When Judge John E. Jones III issued his opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, he touched off a minor war concerning the teaching of evolution, and a competing theory known as Intelligent Design, in the public schools. Traipsing Into Evolution is a salvo in that war, fired by four authors on behalf of the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. In this work two lawyers, a political scientist and a Ph.D. in English take on the judge's ruling.
When Judge John E. Jones III issued his opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, 2005 WL 3465563 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2005) he touched off a minor war concerning the teaching of evolution, and a competing theory known as Intelligent Design, in the public schools. Traipsing Into Evolution is a salvo in that war, fired by four authors on behalf of the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. In this work two lawyers, a political scientist and a Ph.D. in English take on the judge's ruling.
The book, which reads like a law review article, is a short one. The authors say all the need to in 78 pages, plus approximately 45 pages of appendices. When you remove all the space taken up by the copious footnotes, it would be rather smaller, which presents an interesting contrast to Judge Jones's 139-page ruling. For those who may be interested, a copy of that ruling may be found here .
The decision in the Kitzmiller case, which was billed in some circles as "Scopes II" centered less on the issue of science where it probably should have remained, and ventured off into issues of religion and theology, which is where the authors begin, taking Judge Jones to task for over reaching and trying to answer all possible questions raised by the theory of Intelligent Design, as opposed to Darwinian theory. They continue on, covering various aspects of the decision, the decision-making process, the lack of attention to evidence presented, and the apparent intent to infringe on academic freedom. The work is comprehensive, focused, and persuasive. It has several weaknesses, however.
First, for the layperson, it dives into "neo-Darwinism" and "irreducible complexity" without defining them sufficiently which leaves a gap in the information needed for proper understanding of what the arguments presented are all about. For the record, neo-Darwinism has been defined as "the modern version of Darwinian evolutionary theory: the synthesis of Mendelian genetics and Darwinism." As for irreducible complexity, Biochemist Michael Behe, who developed the term, explains that "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)"
Second, because of the structure of the book, and it’s intent to challenge the Judge’s opinion, a clear presentation of Intelligent Design as a theory is also lacking. This writer believes that in omitting such an explanation the authors left a very large hole in their position and its relevance to science, regardless of whether or not members of the scientific community have accepted it as a reasonable theory.
Finally, what is probably the most important aspect of this case, academic freedom, is given less exposure than the challenges to the judge’s legal posturing. Because this case, at its roots, is about academic freedom, and challenges to the status quo by members of the scientific community, that subject deserves more time in the spotlight. This is particularly true in light of a fact which the authors take significant effort to point out; that new theories are rarely popular at their inception, regardless of whether or not they turn out to be generally accepted years later.
All things considered, this is a book worth reading. Anyone who takes an interest in the legal battles over how science is to be taught in the public schools will find it informative and potentially a roadmap to where the next cases in this area will be argued.
slaib@intellectualconservative.com
http://intellectualconservative.com
Read more articles by Steven D. Laib
My take on the debate as a layperson is the science community rejects the how rather then the why.
Intelligent design wants to be treated on the same level as darwin without having to conform to the same standards and disciplines. I have faith that GOD created the universe, Science at best can tell me how some of the parts works.
Comment by David Keller | May 20, 2006
The most obvious reason that Judge Jones’s decision was blatant judicial activism is because the 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law…" Therefore, the 1st Amendment ONLY APPLIES TO CONGRESS AND LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS. The Dover School Board could not violate the 1st Amendment even if it wanted to. As conservative "Originalists" we should not care about wrong precedents. We should only care about the intentions of the Founders.
For those who object that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States, they are wrong on two counts. First and most obvious is that the 14th Amendment is invalid because it was passed under duress by the invaded and occupied Confederate States. Second, even if you grant that it is valid, the "incorporation doctrine" was invented later and was clearly not the intent of those who passed it.
Since Mr. Laib is an attorney, I would be interested in his views on this. That the 1st Amendment only applies to Congress seems so obvious it is hardly debatable.
Comment by Red Phillips | May 20, 2006
As to be expected, more nonsense by non biologists pretending to have insight beyond their ability. Biochemistry is not biology any more than oil chemistry is well drilling. And certainly neither literature nor law are even remotely biological sciences.
Comment by Carmine | May 20, 2006
Mr. Carmine,
I am a physician and my undergraduate degree is in Zoology. I think I can fairly claim to be a biologist, at least of sorts. I am trained in the scientific method, and what I spot among the defenders of blind evolution is the worst and most obvious sort of circular logic. The biochemist such as Behe says that there are biological systems that are irreducibly complex. The information theorist such as Demsky says that life is too complex and contains too much information to be the result of pure chance. The Evolutionist’s response is to stamp his feet and say, "Evolution is a fact. Everyone knows it's a fact so go away. We know these irreducibly complex systems had to have evolved because we see them in front of us and we know evolution happened. End of discussion." If you are lucky they will throw in some technical critique of Behe's or Demsky's work as if some technical critique makes the obvious larger questions go away. Well a child can see through that circular logic and so can the majority of common man non-experts that the Evolutionists look down their nose at.
That said, my point above still stands. The Dover School District can do whatever it wants within the bounds of the Pennsylvania State Constitution, because the 1st Amendment does not apply to it.
Comment by Red Phillips | May 21, 2006
The Dover fiasco is the kind of nonsense to be expected when academics, who have never produced a commercially successful product, pontificate on "intelligent design." As a biomedical engineer with 36 years experience designing commercially successful medical and industrial instruments and controls, I was appalled at the judge’s distinctions between biological systems and human artifacts. Yes, human artifacts DO reproduce – they are called computer viruses! Adaptation to changing environments is an ongoing research activity. To this end, DARPA sponsored races in March 2004 and October 2005 featuring driverless vehicles that made their own way without human intervention over a 132-mile course in the desert that was only announced the day of the race.
While Mr. Phillips is correct that the framers intended the First Amendment to the US Constitution to allow the individual states to establish official religions, liberal activist judges pulled precedents out of thin air once again to overrule this. The US Supreme Court decision, Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing (1947), held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the First Amendment’s proscriptions against the establishment to the states. However even by the Lemon test, Evolution is a religion and has no legitimate place in a science curriculum.
