(no subject)
Oct. 15th, 2005 04:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
badstarWhy must we have intelligent design and/or creationism taught in school biology classes?
Is "science" not generally stuff that can be observed tangibly and measured?
Is creationism and intelligent design not a myth- or at most a hypothesis?
How much does it really matter to the general public how the world originated?
Discuss.
Is "science" not generally stuff that can be observed tangibly and measured?
Is creationism and intelligent design not a myth- or at most a hypothesis?
How much does it really matter to the general public how the world originated?
Discuss.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Multiple Issues
Date: 2005-10-16 03:53 am (UTC)>Is "science" not generally stuff that can be observed tangibly and measured?
Yes, science is based on experimental method: hypothesis, test design, test, evaluation, conclusion.
>Is creationism and intelligent design not a myth- or at most a hypothesis?
Hypothesis is part one of scientific method, Ergo, intelligent design perfectly in play for a science or philosophy class. *What* class is the question... Evolutionary biology is not the answer.
>How much does it really matter to the general public how the world originated?
When you are talking religion, you are asking the wrong question. If you asked how much does it matter in one's daily life how created the universe? The answer is little. However, how religion is discussed in an educational and civic framework does matter, and we're kidding ourselves if we think it doesn't or shouldn't.
And for the 8350th time, there is no such thing as "seaparation of church and state" in the constitution. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". the current line is roughly: you can say God, you can do various things in public purview, but no town can say "this is a Christian town". Religious displays are dependent on context: as part of a historical or general civic issue, religion is fine. If you suddenly have a big statue of Jesus and have a plaque with "Jesus built this town", then it's establishment of religion and unlawful.
Re: Multiple Issues
Date: 2005-10-16 04:37 am (UTC)This sounds like a correct assessment. Which is why I don't understand how folks can cry foul at the attempts to remove "under God" from the pledge, when it was Congress who put the law there.
This intelligent design bit is where my uncle, the USAF general, scares me. He's sharp, way sharper than I, knows very well the principles of science, and at the same time he's got no problem with shoving ID down our throats, because it's a "valid alternative viewpoint." I'm starting to suspect he's more Dominionist than he lets on...
Re: Multiple Issues
Date: 2005-10-16 05:16 am (UTC)Okay, Uncle Diminionist General, valid aternative viewpoint. Great! You have your view I have mine.
My general view of the origin of the world is that it really doesn't matter much to me, and the Divine really isn't that worried that I'm not very concerned about it. It's interesting to consider sometimes. I kinda like the idea that the universe simply always has been...that maybe this is just another incarnation of an ever-existant universe. But that's just an idea to ponder. I'm a lot more concerned with the Now. And the What Is To Be.
Re: Multiple Issues
Date: 2005-10-17 01:16 am (UTC)The difficulty has always been is that the US has a secular government, as it should, in the world's most religious nation. That's correct: 95% of Americans have some concept of a higher power, it could be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, etc. Of all nations who do not have a legally established religion (such as Iran), the US is the most religious. It is especially because we have a freedom of religion. Pagans may feel scorned by the Christian majority (and this is often the case), but I suggest trying paganism in Russia or Iran. Due to this, we've often made religious local laws, whether we admit or not. And they're not always Christian. In Kiryas Joel, NY, local laws are Judaic in nature. Religious groups can exempt themselves from Social Security system - the Mennonites and Amish are the chief examples, because the aged and infirm are cared for by their own. So, whether we want to or not, we have religion in our secular society. People don't leave their religion (or culture or color) at their doorstep, it influences what we say and do. The key is to know when to draw the line between individual choice and societal enforcement of what should be an individual's choice.
The letter you refer to by Jefferson is just that: a letter. In it he refers to the "unbreachable wall between church and state". However, what Jefferson wanted to avoid was the creation of anything resembling the Church of England. Rememeber, he wrote when he was ambassador to France nearing the time of their revolution - a time of immense intellectual creativity before Robespierre turned it into a bloodbath. Earlier, he had written the Declaration of Independence with the same mentality. The argument here is simply very different.
BTW, this issue is great.. keep it up everyone!
Re: Multiple Issues
Date: 2005-10-17 02:54 am (UTC)glad you like it.
Belief in a higher power does not necessarily constitute "religious"
Due to what we often make religious law?
The Amishnare exempt from SS, but I don't remember the Mennonites being also (Minor point of detail)
It's ridiculous to expect people to leave their religion/spirituality/whatever at home. But as you say...The key is to know when to draw the line between individual choice and societal enforcement of what should be an individual's choice.
YES! Excatly.
Re: Multiple Issues
Date: 2005-10-18 01:25 am (UTC)In the matter of public policy, that's a distinction without a difference.
>The Amishnare exempt from SS, but I don't remember the Mennonites being also (Minor point of detail)
The Mennonites, except those employed by non-Mennonite employers, are exempt:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0301802270
(I lived near a very large Mennonite community for a while in northern NY)
The Amish and Mennonites do pay all other taxes - along with a number of Old Order churches. They cannot receive social security, unemployment or similar payroll-based tax-funded programs.
-- Rich
Re: Multiple Issues
Date: 2005-10-18 04:22 pm (UTC)Yeah, I knew this. I'm from Lancaster, remember? heheh
It makes sense about the Mennonites too...I'm kinda surprised that I didn't know this really. PA has the highest concentration of Mennonites in the country, according to several sources that I've read (But not trhe highest concentration of Amish...that's either Nebraska or Ohio, I don't remember which)
Re: Multiple Issues
Date: 2005-10-16 05:08 am (UTC)much as it would be nice if there was, I never used the phrase.
All that aside, yeah I pretty much agree.
Re: Multiple Issues
Date: 2005-10-16 05:19 am (UTC)actualy, kari never mentioned the constitution either, but in a way it doesn't matter where else it might be mentioned (the actual reference being a letter from jefferson to someone whose name i can't remember, no?)