The Healthcare Information Systems Blog

I agree with Robert. I think the heading to your blog post is apropos in this light; although, not in the way you intended.

I'm confused. Who passed a law forbidding religious ideas in school? And if so, what does that have to do with the current case?
(Never mind...I know you'll come up with something.)

Anyway, I'm responding to Robert and Anthony above.

Science is the study of the processes that make little green apples green. We use the word "why" as a shorthand for that enquiry, i.e. "Why are little green apples green?" means "What are the physical and chemical processes that bring green to little green apples?"

Saying God painted those apples green because He liked the color is not science. A statement like that brings us no new knowledge of the mechanics of green apples.

Further, an insistence on Intelligent Design gives short shrift to God's handiwork. Why shouldn't God use evolution as a tool for developing new creations? And why wouldn't God's technique be worth study in its own right?

Mathematicians and scientists have long experienced working around premises that lack proof or disproof. You can't prove ID, scientists can't disprove it. Accept that a young person can learn science at school and ID at church and can reconcile the two for themselves. (No, no, forget I said that. We can't trust kids to get anything right...)

My understanding of the basic premise of ID is that the universe is too complicated to have arisen by chance. But what if every possible universe is being created, whether simultaneously or consecutively? Would we know? We can only be aware of the universe we're in. If ours is the only populated universe in a countless collection of failures, that's neither chance nor ID. It could as well be a mechanical elimination of options.

If you truly accept ID (rather than just using it as a wedge to introduce an entirely different agenda), then it costs you nothing to let science do its thing. I need our young people to understand *how* the world works. I can accept that you need them to understand *why*. If you let my public schools teach the hows, I'll step back and let your churches provide the whys. That's the fair division of labor that I see as a consequence of the First Amendment.

Chris,

My statement wasn't so much to the statement of I.D. which I don't know enough about to comment, but rather the statement of "separation of church and state" stated by the judge and challenged by Robert.

As to I.D. that perhaps would be a good discussion in another forum. However, I just don't have enough information on both sides to adequately comment.

I can say that Darwinism is often not taught as a theory. And since it cannot be definitely proved it almost becomes a de facto religion. Perhaps a better approach would be to ensure that the theory put forth by Darwin is taught correctly. I think God could have certainly used "evolution". Well except for the idea that we evolved from apes.

While Anthony Trudeau had the courtesy to leave a calling card - and an insult - Robert May was inclined to leave only the latter.

The fact of the matter is that the author of the Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson, did intend for there to be a wall of seperation between church and state. Moreover, of those Founding Fathers to whom the greatest reverance is shown, the overwhelming majority were deists or agnostics. That the word God does not appear in the Constitution, much less reference to a major religious belief system (like Christianity) or a specific denomination (like the Church of England) was no accident.

Insted, many of our most respected and admired Founding Fathers were roundly criticized by their more religious peers as being irreligious.

George Washington was a nominal Anglican who rarely stayed for Communion.

John Adams was a Unitarian, which Trinitarians abhorred as heresy. Thomas Jefferson, denounced as an atheist, was actually a deist who detested organized religion and who produced an expurgated version of the New Testament with the miracles eliminated. Jefferson and James Madison, a nominal Episcopalian, were the architects of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. James Monroe was another Virginia Episcopalian. John Quincy Adams was another Massachusetts Unitarian.

Source: theocracywatch.org/separation_church_state2.htm

Having dealt with Mr. May and Mr. Trudeau's implicit argument that the United States is somehow a "Christian nation" in the modern, partisan sense of the word, let's now examine the particulars of Mr. May's post.

Quote:

"Where in the constitution does it say ANYTHING about separation of church and state? In fact, that phrase is never used. The concept of separation didn't happen until the 1960's (I think--around that time anyway)."

Answer:

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."

Commentary:

If Congress can make no law establishing a religion, then legislation imposing a religious belief system on a public institution is illegal. The issue that Judge Jones addressed was not whether students could hold or voice personal beliefs in opposition to the theory of evolution (which would also be a violation of the First Amendment), merely that the state could not propose a theological counter-argument to a valid scientific theory.

Even assuming that the Christian worldview was accepted as a given by the Founders in the marketplace of ideas, there is absolutely nothing in the historical record to suggest that they would have accepted Christian dogma being foisted on a citizen in exception to his or her conscience or in a manner that would interfer with private worship.

In any case, the Supreme Court held in the 1947 case of Everson v. Board that the Establishment Clause does not only forbid the state from passing laws ''prefer[ing] one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid ALL religions.'' There has been no majority opinion countering this basic finding in the sixty years since.

Source: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#1

Quote:

"All the constitution says is that the government shall establish no law regarding religion."

Commentary:

If this were in fact the case (which it isn't), then Mr. May has already countered his own position. If the Constitution forbade the establishment of laws regarding religion, then religiously proactive legislation passed to counter a non-religious topic (like the kind passed by the previous board members in this case) would be illegal on its face.

I doubt this is what Mr. May meant, but it is what he in fact said. Either way, his argument doesn't hold up to the literal word of the First Amendment, nor to nearly six decades of subsequent Supreme Court rulings on the topic.

Quote:

"If the government is making laws outlawing religious ideas in school, they are in fact violating the 1st amendment."

Religious ideas are not outlawed in school by the teaching of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is based on an observation of change over time, just like geology, hydrology, and history and economics for that matter. It doesn't explicitly deny the existence of a supreme being, a primal force, or any other "Source." It merely seeks to explain the appearance and disappearance of species over time in response to environmental changes and genetic mutation.

Judge Jones' findings in no way, shape, or form deny students the right to pray in class, form prayer or religious study groups with access to school facilities, or even raise the topic of intelligent design in class. It merely prevents the public school system from raising a state-sponsored, state-enforced religious argument against a secular scientific theory.