Comment by Jon Koniecki | May 21, 2006
There are numerous frauds about, Republican Senators, for example, who claim that America was founded as a Christian nation, and for proof they first point to the fact, undeniable, that both House of Congress voted for themselves to have a Chaplain, paid for from the general fund.
What these ignorant turds fail to note is that, outside of that action, nothing in the first 50 years of the Republic can be considered a ruling on religion.
The example I rely on is mail delivery.
Mail delivery on Sunday.
Thousands of Christians wrote and complained. And the Congress re-affirmed mail delivery on Sunday. Again and again they did, no matter how many angry letters from Christians they got.
In 1829, Senator Johnson of Kentucky, later the Vice President during the Van Buren administration, wrote the Committee Report on the subject:
"Let the national legislature once perform an act which involves the decision of a religious controversy, and it will have passed its legitimate bounds. The precedent will then be established, and the foundation for that usurpation of the Divine prerogative in this country, which has been the desolating scourge to the fairest portions of the old world. Our Constitution recognizes no other power than that of persuasion, for enforcing religous observances. Let the professors of Christianity recommend their religion by deeds of benevolence — by Christian meekness — by lives of temperance and holiness"
There are good and bad consequences following. No tax breaks for Churches. No banning priests from talking politics. To the government, there are no churches. There are groups of people in a room, and there happen to be groups of people in a room with a cross where the person at the front of the room wear's a particular uniform.
There should be no law preventing the School Board of Dover from turning its children into illinformed neanderthals by shoving pseudo-science down their throats.
ID is a farce.
Comment by JS Narins | May 21, 2006
Mr. Koniecki,
My point is that as originalist conservatives we should not be bound by bad precedents. We should be bound only by the original intent of the Founders as best as we can figure it out. One remedy to bad precedents is State activism. The States should ignore and nullify faulty court decisions like Katzmiller.
Mr. (?) Narins,
You are living in ACLU fantasy land if you deny the very Christian nature of the founding of this country. The Constitution did not establish a particular denomination partially because it did not intend to interfere with the established Churches in the various States. Do you deny that there were established Churches in the States that persisted long after the Constitution was passed? Were there not religious tests for office in several States? No amount of historical revisionism by the ACLU and other anti-Christian bigots can change that.
Comment by Red Phillips | May 21, 2006
Certainly the Commonwealth of Massachusetts lasted until, what, 1831, as an established Congregationalist state. The State of New Hampshire lasted until 1871 allowing only Protestants to hold office.
But I had been discussing the Federal Government, not the government of the States.
The founding of the first 13 Colonies occured during the reigns of the Kings of England and the established Anglican Church.
The Federal Government did not squash out, nor should it have, nor could it have, the established religions of the States.
The Federal Government never acted, with the exception of appointing for themselves a Chaplain to be paid for from the general fund, to in any way promote any religion.
I think the quote by Senator Johnson of Kentucky is greatly expressed. You, on the other hand, could _only_ point to religion within each State, rather than religion as it related to the Federal Government, on the behalf of the Senate of which Senator, later Vice President, Johnson was writing the Committee report.
Please, if anything, call me an anti-religion bigot. I have no particular grudge against Christianity. If I was forced to adopt any religion on Earth based on my current knowledge of them, a couple Christian denominations would be in my top four.
Comment by JS Narins | May 22, 2006
The Founders with a few exceptions were orthodox Christians. The few exceptions were at least Theists. But all recognized the importance of Christianity as a bedrock of the new American civilization. The Founders with the Constitution intended to prevent the establishment of a particular denomination. They were not hostile to Christianity nor were they neutral toward Christianity compared to other religions. Do you really think that the Founders would have been just as happy with Islam? If so, you must have partaken of some 21st Century egalitarian fantasy serum. ACLU style egalitarianism is less than 100 years old. Truth be told, I am an anti-federalist, but had the States thought that the Constitution was in any way hostile to or even neutral toward Christianity, it would not have passed. Senator Johnson wrote in 1829. Early by modern standards of people who can't see beyond the year of their birth, but more important is what the Founders had to say and do in 1776 +/- and 1787 +/-. For what it is worth, Senator Johnson was speaking of the national legislature. But I do not think you want to get into a quoting match from significant Founders re Christianity. That is why the ACLU types usually end up quoting more modern sources to support their clearly modern view. Since this is a conservative website, I would think the presumption should be for the older, not the modern.
“To the government, there are no churches. There are groups of people in a room, and there happen to be groups of people in a room with a cross where the person at the front of the room wear’s a particular uniform.” Now that is just silly. You are taking a very modern perspective and reading it into the intentions of the Founders. But there were no ACLU “Church State separation” types when this country was founded.
Comment by Red Phillips | May 22, 2006
The 1829 report was made as a confirmation of an official position, passed into law in 1810 and again reaffimed in 1815.
Reading the US Senate's biography of Senator Johnson shows he was steeped in the thoughts and life of the earliest days of the Republic.
His father, for example "By 1812 Robert Johnson was one of the largest landholders in Kentucky. He served in the Virginia house of burgesses, attended both the 1785 convention that petitioned the Virginia legislature for Kentucky statehood and the 1792 Kentucky constitutional convention, and represented his district in the state legislature for several years after Kentucky's admission to the Union. After three of Richard Mentor Johnson's brothers achieved national office—James and John Telemachus served in the House of Representatives and Benjamin was a federal district judge—critics charged that the family sought 'power in every hole and corner of the state.'"
I do not believe my perspective is modern, I believe it accurately reflects the role of the National Legislature during the first 50 years of the Republic.
If you would refrain from arguing against the ACLU, and only addressing issues I bring up, it would serve to further a more productive discussion.
Similarly, it is foolhardy to call the pre-Revolutionaries or Revolutionaries "Orthodox Christians." Not only does that term lack meaning, since I know you are not referring to the Greek Orthodox Church, but also it would rule out Thomas Jefferson, who wrote his own version of the New Testament which removed all miraculous events from the text. An oft-cited letter by Thomas Jefferson where he writes that he is a "True Christian" ignores the rest of the content of the letter, where he is describing his new Bible.
Comment by JS Narins | May 22, 2006
That is why I used the word orthodox with a small o. Of course they were not Eastern Orthodox. What I mean by orthodox is the opposite of heterodox. Meaning they believed the fundamental tenants of the faith. The Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the dual nature of Christ (fully Divine and fully Human), the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the atoning death of Christ on the cross, etc. By that measure you are exactly right that Jefferson was not an orthodox Christian. I’m not sure that anybody has argued that he is.
