Sooooo…….how about those Astros? Oh crap. Nevermind. Intelligent design is the talk of the blogoalgoremorsphere, and it’s been talked six-feet under by a variety of bloggers, so I won’t discuss it at length. In the pending case of Kitzmiller v. Dover, the statutory authority that shall control (obviously) is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Thus, Congress is prohibited from using their power of the purse to further these interest groups. I would like to know if these evangelistic zealots have thoroughly considered the consequences of proving their agenda? If successful, this is only the beginning of a slippery slope towards more dogmatic theories concerning not only science, but also all varieties of history, human anatomy, and sex education classes. Hell, oh wait, I should stop profanity at least in this sort of posting.
Obviously, the First Amendment of our great U.S. Constitution shall prevail. Let’s consider the alternative though – if Intelligent Design was taught in the classrooms of public schools, the proponent’s agenda would allegedly benefit greatly. As such, since the tax revenues funding public schools would be used to promote their religious agenda, then churches and other religious organizations would no longer be able to enjoy their present and enduring tax-exempt status. How do you think they’d like them apples?
One-Finger Salute: Politiburo Diktat
6 comments
Call me ignorant, many people do, the case primarily deals with a disclaimer before the hypothesis of evolution is discussed? I certainly understand that this is the way for the religious fanatics to get their foot in the door, but shouldn’t alternative methods at least be presented??
Less than a week till Extraordinary Machine, boy Fiona sure looks hot in Rolling Stone…
Come now Fanboy…it’s all myth and legend anyway. The evolution concept is just a theory too, since no one can actually go back in time and prove such a thing, but it’s at least almost universally accepted throughout the scientific community.
And no, you’re not ignorant. Just misguided.
Fiona looks hot all the time, BTW.
since they’re both theories, shouldn’t either both be discussed or neither one at all??
You can misguide me anytime, Ms. Sadie…
Fanboy: You’re confusing “scientific theory” with “philosophical argument.” They are not both to be taught in a science classroom. Saying “things with design imply a designer” is nothing more than a tautology that cannot be tested, save for the astronomical discovery of said creator.
Anyone care for a comment from a libertarian Christian? I didn’t think so, but here I go anyhow. 1. To a rational person who is open-minded there is no incompatability between Genesis and the theory of Evolution. 2. The problem is people who want to take the Bible 100% literal. 3. It is a combination of history, metaphor, fable, lessons, poems, songs, and myths which comprise the greater parts of the Occidental wisdom tradition as it endeavors to make sense of the condition of humanity. 4.Since its geneology is deeply flawed (how do you trace Jesus through his “father” Joseph if Joseph wasn’t actually his father, plus two gospels state two very different genological tables for him) it can be assumed there may be other flaws. 5. The flaws are only important to people who want to take the Bible 100% literal – which can’t be done because of the flaws – so what does that tell you about the “intelligent design” mumbo-jumbo? Look – I am a Christian who believes in all the standard Christian modality. But the 1st Amendment not only protects the people from state religion – it also protects religion from the state. And I thank God for both aspects. Teach scientific theory in the public schools because that what they’re for, not to promulgate religious dogma. Now good night and God bless!
Amen, Pops.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://agentbedhead.com/index.php/archive/intelligent-design/trackback/