIS SHIT?
=-=--=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=12594
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0603/0603warming.htm
I'm gonna do a post on it when i get my account back.
----------------------------------------------
First one I'm not even going to bother with. You're that guy's slave.
Second one is ridiculously stupid "science", that states no facts and states no sources.
The third one quotes from only ONE professor throughout the entire article.
Submitted by BattlePope (user info) at 2005-11-24 18:56:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2005-11-24 01:17:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:41:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
don't you people realise that the only place where this debate is even happening is the US? nowhere else in the world is making a real effort to force this into education.
-------------
Most of the rest of the world doesn't bathe daily, either
wrong. here in italy not only daily shower is mandatory but the "minister of public instruction" who is in charge of public schools, proposed to eliminate evolutionary theory from classes. she got gunned down by the media so fast that she didnt have the time to say darwinism tho...
and btw... someone said that since both theories are unsure we should teach both of them. i say that we should teach only the cold, hard facts that we know and let everyone make his own theory.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-11-24 13:50:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
i wipe my ass with ze bible
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-24 13:44:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck the Bible.
Submitted by Brianthetruthspeaker (user info) at 2005-11-24 13:18:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
" I contemplate with solemn 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."
The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture.
The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs.
Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2005-11-24 12:47:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey you guys, id is the state of subconscious that is the most without conscious thoughts. Babies use it strongly to get what they need. Baby is hungry, the id cries so the baby cries. Sorta like that. Just thought I'd let you know that id is already taught in public school psychology.
Luv u bi.
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2005-11-24 12:46:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You have lost your mind.
If you actually believe some "invisible imaginary friend" created the universe I have some advice for you:
Don't breed and don't vote.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-11-24 12:28:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2005-11-24 01:17:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:41:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
don't you people realise that the only place where this debate is even happening is the US? nowhere else in the world is making a real effort to force this into education.
-------------
Most of the rest of the world doesn't bathe daily, either.
===
Fat people smell though
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2005-11-24 01:17:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:41:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
don't you people realise that the only place where this debate is even happening is the US? nowhere else in the world is making a real effort to force this into education.
-------------
Most of the rest of the world doesn't bathe daily, either.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2005-11-24 01:15:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Where's my goddamn heatsink?
Submitted by Akira (user info) at 2005-11-24 01:02:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
uberboard: Bart, I demand that you unban those kangaroo-fucking twins. Think of the wildlife.
Submitted by Akira (user info) at 2005-11-24 00:52:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Corkers (user info) at 2005-11-23 23:10:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
"the scientifically accepted probability that there is no such thing as global warming"????
WHERE DO YOU HEAR THIS SHIT?
=-=--=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=12594
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0603/0603warming.htm
I'm gonna do a post on it when i get my account back.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-11-24 00:37:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
First off, I'd like to deal with the issue of "separation of church and state". I have no idea how that interpretation of the wording of the first amendment ever got into the American vernacular, but it's an erroneous one at best. I haven't researched it, but my best guess would be that that phrase originated during the legal battles to remove prayer from public schools. At no point does the amendment say anything about a "separation".
-----
There are a lot of constitutional issues that aren't set out in the Constitution. You want to interpret it strictly based on what it says? Turn in all automatic weapons. It doesn't say you can have one.
In fact, if you take it word for word, due process for searches is not spelled out, neither is an exception to free speech for something like yelleing fire in a crowded place. Just watch your word for word interpretations, idjit.
Submitted by crx (user info) at 2005-11-23 23:24:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The debate is teaching ID ALONG WITH evolution in a BIOLOGY class.
Of course it's okay to teach ID, but it's not testable, and therefore, not a scientific theory... thus, it should not be taught as part of a science class.
There are lots of world religion or theology classes it would fit perfectly well into...
Submitted by Corkers (user info) at 2005-11-23 23:10:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"the scientifically accepted probability that there is no such thing as global warming"????
WHERE DO YOU HEAR THIS SHIT?
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2005-11-23 22:43:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
HAHAHAHA banned.
Submitted by Akira (user info) at 2005-11-23 22:33:44 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Oops... a rating of zero for you.
-Free Willy!
Submitted by Akira (user info) at 2005-11-23 22:33:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2005-11-23 21:16:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Akira (user info) at 2005-11-23 20:52:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
-Williamson
_________
?
=--==--===-=-
I'm Williamson and I was banned for spamming. This is my shitty alter.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2005-11-23 21:16:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Akira (user info) at 2005-11-23 20:52:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
-Williamson
_________
?
Submitted by Akira (user info) at 2005-11-23 20:52:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I love how the left will attack the right about not listening to science and being ignorant fools on this subject, yet if one right-winger brings up the scientifically accepted probability that there is no such thing as global warming he'll be slaughtered by the uninformed left.
At any rate; teach kids the possibility of ID while showing that evolution is the more accepted, better proven method. It's really not gonna turn them into bible bashin' Christians. Get over it.
