Gene Summerlin wrote:
Ed,
I'm sorry if I misunderstood the
tenor of some of the arguments being made on this list. From my quick
preview of the posts I gained the impression that some had articulated
the notion that real scientists rejected intelligent design or the idea
of a
www.TheAmericanView.com
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list
www.TheAmericanView.com
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list
I think Mike McConnell's excellent post on evolution vs. design from March 19, 1997 on this list is worth re-posting. So here's Michael!
"Larry Ingle writes: Beg pardon, but my understanding of evolutionary theory, as a non-scientist, is that evolution has been "raised . . . beyond the level of
Here is avery recentarticle on Phil Johnson, the man who put Darwinon trial and got a conviction! Here is a good excerpt:
Darwin on Trial is not just an attack on evolution, but on the very modern principles of science. Johnson believes Galileo and his descendants worked to solve the questions
Hmmm. So the onlyscientists whose views count about the case for evolutionary biology are evolutionary biologists?And exactly what would happen to the career of an evolutionary biologist--or any other scientist--who went public with his or her doubts aboutevolution? Would they still get grants?
Who created god?Some of us believe that indeed the universe "was not designed and has no purpose" and that the question "why is there anything?" is interesting, but at present beyond the ability of anyone to answer convincingly.Some of us also believe that "we humans are the product of
I agree with Steve Jamarthat educators ought to be allowed to teach science free of any interference from government. That is why I support school choice--let's allow science teachers and educators to design thesciencecurriculumfor their respective publicor private schools and allow parents to
There have been literally thousands of scientists testing evolutionary
theories (which, by the way, have evolved well beyond Charles Darwin) for over a
century. Evolution is not a single hypothesis, but rather thousands of
hypotheses that have been tested using scientific theory. And they
Rick Duncan wrote:
Darwin on Trial is not just an attack on evolution, but on the very
modern principles of science. Johnson believes Galileo and his
descendants worked to solve the questions of our existence based on
science, not faith, but that for several centuries since then, men of
I didn't call anyone a non-believer, Marci. I simply asked what kind of God is the God of natural selection? That is not name-calling. It is asking the most essential question anyone can ask of a "believer"--who is God, and did He create you, or did you create Him?
Those, I know, are not question
Rick-- That means that astronomy should be abandoned, because an
astronomisttoday examinesphenomenathat took place thousands
and millions of years ago. It takes time for information to flow through
space, as Einstein showed. Science is all about drawing conclusions based
on data, and it
I
know that I should simply forbear from comment, but when Rick
writes:
We humans--whether evolved or
created--don't know much about what happened even yesterday. It is hubris to
pretend that we know what happened 10,000 or 10 billion years
ago
I cannot help but wonder why in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some add to this pot the concept of falsafiability; and this
important consideration is what I find most troubling about the devoted
adherents of evolutionary faith. Where the scientific method and
falsafiability would require, for example, that the theory of
Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
The notion of falsifiability as a criterion for truth claimswhether inside or outside of sciencehas come under withering criticism by philosophers of science over the past 40 years. Proposed in its most robust and sophisticated form by Karl
The following useful perspective on ID comes from http://www.venganza.org/index.htm , which also contains related materials. If I properly understood Jim Henderson's posts yesterday, I believe the ACLJ would support FSM on the same grounds that it supports ID.
Art Spitzer
Washington, DC
(I hope
Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
Francis Beckwith wrote:
Clearly, there is potential data that count
against theistic accounts of the universe. For example, if there is a
good argument that the universe did not begin to exist, then that would
show that God as an
Art Spitzer wrote on 08/03/2005 01:34:26 PM:
(I hope no one finds the following offensive. If anyone does,
he or
she might bear in mind that some of us find ID offensive.)
I can understand what you might not agree with ID.
I can even understand why you might be offended by the way in which
In a message dated 8/3/05 2:58:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As an Italian, however, I am offended by the use of spaghetti. Perhaps in order to more diverse you can change it to taco or matzah in future postings.
If it were my own letter I'd be happy to do that, and also to substitute
This thread has been quite interesting; but my tentative sense
is that (1) it has gone on for quite a while, (2) it seems to be
repeating itself a bit, and (3) online discussions on this topic have
been known to go on for a very long time. Might it be good to wind
things down? Many
I missed Art's post for some reason, it never came here. And while the
open letter is obviously parody, parody often reveals a kernel of truth
and this is no exception. My friend Rob Pennock wrote in his first book
on ID about all the possible alternatives to evolution that, under an
equal
On 8/3/05 2:48 PM, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francis Beckwith wrote:
Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design Clearly, there is potential data
that count against theistic accounts of the universe. For example, if there
is a good argument that the universe did not begin to exist,
It says free exercise. Not merely freedom of belief. Aspects of one's religious activities (exercise) may be limited, but the exercise of one's religion may not be entirely eliminated (unless one's religious beliefs are such that all exercise involves murder and mahem and other conduct
The application of the free exercise
clause as you describe it would be no guarantee of free exercise at all.