Of course in some cases we do not know exactly what a Founder believed. But they are generally considered orthodox if they belonged to an orthodox denomination and attended church regularly or otherwise gave evidence of adhering to the beliefs of their church. May I suggest Worthy Company by M.E. Bradford?
Like I said, you have produced one quote. I really don’t think you want to get into a battle of dueling quotes. If so, give me some time to get home where I have my recourse,s and I will be happy to oblige?
Comment by Red Phillips | May 22, 2006
We were talking about legislation. Actual laws passed.
You don't seem to have gathered that I am supporting the right of the Dover School Board to shove neaderthalish pseudo-science down the throats of its unsuspecting youth. I argue that the Government _simply_ can not decide whether or not particular material is "religious" or not.
If the students of Dover grow up misinformed misanthropes, it is regrettable. The smart scientists of the world already spend a lot of effort showing that the few, published ID articles in the scientific press ARE GARBAGE. Bad citations, citations that contradict them, citations which were obviously misunderstood or misread.
But that doesn't stop the idiot leaders of the Christian Right.
I guess you could say that anyone who wants to feed their children this CRAP deserves what they get.
But, in any case, the Federal Government has no business drawing a line in the sand saying "this (ID) is religion" and "this (Science) is not"
My support for that statements comes from ACTUAL laws and court cases from the first 50 years of the Republic, spelled out in crystal clear terms by Senator Johnson…
"Let the national legislature once perform an act which involves the decision of a religious controversy, and it will have passed its legitimate bounds."
Ignore the quotes of the founders, since better scholars than you or I can't prove it one way or the other.
Find me actual laws that support Christianity, FEDERAL laws. Either by establishing Sunday as sabbath, or anything similar.
Comment by JS Narins | May 23, 2006
Mr. Narins,
I did say that I am really an anti-federalist. One reason that I am an anti-federalist is because the Constitution was not specific enough in stating that America is a Christian nation. I disagree with prohibiting religious tests for office for example. It was naïve to believe that America would remain a Christian nation without restricting office holding and the franchise. But the neutrality at the Federal level was in the interest of maintaining peace at the State level. Multiple Christian denominations were represented in the various States and the neutrality was between Christian denominations. It was not between Christianity and other religions. To assume modern day neutrality and pluralism and impose that on the Founders is absurd. Do you really think they were intending neutrality toward Buddhism and Hinduism? The absolute neutrality that you imagine is how you would like things to be, not what the Founder’s intended.
An example of Federal legislation that demonstrates a lack of neutrality and favoritism of Christianity. How about the immigration restrictions that were designed to prohibit immigration by Catholics and Jews? (In fact you could argue that the Founders intended neutrality toward Protestant denominations, and that didn’t even extend to Catholicism. Of course there were large pockets of Catholicism in Maryland, so they would disagree.)
I did figure out that you were granting Dover the right to teach ID if they wanted. How generous of you. But then you show your hand. “Neanderthals.” That’s real nice.
Did you read my response in # 4? I wrote, “What I spot among the defenders of blind evolution is the worst and most obvious sort of circular logic. The biochemist such as Behe says that there are biological systems that are irreducibly complex. The information theorist such as Demsky says that life is too complex and contains too much information to be the result of pure chance. The Evolutionist’s response is to stamp his feet and say, “Evolution is a fact. Everyone knows it’s a fact so go away. We know these irreducibly complex systems had to have evolved because we see them in front of us and we know evolution happened. End of discussion.” If you are lucky they will throw in some technical critique of Behe’s or Demsky’s work as if some technical critique makes the obvious larger questions go away. Well a child can see through that circular logic and so can the majority of common man non-experts that the Evolutionists look down their nose at.”
Thank you for proving my point. Mr. Narins insists evolution happened, so it must be so. I anticipated your “technical critique” argument precisely. Scientist who already have their minds made up publish critiques in scientific journals that are peer reviewed by other scientists who also have their minds made up. Surprise, surprise, they find fault with the ID research. Then they have the audacity to criticize the ID folks for not having enough stuff in peer reviewed journals that actively discriminate against them. Don’t believe me? Look at what happened to the Editor of the Smithsonian journal who published an ID article. Then Dawkins publishes some completely fanciful explanation for the evolution of the eye in some peer reviewed journal that fawns all over him, and the script is now ready. “See, there is no irreducible complexity. Behe is an idiot.” OK. Whatever. You can critique the probability issue until you are blue in the face. Go ahead and even knock a couple of zeros off the exponent. Complex life did not arise by chance. The math does not allow it.
Comment by Red Phillips | May 23, 2006
Endless diputings with Mr. Narin will produce no fruit. Natural selection has determined that Mr. Narin be a "turd", and we can best leave it at that, bless his heart.
Comment by Michael Kilpatrick | May 23, 2006
Is he one of those liberals who enjoys making trouble on conservative websites or is he one of those "conservatives" who is actually an atheistic or agnostic libertarian here to teach us ignorant traditionalist the truth.
Comment by Red Phillips | May 23, 2006
I really hope Michael Kilpatrick can back up his calling me a "turd" with a little muscle. I served in the Marine Corps, and really enjoy defending myself from hateful slurs of pseudo-moralists.
What a joke Christian you are!
Red,
I am an American Citizen who is becoming more and more steeped in the texts and history of the early Republic. The early Federal government simply never passed laws which made any distinction, whatsoever, between what was religious and what was not.
I believe, most firmly, that this is the best possible result for religions. To grant the power once allows the government to later rule that some aspect of your religion no longer qualifies.
For example, if we had not had this modern view of religion, where the government recognizes and respects it, we'd never had that trouble with Native American tribes from Texas legalizing peyote. No religious practice would need to be respected.
What about Mormons and Muslims who would unite to allow polygamy for their adherents in this country, because their religion proscribes it?
What about Jews who demand to be able to put to death their children who curse them?
We fail America's traditions when the government decides religious matters.
Comment by JS Narins | May 25, 2006
Even admitting the Christian beliefs of the authors of the Constitution, where is it WRITTEN? If these men were so Christian, why did they not explicitly say so? So many of the Federalist letters contradict this claim (though they also spend a large amount of time contradicting each other).