-Williamson
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2005-11-23 20:29:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ELLSMALL WROTE A SENSIBLE REVIEW ALERT
ELLSMALL WROTE A SENSIBLE REVIEW ALERT
ELLSMALL WROTE A SENSIBLE REVIEW ALERT
ELLSMALL WROTE A SENSIBLE REVIEW ALERT
ELLSMALL WROTE A SENSIBLE REVIEW ALERT
ELLSMALL WROTE A SENSIBLE REVIEW ALERT
ELLSMALL WROTE A SENSIBLE REVIEW ALERT
ELLSMALL WROTE A SENSIBLE REVIEW ALERT
ELLSMALL WROTE A SENSIBLE REVIEW ALERT
ELLSMALL WROTE A SENSIBLE REVIEW ALERT
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2005-11-23 19:52:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Hookhand (user info) at 2005-11-23 19:04:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
ID is just a new name for Creationism. The Supreme Court already ruled in 1987 that Creationsim can't be taught in public school science classes because it is not scientific. I would think it's pretty clear why ID doesn't belong in science class. It's ok to teach it in schools, but keep it in a religion class, not science.
Submitted by ellsmall (user info) at 2005-11-23 19:15:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for daring to post something this unpopular
but you may as well hang it up dude, because this issue has become a proxy for the whole left-right USA culture war thingy and the last thing any of the partisans want is any reasoned, measured debate.
the bigots of the right want to disregard the tenets of science, ID is not falsifible therefore it is not scientifically testable, therefore it shouldn't be taught in science classes.
the bigots of the left don't want ID discussed, even philosophically because it might rain on their relativistic/nihilistic anything-goes morality.
but, really, nice effort dude.
BTW, why is it that whenever bart bothers to comment he always comes off like a big dick-head? Is he like that in person, or is he just one of these tards that likes to talk tuff shit on the net?
Submitted by Hookhand (user info) at 2005-11-23 19:04:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ID is just a new name for Creationism. The Supreme Court already ruled in 1987 that Creationsim can't be taught in public school science classes because it is not scientific. I would think it's pretty clear why ID doesn't belong in science class. It's ok to teach it in schools, but keep it in a religion class, not science.
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2005-11-23 19:01:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Middle ground, SilvrWolf? On Ubersite?!
It's all well to see ID taught in schools, but by no means should it be taught as science. Evolution is based on extrapolation of existing data and as such has some grounding.
In the UK, we were taught about ID (before it because known as ID) in religious education and the theory of evolution in science. Both were compulsory classes. Why people shouldn't be taught both is beyond me, but for crying out loud make the distinction between what CAN be proven and what is nothing more than a speculative guess - at best.
Just my 2 cents.
Submitted by nahnoneofit (user info) at 2005-11-23 18:53:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
he speculated that that was when, not stated, doucherat.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2005-11-23 18:47:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Didn't yo momma teach you not to speak when grown folks be talkin? Well grown folks are talkin, so shut the fuck up, ya hear"
First off, next time do some research before writing about something that you obviously know little about. A prime example: "seperation of church and state" was not coined during the current debate on prayer in public schools (as you claimed in your post), but rather dates from the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
Secondly, anyone who isn't a religious extremest christian (aka right wing nazi...oops I mean republican) realizes that ID is just repackaged creationism bullshit and it IS an attempt to cram religion, specifically protestant christianity down children's throats.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-11-23 18:10:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
there is no middle ground.
one is science the other is an appeasment to the bible that bought the adminstrations soul.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:56:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
zak, I was trying to illustrate the zealotry on both sides. It seems that I was misunderstood in my stance. My point was that we should try to find a middle ground instead of screaming insults across this giant schism the issue has created.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:52:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:41:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
don't you people realise that the only place where this debate is even happening is the US? nowhere else in the world is making a real effort to force this into education.
------
sad but true
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:51:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"god boy"?
I don't believe in a god, you pompous dipshit. I'm agnostically open-minded. I was merely trying to put forth that I see no harm in presenting a different theory to evolution. I sure as hell didn't say it was time to cram religion down our childens' throats.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:44:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
legitimate
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:41:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
don't you people realise that the only place where this debate is even happening is the US? nowhere else in the world is making a real effort to force this into education.
doesn't it make you wonder, that all the people who push this "legitamite alternative" theory are plainly religious people who see it as backdoor creationism?
it's not about the constitution or scientific debate & balance, it's about a certain group of people (zealots) trying to push their agenda into the schools in a novel way (now that naked creationism is totally discredited).
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:41:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Why is the sky blue?
Intelligent Design made it so.
Why does gravity pull down?
Intelligent Design made it so.
Why does a^2 + b^2 = c^2?
Intelligent Design made it so.
Who discovered America?
The Intelligent Designer
Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?
The Intelligent Designer
Dude, gravity is a THEORY NOT A FACT!
Burn in hell, god boy.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:33:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:29:04 (#)
Ranking: -2
That there is even a debate about intelligent design is a sad indictment of the lack of intellectual vigour outside of the major (nothern) US cities.
new minted auto ID -2
---------------------------------------
Minneapolis?
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:29:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
That there is even a debate about intelligent design is a sad indictment of the lack of intellectual vigour outside of the major (nothern) US cities.
new minted auto ID -2