Reason Strikes a Blow Against Cretinism

[Petyr Baelish]

"Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said today, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.

Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said.

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/in....ap/index.html

[Aule]

pwn3d.

This sets a good precedent.

[Sinclair]

Scooped. I posted this yesterday in the Science section.

The judge kicks so much ass. "Breathtaking inanity" indeed.

[Petr]

The judge kicks so much ass. "Breathtaking inanity" indeed.
The judge himself is an epitome of closed-minded inanity. Here are some nice comments:

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200512.htm#200512dda

...


Given the nature of the case, a ruling in favor of the board would have been surprising. But Jones went overboard; his ruling is so full of bluster and emotion, it sounds like another bluffing shout before the dying gasp of the materialists wanting to maintain their stranglehold on education and to police student brains against entertaining doubts about the authority of Pope Charlie, a shriek by the wicked witch threatening death to her captives before the water of scientific evidence makes her melt away. Undoubtedly Jones did not want to soil his reputation among the scientific elitists. Now he can continue to party with his liberal friends without them calling him the judge that destroyed science. He may have rescued his reputation for the short term, but in the long term of history, his ruling may well be cited as the epitome of activism, of judicial meddling in science and philosophy.

Already, columnists like Dennis Byrne in the Chicago Tribune are wondering, “what is so scary about intelligent design?” What are the DODOs (Darwin Only! Darwin Only!) so afraid of? If their theory is rock solid, it should stand any scrutiny and critical analysis. Anything that has to be so protected that no one can even be allowed to consider that alternatives exist is going to look silly in due time.

Perhaps some onlookers will feel pity for the losers, wondering what all the fuss was about, and why it generated so much rancor. The fuss will continue, and judges can be overruled. Why? Politics? Religious activism? No: because evidence cannot be suppressed indefinitely. Remember, in Georgia already, Judge Clarence Cooper’s similar ruling against the disclaimer stickers is being viewed by the appeals court as gratuitous and contrary to the evidence (12/16/2005). The NCSE may find Jones’s ruling to be a pyrrhic victory. The important thing is that design in nature is ignoring the decision. It is so ubiquitous at all scales (see next two entries for examples), it cannot be hidden forever by mountains of rhetoric. The glacier grinds on.


Petr

[Sinclair]

The reason that evolution and Creationism/ID shouldn't be put side-to-side, is that students in high schools generally are not equipped to make the "decision", in terms of inclination and learning. Science shouldn't have to rely on the lowest common denominator. Again, it's not a popularity contest. Or at least it shouldn't be.

Petr, can you imagine what it would be like if the same idea, that different ideas about something should be presented together for judgement regardless of the views of specialists, was applied to religion?

Let's say the majority of Christians were given a choice between real, authentic, not-always-pleasant Christianity, and modern commercialised, feel-good, pray-to-God-so-you-can-win-the-lottery Christianity. Now, the former is more correct. But people would choose the latter, I wager.

Science should be determined by the scientists, and theology by the theologians. What the average layman thinks really doesn't matter. If what they thought mattered, they'd probably be a scientist or a theologian.

[Petr]

The reason that evolution and Creationism/ID shouldn't be put side-to-side, is that students in high schools generally are not equipped to make the "decision", in terms of inclination and learning.
I disagree, you are a product of compulsory schooling that makes people mentally dependent on the opinion of the status quo.

I favor Gary North's idea that Christians retreat from schools run by the apostate state and let it sink. We are not interested in reforming the secularist system but destroying it by making it irrelevant.


Petr, can you imagine what it would be like if the same idea, that different ideas about something should be presented together for judgement regardless of the views of specialists, was applied to religion?
I do not have to subscribe to democracy as a general principle; Gary North put it well:

"So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

Gary North, "The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right" in Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), p. 25.

I am, nevertheless, in any case convinced that in a totally fair fight/competition (which is an impossible abstraction) Biblical Christianity would make a short shrift of all its pagan competitors.


Petr

[Sinclair]

But Biblical Christianity would have its ass handed to it by Biblically-Ignorant Christianity, because who has time anymore to read a big ol' book and a bunch of religious criticism or whatnot?

"I disagree, you are a product of compulsory schooling that makes people mentally dependent on the opinion of the status quo." And what the hell does that mean? I never actually learned evolution in school, b/c I avoided Biology 11 like the plague. And how am I dependent on the opinion of the status quo? That's a near-nonsensical phrase, given that my political views, personal tastes, etc are quite non-average.

[Petr]

But Biblical Christianity would have its ass handed to it by Biblically-Ignorant Christianity, because who has time anymore to read a big ol' book and a bunch of religious criticism or whatnot?
In a due time, fundies will inherit the earth. Think on the long time period, like the winners do. We are not democrats, but rather think that quality counts.

Secularists are in rebellion against their Maker and will destroy themselves. Just like when Christians took over once the Roman Empire collapsed and created new nation-states, so will we do again once the current apostate civilization withers away.

Even Kevin MacDonald has observed this phenomenon:

"The ancient world was a very unpredictable place indeed, characterized by natural disasters such as earthquakes, fires, rioting, epidemics, brutal military campaigns against civilians, famines, and widespread poverty. Navigating this world was greatly facilitated by co-religionists ready to lend a helping hand and to establish economic alliances. Wilson has no hesitation in supposing that Christian charity in extending aid to fellow Christians suffering from the plague involved altruism, as indeed it did. But the result was that more Christians survived these disasters than did Pagans: Christianity was adaptive at the group level. The adaptiveness of Christianity also stemmed from its emphasis on several attitudes that were notably lacking in the Roman Empire: encouragement of large families, conjugal fidelity, high-investment parenting, and outlawing of abortion, infanticide, and non-reproductive sexual behavior. The bottom line is that Christian women did indeed out-reproduce Pagan women. "

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-dswrev.html


Fundies are more fit to survive than unbelievers. Even scumbags like Mark Ames have begun to understand this "grim" fact:

"The way secular humanists arrogantly dismissed the rise of the Evangelicals in America was as foolish as the way the cocky white SWAT man from the original Dawn of the Dead stopped taking the zombies seriously, mocking them for their slow movement and stupidity…until one day one of the zombies bites the SWAT guy's calf off, and he's done.

...

Truth is, we secular humanists, nihilists and the like no longer have a real claim to America. We're foreigners in a nation of cross-chuckers. We may live in the best parts—within 10 miles of the ocean coasts and a few enclaves in the interior—but the same could be said for expatriates living in any Third World country. Like expatriates in the Third World, our good lifestyles are purchased at the expense of the credulous natives, who are easy to exploit, a little slow and easily diverted by their crazy superstitions. But in the end we are guests in their country. America is theirs, and we'd better get used to it."

http://www.nypress.com/17/41/news&columns/feature.cfm

Once we can persuade our misguided dispensational brethren to aim their energy to the right direction, then secularists are in real trouble.

In the end, Christians will only have to stop helping secularists to maintain their hopelessly diseased system, just like Lot had to escape from Sodom before God could pour His wrath upon it. God wants us to get away from the firing line, figuratively speaking.


Petr

[Kodos]

You don't understand American christians very well Petr... its more a mystical belief with most of them then a rigid code of laws that governs all of their behaviour.

[Petr]

You don't understand American christians very well Petr... its more a mystical belief with most of them then a rigid code of laws that governs all of their behaviour.
I think on the long-time range, like those Orientals you admire. What you now think is a permanent part of American religiosity can totally change in future.

(And little mystical attitude does not necessarily do any harm.)

The true creators of America were Puritans, don't you forget that. Secularists stole America from them.


Petr

[Sinclair]

Christianity as a cultural thing is fine. I think it's a damn good thing for Europe that Christianity was around. Christianity still has a place, because at the heart, there are good rules to live by. But when it comes to certain things, science wins.

And again, what's the relation between winning and being right?

Not to forget that there might not be so much to win, given that esp. in the US there has actually been an opinion that environmentally-devastating things are OK because the Rapture's coming soon anyway.

[Petr]

And again, what's the relation between winning and being right?
According to Darwinists, there is no difference. The truth is just the opinion of the most powerful. We'd like to remind them about this since they are parasitically exploiting the Christian concept of objective truth and science.


Petr

[Sinclair]

According to Darwinists, there is no difference. The truth is just the opinion of the most powerful. We'd like to remind them about this since they are parasitically exploiting the Christian concept of objective truth and science.


Petr

Umm... Scientists are hardly the "most powerful". Evolutionary biologists don't possess some sort of raygun that turns people into monkeys, which they use to hold authorities hostage. The reason evolution generally is what's taught is because the vast majority of scientists agree with it.

[Kodos]

Sorry ive been away to address something else 1st

"The ancient world was a very unpredictable place indeed, characterized by natural disasters such as earthquakes, fires, rioting, epidemics, brutal military campaigns against civilians, famines, and widespread poverty. Navigating this world was greatly facilitated by co-religionists ready to lend a helping hand and to establish economic alliances. Wilson has no hesitation in supposing that Christian charity in extending aid to fellow Christians suffering from the plague involved altruism, as indeed it did. But the result was that more Christians survived these disasters than did Pagans: Christianity was adaptive at the group level. The adaptiveness of Christianity also stemmed from its emphasis on several attitudes that were notably lacking in the Roman Empire: encouragement of large families, conjugal fidelity, high-investment parenting, and outlawing of abortion, infanticide, and non-reproductive sexual behavior. The bottom line is that Christian women did indeed out-reproduce Pagan women. "

Christianities triumph in the Roman Empire was a political triumph of a counterculture( albeit one that remained entrenched due to the greater zeal of the christians) before Constantine they couldn't have been more then 5% of the Roman population( almost entirely in the East... which makes Constantine who conquered from Roman Britain a curious candidate to have adopted it). The Romans practiced infanticide of physically deformed children, it wasn't common to kill healthy ones... and the empire's population shrank into the christian era( Im not one of those people who blames christianity for the decline and fall of the empire, I do think it had some pernicious effects).

Now as per American christians... its not something I can't really explain. The best and most virtuous christians are like Ned Flanders( I tend to doubt you watch the Simpsons but hes basically a saintly guy who the main character Homer treats like shit...) in person( most Mormons, though you no doubt consider them non christian heretics are like this... of all American Christian sects the Mormons tend to be the most genuinely moral in conduct). They tend to be too "tolerant" to really impose any change on the mostly heathen( and I do insist on this point) around them.

The rest of American christians tend to believe in it for social reasons and spiritual reassurance rather then genuine zeal, and venues of ill repute in Southern Cities are no doubt filled with born again christians( I live in the NE where they are rarer but ive met some skirt chasing hard drinking death metal listening too born again christians). Don't get me started on catholics...

[Kodos]

Oh as per Puritans founding America, I agree that the positive aspects of the Calvinist work ethic were crucial to our development. True puritanism( of the Mass Bay council of saints and Cromwell strain) doesn't tend to last... strict religious ethics maintained without the absence of overwhelming force, as is present in Islam, don't tend to last very long. The youngins tend to rebel( especially when as you maintain the more religious groups have larger families, I think this was less true in proportion prior to birth control but is true in the modern era. As non 1stborns tend to be rebellious for the sake of being rebellious) .

[Petyr Baelish]

According to Darwinists, there is no difference.

Your ignorance of even the most rudimentary tenents of science in general and evolutionary biology in particular is so mind-bogglingly astounding, that I must ask, have you ever taken a single science class in your life? Have you ever read anything about biology outside of the propoganda tracts at (lack of)answersingenesis.com and Discovery Institute?

[Petyr Baelish]

The judge himself is an epitome of closed-minded inanity

The judge happens to be a conservative church-going Christian, but that fact doesn't seem to faze the Cretinists...

Here are some nice comments

What a load of loathsome, hate-ladden vitriol! You people obviosly don't waste time when it comes to character assassination :(.

[Sinclair]

Even evangelical Christianity in the US is pretty ignorant of Christianity.

There's the feel-good, buy-this-holy-water-over-mail-order-and-God-will-let-you-win-the-lottery Christians.

Then there's the nutball "GOD SPOKE TO ME AND HE TOLD ME THAT HE HATES HOMOSEXUALS" Christians. Who make a big deal about how they don't "interpret" the Bible's message, but really they do... The actual message of Christ is mostly ditched in favour of some of the creepier parts of the Old Testament plus Rev.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Sinclair, as a jurist I think I can speak with at least a wee bit of expertise about the interpretation of texts, and in my opinion every reading is interpreting. I don't buy all this po mo crap and I believe many texts have only one possible correct interpretation, but still. In other words: those people do interpret the Bible yes.

[Sinclair]

But they act as though everybody else is just picking and choosing what to believe, whereas THEY are following EVERY SINGLE RULE... Which they generally are not.

[jcs]

I don't buy all this po mo crap and I believe many texts have only one possible correct interpretation
Only dumb postmodernists believe that a text can be interpreted in any way imaginable. Hermeneutics (biblical or philosophical; and exegesis) is about understanding a text in the face of shifting meanings and the ambiguities of language; it is also about grasping a text in it's ambiguity, and not pointing at the words and saying, "This is what was meant, and nothing else!" Every writing of true significance is necessarily multifaceted and ambiguous, intended by the author to be understood 'literally,' metaphorically, and allegorically, with no definitive "This is what was meant!"
The bible is a significant text, isn't it?

(I'm not sure I'm even responding to your comment here. Waxing hermeneutical.)