If Creationsim is to be taught in schools - and that's what Intelligent Design is, a creator, though not specifically named - whose Creationism should be taught? Why Christian Creationism and not Islamic, Hindu or otherwise? If, as so many Crtionsist argue, students have the right to be confronted with both examples (evolution and creationism) and make up their own minds on the matter, why do they always omit to mention that even among committed Creationists there is a debate. Some argue for a young Earth, some that micro-evolution occurs, some that no form of evolution occurs, period.
If, as so many claim, this argument is about fairness, then every form of Creationism, both those from other religions and those that disagree within Christianity, then ALL must be taught or none.
I have no doubt that many will reply 'only Christian Creationism, for America is a Christian country'. Let's assume this statement is fair. What about the vast numbers (a majority) of Christians who DO believe in evolution? Don't their opinions count? Or is it only Evangelical Christians who are true Christians? If this is so, they are a minority in their own country and have NO right to argue that their view is the correct one - and to claim that ONLY your form of Christianity is true is the height of bigotry.
Comment by alex | May 25, 2006
alex,
"… and to claim that ONLY your form of Christianity is true is the height of bigotry."
I do not hesitate to claim that Liberal Christianity that denies the essentials of the faith such as the resurrection is false. But, there is much room for debate among Christians about non-essential, disputable matters. But if you hold Christianity to be TRUE, you must hold all other competing religions with their different truth claims to be FALSE. Not to do so is the height of illogic. For example, Christianity claims the Jesus was Divine. Islam claims he was not. If Christianity is true, then Islam must be false.
Besides, bigotry is a meaningless bogey word. Where did I sign on that dotted line that I was going to bow to the Politically Correct thought police? Where did I sign on the dotted line that I accept liberal Enlightenment egalitarian assumptions? I didn't. That is why I am posting on a conservative site. I just said above that the Constitution should have been specific that this is a Christian nation and that it should have limited office holding and the franchise to Christians. Does that offends your liberal sensibilities?
To answer your question regarding what should be taught, THERE SHOULD BE NO PUBLIC (government) SCHOOLS. Public schooling is rank socialism, and a tool for indoctrinating the masses, as it is being use to brainwash evolution. If education was private then the parents could choose what kind of school to send their kids to and what they would be taught.
Comment by Red Phillips | May 26, 2006
Alex,
Why do you think it is reasonable to allow the government to decide "this is religion, and this is not."
Doesn't science itself have certain articles of faith. Even math does, in the shape of the Axioms. There is no "proof" that we have the most succinct, best-put axioms that can be used as the basis of the best system. It has worked well so far, I admit :)
If the goverment decides tomorrow that Math is a religion, does that mean it can't be taught in schools, simply because someone explained to a Legislator that it takes a leap of faith to do any math?
Alex, don't let the government decide what is, or is not, a religion or a "protected" religious practice.
The American Revolutionaries certainly never did.
This allows the nitwits in Dover and Alabama and wherever to teach silly shit to their kids. Science needs to make its case accurately and with care to show that ID is a crock of shit.
Comment by JS Narins | May 26, 2006
First off, the founding fathers were not Christians- most were Deists or Unitarians. They believed in the existance of a God, but not much more than that.
http://www.google.com/search?q=founding+fathers+quotes+deism
And to get back on topic, we live in an era where our children are woefully unprepared to live in the 21st century. They have an appalling grasp of math and science- some of the lowest scores in the industrialized world. As a result Europe and Asia will continue to advance, while America becomes a nation of factory workers and service industries.
The issue of Evolution vs Creationism is a perfect example- because the average american adult does not grasp what the scientific process is, they easily accept religious doctrine as equivalent to a scientific conclusion.
It becomes a spreading disease, where ignorance begets ignorance, one generation after another, to the detriment of this nation as a whole.
Comment by MagentaStudios | May 29, 2006
To Magenta Studios,
In response to your posting of the 29th, specifically and I quote " … the founding fathers were not
Christians most were Deist or Unitarians." Your willingness to substitue a Google search
for actual research has mislead you into a path you seem anxious to follow. I have attached a few
quotes from the writings of the Founding Fathers, many of whom were signers of the Declaration
of Independence for your review. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it is, I believe compelling.
The majority of the documents I will cite are quotes takenn from the Last Will and Testaments of
the gentlemen quoted. These were private documents in which the authors expressed their most
deeply held personal beliefs, not merely those supportive of a particular political issue. Here in these
documents they speak of those things they cherished most. I have closed with a quote from one of
the Historical Revisionist most admired Founders Benjamin Franklin. This quote comes not from
Dr. Franklin's will, but from the historical record or the Contenintal Congress. There is little need
for me to speak more as the writers are clearly capable of speaking for themselves.
Those who love our liberty should examine closely the cost by which it was attained or else the
purchase was in vain.
Ed
Samuel Adams
Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I … recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit
to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.
Will of Samuel Adams
Charles Carroll
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done
in obedience to His precepts.
From an autographed letter in our possession written by Charles Carroll to Charles W. Wharton, Esq., on September 27, 1825, from Doughoragen, Maryland.
John Langdon
Signer of the Constitution
In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is
appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will
and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: Icommend my soul to the infinite mercies
of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the
Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine
of a resurrection to eternal life . . .
Will of John Langdon
Robert Treat Paine
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I desire to bless and praise the name of God most high for appointing me my birth in a land of
Gospel Light where the glorious tidings of a Savior and of pardon and salvation through Him have
been continually sounding in mine ears.
Robert Treat Paine, The Papers of Robert Treat Paine, Stephen Riley and Edward Hanson, editors (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1992), Vol. I, p. 48, March/April, 1749.
John Witherspoon
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other [Acts 4:12]. . . . [I]f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish.
John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, pp. 276, 278, The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ, January 2, 1758.
William Cushing
First Associate Justice Appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court.
Sensible of my mortality, but being of sound mind, after recommending my soul to Almighty God
through the merits of my Redeemer and my body to the earth …
Will of William Cushing
Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!
Benjamin Rush, The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, George Corner, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press for the American Philosophical Society, 1948), p. 166, Travels Through Life, An Account of Sundry Incidents & Events in the Life of Benjamin Rush.
Quote by Benjamin Rush Signer of the Declaration of Independence
The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there
can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all
republican governments.
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)
John Dickinson
Signer of the Constitution
Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a
country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him
I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the
events of eternity.
Will of John Dickinson
Patrick Henry
Governor of Virginia, Patriot
This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one
which will make them rich indeed.
Will of Patrick Henry
Roger Sherman
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the Constitution
I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from
God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and
thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved
who are willing to accept the Gospel offer.
Lewis Henry Boutell, The Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Company, 1896), pp. 272-273.
John Hancock
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I John Hancock, . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory-thanks be
given to God-therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all
men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make and ordain this my last will and testament…Principally
and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I
recommend to the earth . . . nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the
same again by the mercy and power of God . . .
Will of John Hancock
Richard Stockton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I think it proper here not only to subscribe to the entire belief of the great and leading doctrines of
the Christian religion, such as the Being of God, the universal defection and depravity of human
nature, the divinity of the person and the completeness of the redemption purchased by the blessed
Savior, the necessity of the operations of the Divine Spirit, of Divine Faith, accompanied with an
habitual virtuous life, and the universality of the divine Providence, but also . . . that the fear of God
is the beginning of wisdom; that the way of life held up in the Christian system is calculated for the
most complete happiness that can be enjoyed in this mortal state; that all occasions of vice and
immorality is injurious either immediately or consequentially, even in this life; that as Almighty
God hath not been pleased in the Holy Scriptures to prescribe any precise mode in which He is to
be publicly worshipped, all contention about it generally arises from want of knowledge or want of
virtue.
Will of Richard Stockton
John Jay
First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court
Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His
manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved
son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy
children. His protection has accompanied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in
the service of my country; His providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation but
also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name!
Will of John Jay
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.
James McHenry
Signer of the Constitution
[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.
William Penn
Founder of Pennsylvania
[I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's.
(Source: Fundamental Constitutions of Pennsylvania, 1682. Written by William Penn, founder of the colony of Pennsylvania.)
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.
(Source: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Cmmonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).)
(Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787. )
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.
IN CONGRESS
November 1, 1777
FORASMUCH as it is the indispensable Duty of all Men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with Gratitude their Obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther Blessings as they stand in Need of; And it having pleased him in his abundant Mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable Bounties of his common Providence, but also to smile upon us in the Prosecution of a just and necessary War, for the Defence and Establishment of our unalienable Rights and Liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a Measure to prosper the Means used for the Support of our Troops and to crown our Arms with most signal success:
[This proclamation can be found in: Journals of the American Congress From 1774 to 1788 (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. II, pp. 309-310]
Comment by Edward | May 30, 2006
I posted a Google search result because there was SO MUCH evidence supporting my position that otherwise I would simply be duplicating that long list of links here. And BTW- I have done my reasearch, and if you had done as much reasearch as I have, including simply reading the links on that Google page, you would know that I can match you quote for quote.
As for your list of Quotes, did you actualy read them before posting them? Try this- remove all quotes that simply profess a belief in God, but not Christ or Christianity. As I said, they DID believe in God. Next, remove any quote that is simply complimentary to Christianity, but does not profess a belief IN Christianity. You will find you now have a short list, eliminating, as I said, MOST of the founding fathers.
Comment by MagentaStudios | May 31, 2006
Dear Magenta,
I must confess a certain level of disappointment with your response. Your depth of emotional attachment to your opinions is obvious, however at this point your emotion exceeds those elements which you have thus far submitted in support of those opinions.
I very much look forward to reviewing those supporting elements in your next submission. During the course of what I hope will be an engaging exchange, please remember the act of disagreeing with a person’s stance on a particular issue is not a personal attack upon the person himself. Your previous posting indicates a certain level of incredulity in regard to anyone having the audacity to disagree with you. Do not mistake a disagreement with your opinions as an attack upon you as a person. While we may vehemently disagree on an issue you need not expend your emotional energies on what is to be a purely intellectual exercise.
Now, to the points you raised in your latest posting. Since, as you say there is “SO MUCH” evidence supporting your opinions please be good enough to submit it for review and critique. Web addresses and links are not the same as evidence. Please provide the quote you wish to submit with a citation to the original document where possible. Your assertions as to your level of research are not a proper substitute for evidence. Please feel free to match me “quote for quote.”
As to your question regarding my reading of the quotes I submitted the answer is yes. I have read these quotes and at least copies of the documents from which they were taken. Now, before demanding I produce additional support for my opinions feel free to produce a rebuttal in the form of quotes where the Founding Father’s claimed to be Deist or Unitarians. Please provide, as you stated, not “just any quote that is simply complimentary to” Deist or Unitarians, “but does not profess a belief IN” Deism or Unitarianism. I anxiously await the opportunity to review the list of the Founding Fathers which will remain on your list.
Sincerely,
Ed
Comment by Edward | June 1, 2006
Dear JS Narins,
Your earlier statement that ID is a farce and a pseudo-science when compared to evolution is most interesting, especially in light of the fact that both systems are based on a belief in what was not witnessed and which can not be duplicated.
ID is based in a belief in God. We can not see God, or prove His existence scientifically. Christians accept the existence of God on faith, in this you are correct. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” This is faith and we readily admit we can not prove the existence of God empirically, nor can His act of creation be replicated in a controlled experiment.
However, it is my contention that if we use faith as the basis then both ID and evolution are religions. If both are religions based on faith should not both be treated equally under the Constitution? I have endeavored to substantiate my opinion below. I welcome your comments and critique.
What I find most confusing in those who espouse the theory of evolution is their denial of the faith required to believe in their theory. The theory of evolution currently in vogue on the origin of the universe is the so-called “Big Bang” theory, according to which the cosmos suddenly came into existence, sometime between 8 and 20 billion years ago by a primordial explosion of an infinitesimal particle of “space/time,” which then evolved into everything else. However, many evolutionary astronomers and cosmologist are now raising doubts about this theory, which is a foundational dogma for the religion of evolution. This process was not observed and it can not be duplicated, but must be accepted on faith. “In the beginning the Big Bang.” But, I will not ask you to place your faith in my statement concerning the questions being raised on this subject; I will simply quote those concerned for your consideration and comment.
Let us begin with an article by Dr. Geoffrey Burbidge which you may find in the Scientific American (February 1992) page 120.
“Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.” Burbidge continues by saying “This situation is particularly worrisome because there are good reasons to think the big bang model is seriously flawed.”
The following quote is taken from an article titled “Is Quantum Cosmology Science?” written by Richard Crowe, Chairman of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii. The article appeared in the March/April 1995 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer (pp. 53-54)
“Let me start by saying that many people believe that everything in nature has to have a causal explanation. Although this may be true at the macroscopic level, it is not necessarily the case at the microscopic level, as quantum physics has demonstrated. Transitions, decays, and nuclear reactions do sometimes occur spontaneously without apparent cause. Similarly the universe itself does not require a cause.”
Is not Crowe’s statement a call to faith for the orthodox evolutionist? How is this different than “In the beginning God…?”
The following quote from an article by Sir Fredrick Hoyle entitled “The Big Bang under Attack,” appeared in Science Digest, vol. 92 (May 1984), p. 84.
“Was there ever really a big bang? Even as greater numbers of people have come to believe that the universe began with one great eruption, others have seen a persistent weakness in the theory—a weakness that is becoming harder to overlook.” “As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the big bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome….
“I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers.”
If we look at the statements by Dr.’s Burbidge, Crowe, and Hoyle are they not telling us that the “orthodox big bangers” adhere to a dogma that is based in faith? How does this type of faith differ from that of a religion?
Unfair you say. Your area is biology you say, and there you take shelter in the “science of evolution.” Since I am not a biologist I will most heartily defer to the experts in the field, and yet even here I can not escape the elements of faith present. Evolutionist have come up with various proposals as to how life may have evolved from non-living chemicals. However, this in not happening now, and they have been utterly unable to synthesize life in the laboratory, so all ideas are outside the scope of science. In this area as well, everything is speculation, and evolutionist are forced to assume that some imaginary primitive replicating molecule evolved by some unknown process in an imaginary primeval soup under electrical phenomena in a non-existent ancient atmosphere.
I seem to remember the Second Law of Thermodynamics speaking conclusively to this issue. However, during my own undergraduate work the Priest of Evolution constantly preached that biological systems were the only exception to this Law. I have never yet seen the experiment supporting this position, but once again as a religious dogma it is to be accepted on faith. The circular reasoning present in this argument would have us believe that since evolution is a fact, then biological systems must be the exception to this law of physics, and since biological systems are an exception to this law of physics then evolution must be true.
Again allow the experts in the field of biology to speak for themselves on matters where they are imminently more qualified than I am to address the issue at hand. I will begin with an article from the July 10, 1980 issue page 112 of the New Scientist.
“Although biologist concerned with the origin of life often quote an early atmosphere consisting of reduced gases, this stems as much from ignorance of recent advances as from active opposition to them. This important conclusion is reached by Ann Henderson-Sellers, of Liverpool University, and A. Benlow and Jack Meadows of Leicester University, after a study of how the composition of the atmosphere of he Earth and other planets may have influenced surface temperatures since the planets formed. The more we have learnt about Venus and Mats the harder it is to explain how all there planets—two of them apparently lifeless—could have converted primeval reducing atmospheres into the oxidized atmospheres seen today.” They go on to state, also on page 112 “The time has come, it seems, to accept as the new orthodoxy the idea of early oxidized atmospheres on all three terrestrial planets, and the biological primers which tell of life on Earth starting out from a methane/ammonia atmosphere energized by electrical storms and solar ultraviolet need to be rewritten.”
I have added the bold highlights to this quote, the highlights did not appear in the original article.
At the risk of being accused of “piling on” I will leave you with one more quote from another imminent biochemist. The following quote was taken from an article written by Dr. Klaus Dose, Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University, Germany. The article was entitled “The Origin of Life; More Questions than Answers,” The article appeared in the Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. Vol. 13, no. 4 (1988) pp 348-356. The quote is drawn from page 348.
“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”
Dose continues with the following statement. “Considerable disagreements between scientist have arisen about detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principal evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have not been proven by experimentation and that the environmental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides (nucleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure-function relationship in modern cells came into existence.”
You may wish to contact Dr. Dose and reprimand him, since it seems to be your opinion as expressed earlier that as a biochemist he is not qualified to address this issue and it should be left to qualified biologist. However, I believe you will find him unwilling to concede the point.
We are left with the fact that evolution was not observed and can not be duplicated. Many of the points upon which it rest must therefore be taken purely on faith in the theory. Please indulge me as you would a child as I am one of the “nitwits from Alabama” you spoke of in your earlier message, but if I may quote you “Science needs to make its case accurately and with care to show ID is a crock of (expletive deleted).”
With as much accuracy and care as possible, and please for the “nitwits” among us, use small words to explain the difference between the faith of those who believe in God, and the faith of those who adhere to orthodox evolution. In light of the quotes above from imminent scientist in various fields, none of whom are Christians as far as I have been able to determine can you accurately and honestly state your belief in evolution is other than faith in a religion?
I await your response with great anticipation.
Warmest Regards,
Ed
Comment by Edward | June 1, 2006
Ed, you are incorrect- Evolution is NOT a system based on belief.
Evolution HAS been witnessed, and is duplicated every day.
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution — genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. — is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
And BTW- the thing below is called a link.
If you click it, you will find lots of text.
That text will answer all of your questions so you will finaly understand exactly what evolution is.
Do I need to cut and paste it here for you to be able to read it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Comment by MagentaStudios | June 3, 2006
Ed, I am disappointed in your response as well. It seems that in your mind, proof only exists if it is right here, on this page, in this one and only website. A rational person, with basic internet skills, would be able to click a link and read on their own rather than wasting my time- and the time of all the other people here- by having me cut and paste information on this page that is only of interest to one person- you.
In case you had not noticed, this thread is about Evolution vs Intelligent Design.
And BTW- any emotion you detect in my tone is not due to the topic, it's over your arrogance and condensending attitude.
And since you can only read this one web site and not any other ones, here are a few of those quotes, from those pages that you can't bring yourself to click on your own:
Thomas Paine:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of…Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)
James Madison:
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.
and
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.
Ethan Allen:
That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words.
In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally
denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.
When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God. Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those written in the great book of nature.
From:
Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)
To be continued in next post…
Comment by MagentaStudios | June 3, 2006
I have repeatedly tried to post the Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin quotes, but they do not show up.