Sources: mfc.org/contents/article.asp?id=121 (Constitutional protection of religious expression in public schools)

rit.edu/~flwstv/creationism.html (why Creationism cannot be legally advocated by the state).

Quote:

"I wish a few more people would actually READ the documents upon which this country is founded."

Commentary:

I'm not even going to dignify that with a reply.

Sources:

As above.

Quote:

"Both parties have flaunted and ignored the constitution."

Commentary:

That's Constitution (big "C"), thank you very much. And while I agree with you, that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

As for Mr. Trudeau's comments. When I want to insult someone, I don't need to try to be clever about it. In this particular case, any response beyond what's here (and what I've emailed to him directly) would be a waste of my time.

Anthony, I would remind you that gravity is also just a theory that can't be irrefutably proven.

If I insist that I know with absolute certainty that your backside is bound to a chair, that is in turn bound to the floor, am I clairvoyant? If I can make that assertion a thousand times and be right each and every time, am I infallable? Better yet, if you vehemently disagree with me, should you have the right to present your views (or have them presented on your behalf) in a public school?

By your standards, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, relativity - everything that allows us to understand the world around us objectively - is "just a theory" that should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm not buying that. Instead, I'm going to call a spade a spade and call this playing politics with science because some people aren't as strong in their faith as they like to believe.

Maybe you need to think about how you address the theories in your life. Do you treat them as a gospel? If so, then you're undermining your own god, science.

A theory is a theory. Treat it as such and teach it as such.

As for the insult, I think you need to look in the mirror on that. You insulted others and it backfired on you. I didn't say anything about the matter other than I thought it was unintentionally appropriate.

My problem was never with I.D. being disallowed from public school. My problem is the reason stated for it not being allowed.

The Constitution does not mention "separation of church and state". It includes statements on the freedom of religion and not setting up a state religion. The "separation of church and state" is a construct of our case law system. It is not a Constitutional right.

Your points are not valid. They are formed on ill-conceived notions and radical comparisons. For example, the theory of gravity isn't a theory because we don't know things fall. It's a theory, because we don't know how it works. And that's the way it should be.

However, that being said if there were a potentially viable opposing theory, then yes, it should be considered and given a chance. And whatever is considered, theories should be taught as theories.

Let's take it from the top:

Quote:

"The Constitution does not mention "separation of church and state". It includes statements on the freedom of religion and not setting up a state religion."

Answer:

Forbidding the state to establish or advocate a religion and guaranteeing religious freedom sounds pretty much like seperation of church and state to me. And to the majority of several consecutive Courts over the past 60 or so years.

Insisting black is white and white is black might earn you points in circles where faith trumping reason is seen as a virtue, but it doesn't wash in the Federal Courts and it doesn't wash here.

Quote:

"The "separation of church and state" is a construct of our case law system. It is not a Constitutional right."

Answer:

Since it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution, the parameters placed upon other rights enumerated in the Constitution (the legality and constitutionality of laws allowing the prosecution someone for yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, for example) are "constructs of our legal system."

When deciding these parameters, a number of factors are considered, including the written word of the Constitution, "state interest," the intent of the Founders, the realities of the present, and the probable impact on the future. I suggest you follow the links provided in Post #5 above and educate yourself.

Quote:

"It is not a Constitutional right."

Answer:

You're flat-out wrong, Anthony. Sorry. A few sources (out of many) are listed above, so don't take my word for it - take the word of multiple Supreme Court majorities.

Quote:

"Your points are not valid. They are formed on ill-conceived notions and radical comparisons."

Answer:

Just as you don't get to define the terms of the debate on the First Amendment, you also don't get to define what "theory" means to science and academia. From the Washington Post:

Not 'Just a Theory'

Science teacher Kurt Richter bristles when he hears someone say of evolution, "Oh, that's just a theory."

That statement, said the Gaithersburg High School teacher, reveals a misunderstanding of what the word "theory" means in science. What it is not: a simple guess or a hypothesis, he said.

"A theory is something that has been tested scientifically and so well supported that it can explain a broad range of observation," he said.

The theory of evolution is as true to most scientists, he said, as the theory of gravity or Einstein's theory of relativity.

That's why, he said, he spends time during the first day of every new class explaining what "theory" means.

-- Valerie Strauss

My examples are completely and totally valid.


And if you want to talk about radicalism, I suggest you take a long look in the mirror.

Quote:

"For example, the theory of gravity isn't a theory because we don't know things fall. It's a theory, because we don't know how it works. And that's the way it should be."

Answer:

Sorry, wrong answer again. We all "knew" that the Earth was flat because we don't see its curvature. And we all "knew" that the start revolved around the flat Earth because we could see it happen every night, also.

If the previous sources aren't sufficient (and I suspect they aren't nor ever will be for people of your mindset), I really encourage you to go here:

books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html

and read the section entitled "Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science." Here's an entry you might find particularly interesting:

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

See? Things aren't theories because we "don't know how it works" (those would be questions); things are theories because they can be objectively tested and validated. ID, the flavor-of-the-month of Creationism, is not a theory. It is a belief system. It has no place in the science curriculum.

And that's the way it should be.

Quote:

"However, that being said if there were a potentially viable opposing theory, then yes, it should be considered and given a chance."

Answer:

ID is not a viable opposing theory. Sorry.

Quote:

"And whatever is considered, theories should be taught as theories."

Answer:

I'll grant you that, provided the people being taught understand what "theory" really means, and that it isn't used as a codeword for "lies that liberal secularists are pushing to slander my religion."

Happy holidays!