jack syme wrote:
> I think that Pim is making a mistake if he thinks that the judges'
> decision in this case is "neutral".
Of course the decision is not neutral. Any time a judge rules he is not
neutral.
>
> Lets not lose sight of the big picture. It is too often assumed that
> those proposing ID in school, are doing so out of a misconception that
> teaching evolution will inevitably lead to atheism. But there is
> also no doubt that in general, educators, the judiciary, and the media
> has an anti-religious, and specifically anti-Christian bias. It is
> this bias that ID proponents are fighting against.
Then why are ID proponents not fighting against these issues directly
rather than my imposing a scientifically vacuous concept to counter
their feelings that there is an anti-Christian bias. A bias which is
hardly self evident.
> This decision, which was probably too broadly written, could make it
> easier for those opposed to Christianity to make public school
> curricula too restricted by making any teaching that even hints at
> anything religious, unconstitutional.
How did you reach this conclusion? This certainly does not follow from
the Judge's ruling.
>
> Let's not forget, this anti-Christian bias is NOT because of the
> behavior of the ID proponents. This anti-Christian bias is because of
> the prideful, sinful mind of men that fail to see the truth of the Gospel.
>
Right... And ID proponents are not guided by a prideful mind here? Come
on, these arguments of anti-Christian bias and the ID proponents somehow
being without much fault fails to impress me.
In the Dover case, the motivations of the ID proponents was clearly
exposed namely to circumvent a legal ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard and
introduce an inherently religious concept (and scientifically vacuous as
well) into the school curriculum. That the ID proponents were guided by
a misplaced belief that they were acting to counteract
materialsm/naturalism should not be seen as a valid excuse, merely as an
explanation as to why ID fails to meet constitutional guidelines.
In other words, I am not arguing that the judge's decision is neutral,
judges seldomly are neutral by virtue of having to decide one way or the
other. What I am arguing is that the Judge's ruling is well supported by
argument, evidence and fact and is by virtue of its thorougness, quite
impressive.
Received on Mon Jan 2 12:58:00 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 02 2006 - 12:58:00 EST