You will have to click a link- yes, that's right, a link:
http://www.magentastudios.com/cp/quotes.txt
Comment by MagentaStudios | June 3, 2006
So, in conclusion:
Thomas Paine clearly states he is not only not Christian, but not a member of any religion.
James Madison is at *the minimum* anti-organized religion, but more likely anti-Christian.
Ethan Allen clearly states he is a Christian, and accepts the label of Deist.
Thomas Jefferson's statements against Christianity are so harsh he is practically an Atheist- but he was more likely a Deist.
Benjamin Franklin clearly states he is a Deist.
And to everyone else reading this, I am sorry that Ed's arrogance and lack of ability to use the web has caused this thread to be hijacked.
Comment by MagentaStudios | June 3, 2006
As a Christian, I myself am opposed to the teaching of this thing called
"Intelligent Design." ID in its purest form is certainly worth a look, but
the ID put forth by religious activists is nothing less than sleeping with the
enemy, a half-hearted accession to the Neo-Darwinist: I will accept the
probability of evolution as a mechanism of Creation if you will accept the
possibility of a God as the initiator of evolution. This flawed approach
assumes that the basis of the debate is scientific, when in fact it is not.
Neo-darwinist evolutionary "theory" is a hodgepodge of fraud, lies, and
misrepresentation. Everything that the evolutionist has put forth as
evidence is false–from Ernst Haeckel's fanciful drawings of "embryonic
recapitulation" to the manufacture of evidence for the Java man,
Piltdown man, and Nebraska man. When you come right down to it,
modern evolutionary theory is nothing so much as a confluence of
coincidences so wildly improbable that the only way they could come
about would be through divine intervention.
The real fight here is not scientific in nature as the Neo-Darwinists
disingenuously claim; it is clearly religious . Evolution has no factual
support, and requires a great deal more blind faith than any
other doctrine of established religion. Those of us who have a more
enlightened view have no business giving ground to those benighted
souls who hold hysterically to this superstitious, pseudo-scientific,
shamanistic evolutionary model that goes by the misnomer of a
"scientific" theory.
Comment by Lane Russell | June 7, 2006
MagentaStudios,
Once again I must confess to disappointment in your response. Your arguments as stated are (1) that I seem to believe proof exists only here on this page (2) I am not a rational person (3) I lack basic internet skills (4) I am wasting your time and that of the other readers (5) This site is about Evolution vs Intelligent Design not American History or to be precise the views of religion held by the founding fathers, and I have somehow “hijacked the page.” (6) I am arrogant and condescending.
I will attempt to address these points as concisely as possible.
(1) Magenta, really now, this is a most specious argument of all. I have asked you to provide proof of the points you assert, not as you wrongly infer to my belief in the view that proof only exist on this page, but out of common courtesy to all this page’s readers. When you come here and state your opinion and allude to proof of that opinion is it to much to ask that you have the decency and respect for other readers and their time to provide a quote and citation to the original document where possible. Then readers will make their own choice as to whether the point you bring is sufficiently compelling to lead them to further investigation.
(2) As to my being a rational person I will wager you could find some among my acquaintances who would agree with you. But, in this instance it appears to me that having exhausted your argument you have simply retreated to personal attack and insult. Since, you do not know me I see no other reasonable explanation. Therefore, using your argument then are we to conclude you are not a rational person if you draw unreasonable conclusions about others simply because the hold a differing point of view.
(3) This is my personal favorite. Do you not find it the least bit amusing to look back to your own recent postings, and find you have attempted to impugn me for my “lack of ability to use the web” on the same page where you confessed to your own failure to “cut and paste” the quote you sought to post. You must admit this substantially weakens your assertion that you are qualified to be the judge of the abilities of others to use technology.
(4)(5) I have chosen to combine my response to your arguments on these two points. I will address point five first. This article is about Evolution vs Intelligent Design on that you are correct. The point you are trying to make seems to be lost on you however. A review of your earlier postings will attest to this fact. You Magenta, and I quote, said “First off, the founding fathers were not Christians- most were Deists or Unitarians. They believed in the existance of a God, but not much more than that.” This quote is yours, including I might add the spelling error. For you see, I was able to master the “cut and paste” process and add your quote as it appears above. Your argument then is not really that the page was “hijacked,” is it? Your concern is actually that you were called upon to provide proof for the assertion you made. Now, having provided a very weak response you seek to divert attention away from the fact by your phony apology to the readers and your provably false claim that I hijacked this page. I will add a note to the readers myself at this point. If any of you feel I am wasting your time in regard to my responses to Magenta please accept my sincere apology.
(6) You allege that I am arrogant and condescending. As in the allusion to my state of rationality this one is very subjective. I am sure you would no doubt be able to find among my colleagues some who would support your position.
However, I believe the old adage concerning “People who live in glass houses …” applies here. Your own level of arrogance and condescension as it relates to the expression of your opinions is made patently clear on this page. Magenta, examples of your own arrogance are evident on this page. Allow me to direct your attention to the following points, which support my allegation. If you state an opinion as a fact without evidence to support it and then expect others to accept it on the basis of your assertion alone is that not the height of arrogance? If you resort to personal attacks upon those who question your assertion is that not arrogance? If you ascribe ignorance to someone for the heinous crime of daring to disagree with you, or to seek the foundational proofs upon which your beliefs are based is that not arrogance and condescension? If you purport to apologize on behalf of someone else and lay the results of your own actions at their feet does it not reek of arrogance and condescension?
Your factual response was clearly less than you claimed in your earlier postings where you alluded to “SO MUCH” evidence to support your opinion, or to your ability to match me quote for quote. These five men were atheist or claimed to be deist. However, even in the writing of Franklin I refer you once again to this quote. (Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787. )
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.
Dr. Franklin clearly expresses here his firm belief that the God of the Bible, which Franklin quotes here, is active in the world and the affairs of men. Franklin express that view in his statement of firm belief that “if a sparrow can not fall to the ground without God’s notice then …” His boundless curiosity certainly did cause him to seek and question among the various Christian denominations, but his stated views appear to be much closer to those of Christians than to the ACLU.
I look forward in my next posting to addressing your most recent assertions on biology.
Ed
Comment by Edward | June 7, 2006
Dear Lane,
Please allow me to applaude you for your posting on Evolutionary Theory and Creation.
