Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ACLU: America’s Intellectual Terrorists

DouglasD
February 14, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

“… public schools should not be used by people to teach their personal religious beliefs to other people’s children…”

I agree. So when is the ACLU going to protect our children from being told they are unplanned and have no purpose and must believe the religion of Dawkin’s god?

First prizes in the worldwide competition for most hypocritical religious zealots and most vile intellectual terrorists go to the ACLU.

read here…

Comments

Doug Moran

The Peanut Gallery noticed you! Congratulations!

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=43f2a4d59ce7fe30;act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=630

Near the bottom of the page. Comment by "Drunk" SteveStory.

I love our Peanut Gallery. They're just so cute and cuddly. Cherish them, Doug. We won't have them forever. Toys wear out. DaveScot
February 15, 2006
February
02
Feb
15
15
2006
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT

DS, you may want to point out in your response to Jack Krebs that the only reason the word "unguided" is in the new Kansas Science Standards is because of the pro-ID community, specifically committee member Kathy Martin, who explicity added it. In fact, if you read through the Kansas science hearings held last May, you would have found scientists such as Steve Case arguing against the use of the word unguided in the standards.
Even though many Dawkins-esque scientists try to insert the word "unguided" in their discussions about evolution, it is abundantly clear that in this case the only reason they are in the science standards is to create a false duality between science and religion. This is how you pro-ID folks love to add fire to the "Darwin=religion" fire.
You have to remember DS, this is the one thing that I, Jack Krebs, a vast majority of the scientific community, and you all agree on: Any mention of "unguided" (in the supernatural sense) within any science lesson is completely meaningless and should not be used. That's good isn't it? Agreement. How 'bout a big group hug for that one?
You've mentioned before in this blog that this is ID's primary purpose (to remove any mention of "unguided" in science class) so why don't you just take the troops off the line and call it a victory for everyone? We finally agree.

Evidently you aren't aware of the Wiesel 38 (38 Nobel laureates) who wrote a letter to the Kansas BoE saying, among other things, that evolution is understood to be an unguided, unplanned process. While I certainly agree that unguided is unscientific who are we to argue with 38 Nobel Prize Winners on what neoDarwinian theory is understood to be? Kansas included in the science standard a definition of evolution that 38 of the world's greatest scientists said was the definition. Now if you're quite through demonstrating to us how uninformed anti-ID knee-jerkers describe the "controversy" you can crawl back under whatever rock it was you came from. Or you can apologize and all will be forgiven. Your choice. -ds egbooth
February 15, 2006
February
02
Feb
15
15
2006
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT

For comments 1 and 2.

Darwinism has many similarities with religion. It is faith based. It has a creation myth. Many adherents including Dawkins say that Darwinism has implications for God and creation. Also its adherents have an unusual preoccupation with religion and are constantly making up stories about its mythical powers. If you try to challenge any of the tenets there is an inquisition that immediately ostracizes you and threatened your livelihood. Not quite like the early 1500's but there are some similarities. It is not science since it does not use the scientific method to establish most of it's premises but requires belief in unproven events. I am sure there are other similarities with religion.

One funny line someone had on another forum was that Darwinism is the only religion that lies to itself.

I believe Bill Demski has a theology degree or at least has studied theology at Princeton. But others can answer that better.

The NeoDarwinian Evolutionist (NDEist) priesthood isn't honest with themselves? Say it ain't so! ;-) -ds jerry
February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT
Clarification: Is he a theologian in the sense that he's a mathematician and a philosopher?Aquinas
February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
Off topic question: is Dembski a theologian?Aquinas
February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT
Chance?Patrick
February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT

I don't believe that students in schools are being taught that they are unplanned and there is no God. Dawkins et al may say that, but Dawkin's metaphysics is not being taught as science. In fact, I recently heard an ACLU lawyer tell an audience that if there were a science teacher teaching that students were purposeless accidents and that science showed there were no God, the ACLU would be first in line to take them to court.

If that's true then what is the meaning of this in the Kansas Science Standards: “Biological evolution postulates an unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal.” (G8-12,S3,B3,I1)". -ds Jack Krebs
February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
So you're saying that science is a religion?Marckus
February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
Dawkin's god? I missed something here. I thought Dawkin was an atheist meaning "without god." What's the point?charles1859
February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply