Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

It also says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

If the state and church were not separate state laws could be church laws.

 

So, how does having a 10 Commandments monument on public property become "establishment of religion?" How do we get from acknowledging a document to it being promoting a religion? How is it that Islam or Buddha can be mentioned but when the name Jesus is mentioned everybody freaks out?

 

Its a religious document. Allowing it in a government building would mean "respecting an establishment of religion".

I would freak out equally for any religious non-sense promoted with my tax dollars.

 

What about monuments that were donated? I still don't see how allowing it on public property means, "We are promoting this. You must follow this."

 

They would still be occupying space.

Let's put it this way. If the ten commandments are allowed to be displayed in public property; what prevents any other religious document, from any other religion, to be displayed next to it?

May I be the first one to suggest the gospel of the spaghetti monster?

 

I don't know where you're getting that from. Besides, you don't see Buddhists and Muslims actively trying to inject their religious beliefs on American schools - at least not on the scale that you see Christians doing it.

As for you're previous posting...

When I mention the concept of separation between church and state, I do so regardless of how the establishment clause is interpreted. I'm trying to convey the importance of keeping religious motives away from how government and, in this case, public schools operate. It is difficult to do this when religious leaders hold so much sway over government and when people use personally religious beliefs to attempt to make public policy like we saw in Kansas.

Interestingly, the concept of separation should go both ways. The current administration has set up a government agency to give money to religious institutions. This is extremely bad because when government gives some institution money, there are always stipulations as to how it can be used and how the institution must operate. You never want a government telling a religious institution how it should run itself.

 

You should look at this display of the FSM and other monuments on a courthouse lawn then:

Of course, as soon as it made news, politicians put a stop to it:
WBIR.COM - Commissioners shoot down flying spaghetti monster, all monuments

 

Think of it as a sign of respect for the faiths not represented. Part of the problem in officially recognising any one religion, no matter which one, is that it excludes all others and appears to show a preference. For some, this may be the whole idea, but it's simply not appropriate in a multi-faith society.

 

Interesting. I hadn't really seen that distinction before. So if you treat ID as 'guided evolution', I have no problem with that as a belief. But it still has a religious aspect (the "intelligent cause" is essentially a code word for God's actions). That can be speculated on and debated by philosophers, but can't be proven or disproven by science, so that aspect should not be taught in schools. ID by this definition is a modification of a scientific theory, but that modification does not have testable predictions (at least in our lifetime!), so it fails the scientific method.

I think most ID activists however come from the creationist camp and reject evolution altogether (I've met some who didn't even know who Darwin was, just that evolution is 'anti-Christian').

 

Science may not be able to prove or disprove ID. However this is irrelevant since evolution renders it an unnecessary explanation. That is precisely what Darwin set out to do as a response to ID of his age.

 

It doesn't.

It doesn't say that either.

 

If it doesn't, then what's all the fuss about?

 

Huh? Fear of what?

I thought the whole scientific method was about challenging and investigating - you know, like if new evidence shows up that the world isn't really round after all, someone will be out there investigating and coming up with a new hypothesis to explain things.

Is there a new hypothesis being tested about ID? Are there some new peer-reviewed studies out there? Exactly what is being investigated on the part of ID?

And even if you DID by chance prove evolution to be untrue, that would not be proof positive that a god or gods exist, or that they created the universe or designed people. It's entirely possible that evolution is wrong (and certainly some parts of it are, theories get refined and corrected all the time) AND that the intelligent design theory is wrong.

 

Wildkow,

Substitute ID for astrology in your thinking and you'll see the point of view of the biologists.

 

The fuss is because it does.

 

That's because you're not listening. You're not interested in a debate, a friendly exchange of ideas, or in learning anything at all about other points of view. It seems what you enjoy most is to frustrate people to the point of losing their temper, so you can say "Yay! I win" and taunt us with that puerile dancing banana again.

 

I struggle to believe in a magic giant fairy man that no one ever saw but each to his own I guess.
I'm more inclined to believe the stories of the Australian Aboriginal dream time than the first testiment but there you go.

I also believe the sun goes down into the ocean because when I was a small child on summer evening outings to the beach my mum told me it did and I saw it for myself. Mums never make up stories so I know it's true.

 

Me and some peeps from my church group went to see it today. I think it lacked the refinement and sting of documentary/editorials like "Sicko", but it was pretty interesting.

I think it made some solid points and I agree with its contention that dissenters shouldn't be automatically stifled/fired for raising questions about current evolutionary theory (Darwin himself challenged conventional scientific thinking in his day).