Ed
Comment by Edward | June 7, 2006
Ed,
Thank you for your kind comment.
Comment by Lane Russell | June 7, 2006
I will be brief- Using your own bullet points:
1.) You stated: "Your willingness to substitue a Google search for actual research has mislead you into a path you seem anxious to follow." This shows you don't think finding information on Google is reasearch, nor did you bother to click the link and READ those results. That shows the only information you consider valid in a discussion is text on this page, not on other pages. If you had no problem with links, you would be able to click them instead of complaining about them.
2.) What I said was that "A rational person, with basic internet skills, would be able to click a link and read on their own". I did not say that you were irrational- unless you are saying you are unable to click a link and read on your own. Can you click a link and read on your own?
3.) Ditto #2. And as for my skills, take a look at the root website the link was placed on- developed with ASP, JavaScript, and XML. The problem did not lie with my ability to cut and paste, but with a bug on this site that night. As for your skills, again- can you click links?
4.) and 5.) Do you know the diference between a THREAD and a SITE? I never said this SITE is about Evolution vs ID. this THREAD IS. When you change the topic of a thread, this is called "hijacking". And as for me not providing proof for the assertion I made- I did- in the link. Can you click links?
6.) Now this one is clear. Come on man, just LOOK at the way you write. Look at your tone. Have a little introspection.
Again, I never stated an opinion as fact- I had proof, in the link you could not click. Without clicking links, you will find it very hard to use the web. Yes, I can match you quote for quote, but again, why bother? those quotes are there, on OTHER PAGES, that you can get to by LINKS.
Your refusal to click links to get at information tells me that you are unwilling to learn information that goes against your own biases.
And now, back to the actual topic of this THREAD:
As far as "assertions about biology", that's what's called KNOWLEDGE about biology.
again, click the link.
Try learning about the subject first.
Comment by MagentaStudios | June 12, 2006
Well, as an atheist liberal democrat, I must say that teaching of ID must be allowed, otherwise it gives the power to the government to declare that _anything_ might be religion (the teaching of math, for example) and thereby banned from schools.
The Scientific community is both capable and responsible for showing how stupid ID is. At one level, they don't treat it seriously, especially as no actual theory exists. At another level, they probably are relying on the government to suppress it for them. And at a third, some of them are showing it for the fraud it is
Comment by JS Narins | June 14, 2006
Magenta,
In regards to your reply to the points in my earlier posting; the first concerned a respect for you readers. That point is included below for your review. You also attempted to ascribe to me the view that only information contained on this page is valid. Anyone reading my previous posting will immediately notice most contain quotes and citations from a number of highly respected sources. Therefore, this point is totally baseless and without merit. Your own postings, while replete with your opinions are woefully short on evidence to support the same.
As to your assertion that I am incapable of following the links you mentioned, I see no point in addressing what is obviously nothing more than a personal attack. Since, once again the only evidence you supply to support your assertion is your own opinion. Additionally, in referring to me you stated "If you had no problem with links, you would be able to click them instead of complaining about them." Please provide the quotation to which you are referring and in which I supposedly expressed my complaints about the links you provided.
Magenta, a Google search can be a useful tool in conducting research, but it is only one of many tools available. Instead of using Google exclusively, perhaps you should consider augmenting your research with other sources. I think you may find it most enlightening.
Your response to the second bullet point failed to address the salient point, which a reading of the previous postings will reveal. You failed in your attempt to support your opinion with any basis in fact and have resorted to personal attack. You stated and I quote "A rational person, with basic internet skills, would be able to click a link and read on their own". You then imply I lack those basic skills by your following statements, “I had proof, in the link you could not click” and "If you had no problem with links, you would be able to click them instead of complaining about them." You either intended the attack, or it is the result of ineptitude, I will leave it for the other readers to decide.
Your reply to point three describes the difficulty you encountered, but once again you make excuses and statements without support. If you failed in your attempt to “cut and paste” is it to much to ask you to find an alternative source for your information, or to wait until the “bug on this site” was resolved and then provide the promised evidence.
As to points 4&5 your response once again completely misses the point. You failed to address the fact that you changed the topic by your as yet unsubstantiated statement that “First off, the founding fathers were not Christians- most were Deists or Unitarians. They believed in the existence of a God, but not much more than that.” Not only did you change the topic, but when asked to support your opinion you failed to do so. You still seek to divert attention away from your failure by blaming your actions on me.
As to your point six: May I remind you of your earlier statement? You were the one, who stated you could match me quote for quote in regards to the beliefs expressed by the Founding Fathers. Then failing to do you once again imply the failing is my fault in not following any link you supply.
Then you accuse me of being condescending and suggest I engage in introspection, and yet fail to see your own transgressions in this area. My quote was:
If you state an opinion as a fact without evidence to support it and then expect others to accept it on the basis of your assertion alone is that not the height of arrogance? If you resort to personal attacks upon those who question your assertion is that not arrogance? If you ascribe ignorance to someone for the heinous crime of daring to disagree with you, or to seek the foundational proofs upon which your beliefs are based is that not arrogance and condescension? If you purport to apologize on behalf of someone else and lay the results of your own actions at their feet does it not reek of arrogance and condescension?
Your refusal to click links to get at information tells me that you are unwilling to learn information that goes against your own biases.
Magenta, perhaps you should consider your own advice on being unwilling to explore the sources of information with which you disagree. Consider your own biases before pointing an accusing finger at those with whom you disagree. I need point you no further than your closing statement. Do you not see your own condescension on display here and yet you attack me for the crime of having the temerity to disagree with you. All of us who believe in either Biblical creation or ID and have been subjected to attempts at indoctrination to your opinion in every high school, undergraduate and post-graduate science course we have ever taken. So, as you see we are not the ones who have failed to consider alternative opinions and statements. Once again your argument is without foundation and rest on the shifting sand of your own biases and opinions.
In closing may I repeat point (1 ) when you come here and state your opinion and allude to proof of that opinion is it to much to ask that you have the decency and respect for your readers and their time to provide a quote and citation to the original document where possible. Then readers will make their own choice as to whether the point you bring is sufficiently compelling to lead them to further investigation.
Regards,
Ed
Comment by Ed | June 20, 2006
The T-rex skeleton at the museum must be at least 5000 years old! Adam and Eve must have been terrified.
Comment by illini69 | July 4, 2006