Holding an opinion or a belief is not an exercise of anything. The
clause doesn't say the free belief in religion but the free exercise of
religion, which is clearly descriptive of an
Clearest early example was the established Puritans' intolerance that drove
the Baptists out and to the belief that the separation of church and state was
the only way to religious liberty for them (a politically powerless
religion).
Marci
___
To
I assume Kevin is interested in pre-1787 religious strife that the
framers knew about and wanted to avoid repeating. Without offering a
full history, here are some "greatest hits of religious strife"
In
1657, Stuyvesant refused to allow a boatload of Quakers to land in New Amsterdam. This was
They could not, and did not, persecute Anglicans, of course; and
probably tolerated prebyterians after the late 1640s; a few Jews were
allowed to reside in Mass. Bay, unlike Quakers who were hanged
James Maule wrote:
Not just Baptists. Quakers. And "Papists." And anyone who wasn't a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear all,
In their e-mails, Marci, Paul, and Steven have identified
conflicts that certainly strike me as qualifying as
religiously-motivated political strife. (In the cases, it
does seem to me that the
Don't overlook the anti-Catholic Know Nothing Party riots, including the
Philadelphia Bible Riot of 1843:
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/photo_gallery/photo2.html
Two sources approach the same history from different perspectives, but do
not much disagree on what happened:
I agree with Doug that there was more than I set out. His correction
is important.
Douglas Laycock wrote:
More bad stuff went on the in
the 19th and 20th centuries than Paul's posting may imply, although the
executions and tortures that he describes in the 17th 19th
centuries
BTW, state sponsorship of religion need not necessarily result in religious strife. State religions are still common around the world -- UK, Egypt, Israel, Switzerland (or did they recently disestablish? I recall reading something about that) and others.And non-establishment is no guarantee of
All of the comments are helpful, but let me raise another question that is akin
to the one Rick raised. He asked
whether, why, and / or how these motivations, or the
undesirability of such strife should be used to supply the
Establishment Clause's enforceable content.
WIth regard to
Laycock's tight summary is important.
I have researched the ACLU and Justice Department records on the attacks on
Jehovah's Witnesses. I quickly count attacks in more than thirty states and
include eight large mob attacks from Maine to Mississippi in June after the
Gobitis decision. The mobs
Of course, in recent times much religious strife is caused by excluding religious people from equal access to the public square and from equal participation in the benefits of the welfare state. Locke v. Davey, for example, strikes me as a case in which Washington's rigid separationism caused
I would suggest you reread Madison's remonstrance on Religious freedom;
one of the clear motivating factors for the establishment clause was to
preclude the possibility that people would have to pay for other
people's religion. That was what was going on in Va and that, quite
frankly, is what
Jim:
I am surprised you cannot understand how executing people based on
Biblical Law might be seen as "religious strife." Similarly, the
taking of farm animals to destory them because they were "contaminated"
by Granger might lead to religious strife. Yes, the Turkeys were not
private
Title: Re: Establisment clause and oppressive taxation
Given the regulatory state in which we liveone that requires that parents who send their children to religious private school must pay for both the school tuition as well as taxes to fund public schools--it seems to me that the principle
Or better yet, change the food stamp hypo to Kosher food. Why should non-Jews be taxed to pay for Kosher observance? The answer, of course, is that they are not being taxed to pay for Kosher observance. They are being taxed to pay for food supplements for the poor, including food stamp recipients
In a message dated 8/3/2005 7:57:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes,
religiously-motivated political strife was important to the decision in
West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette.
And yet it is only in the fog of hindsight that Barnette became a religious
In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:28:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would
suggest you reread Madison's remonstrance on Religious freedom; one of the
clear motivating factors for the establishment clause was to preclude the
possibility that people would have
In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:42:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am
surprised you cannot understand how executing people based on Biblical Law
might be seen as "religious strife." Similarly, the taking of farm
animals to destory them because they were
Here is another hypo. Suppose the state of, say, Oklahoma passed a progressive welfarelaw designed to supplement the salaries of the working poor. Under the law, every fulltime worker with a family income of $25,000 or less would be given a $2000salary supplement paid from general tax revenues.
42 matches
Mail list logo
