The main reason behind Creationism in schools.

[AvalonXQ]

BTW, I tried to do a quick Google search to see where DI had been tried or convicted of fraud, but couldn't find anything. Hopefully you have more facts in evidence and can spin out a citation.

I'm very much hoping your not talking about the Dover decision, because I've read it, and it certainly doesn't include a conviction of fraud.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

They have engaged in fraud? According to whom?

Or are you just saying that by re-branding creationism as ID, they were engaging in fraud?

Probably the latter, and by fraud, it might have been better to just say "lying," but it's a pretty thin hair to be splittting.

Creationists in Kitzmiller v. Dover tried to argue - in court - that ID was not a re-branding of creationism. The plaintiffs produced evidence from the original drafts of Of Pandas and People (which were obtained via subpoena) in which the editors of the creationist textbook had altered phrases in early editions to change occurrences of the word "creationism" to "intelligent design" in later editions. That creationist textbook was the book that the defendants (the creationists on the Dover school board) were trying to force into the Dover science classrooms.

Pretty dishonest to then argue that ID and creationism aren't one and the same thing. Creationists themselves know they are.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by westprog

That's not my argument. I'm well aware that there are people who want the USA to be more of a theocracy. I'm making the point that having a religious faith and wanting a theocracy are not necessarily equivalent.

I think this is a very important point.

Most Americans have religious faith; that doesn't mean most of us want a theocracy. I certainly don't.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Maybe it would help if someone would explain to me what they mean by theocracy.

What I mean is the setting of government policy according to divine doctrine instead of any system of ethics or, y'know, evidence. Theocracy in this manner is not an all-or-nothing term, it's perfectly possible for the state government of Alabama to be more theocratic than New York but less than Utah.

These people are trying to wedge Church back into State, and as such are pushing a theocracy.

Quote:

It's not seriously disputed that in the late 18th century, our government as well as most of our citizens had a generally theistic understanding of the universe. The Creator was widely invoked by government officials and in founding documents, and even most scientists of that time had a "theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God".

Deist, not theist. The Creator Created, he didn't say how, nor stick around afterwards to tell us how to handle things.

Quote:

Is it your assertion, then, that our country was founded as a theocracy? Because I certainly don't see it.

No. Despite invoking the Creator in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution lacked even that. The actual structure of early government was purely secular.

Quote:

how do you expect that this particular organization's goals (which are primarily to make special creation the primary paradigm in science and general understanding in our culture and politics) would lead to a theocratic form of government?

I added "and politics" back in, as you seem to have mistakenly left it out of your description. The goal of influencing politics is mentioned multiple times in the Wedge Document, I really don't see how you could have neglected it.

[Dinwar]

I suggest that if you don't know enough to see the link between the Discovery Institute and this trial that you do not know enough about the background of this debate to hold an informed opinion on it. If you DO know about these connections and still believe that the Discovery Institute is honest, I can only conclude that you are viewing these events through so great a bias as to be insurmountable.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

They have engaged in fraud? According to whom?

Or are you just saying that by re-branding creationism as ID, they were engaging in fraud?

it's more than re-branding. A textbook was thrown out for violating the Establishment Clause. They did a "replace all" function, poorly, and tried to use the same book. That's fraud--it's presenting the book as a secular textbook after it's been proven to be religious in nature, without removing the parts that make it religious. It's a cover-up and a sham. And it's according to the legal system.

Now let's play this game consistently: Please prove, with adequate citations (which, since you assume the right to evaluate my sources, I get to evaluate), that the Discovery Institute is NOT guilty of fraud. Please prove that they are NOT trying to establish a theocracy. Obviously allusions aren't good enough, since you rejected clear allusions to it from me.

[Dinwar]

Quote:

'm very much hoping your not talking about the Dover decision, because I've read it, and it certainly doesn't include a conviction of fraud.

I see. So you are in fact unaware of the posibility of someone committing an offense without being convincted of it.

I'm sorry, but you're simply not being honest here.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I suggest that if you don't know enough to see the link between the Discovery Institute and this trial that you do not know enough about the background of this debate to hold an informed opinion on it. If you DO know about these connections and still believe that the Discovery Institute is honest, I can only conclude that you are viewing these events through so great a bias as to be insurmountable.

Ah, so either I'm ignorant or biased. Why are you still talking to me?

[AvalonXQ]

Again, I think you're way overstating the conclusions of the Dover court. But maybe you're right; I read the opinion when it came out and not since.

Can you provide an actual citation to the part of the opinion, or other court document, where the Discovery Institute is "ON RECORD IN COURT for being guilty of fraud", please?

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I really don't see anything in their goals that would be tantamount to "religious control of the government".

It just seems to be that the way the US was in the late 1700s and early 1800s, where God and intelligent design were taken for granted by just about everyone, is entirely consistent with what the wedge document describes -- and is certainly not a theocracy.

While it is true that the concept of a creator god was widely accepted in the US, the moral and cultural values that most associate with Christianity were not as revered. Early American politics were heavily influenced by Enlightenment, which dramatically opposed the notions espousesd by the Discovery Institute.

The other main issue is that those things may have been taken for granted, but they weren't legislated into being taken for granted. Also, they did change over time precisely because the science and culture drifted, not by government decree.

Forcing acceptance of the DI's science and culture is a theocracy in all but name.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I really don't see anything in their goals that would be tantamount to "religious control of the government".

It just seems to be that the way the US was in the late 1700s and early 1800s, where God and intelligent design were taken for granted by just about everyone, is entirely consistent with what the wedge document describes -- and is certainly not a theocracy.

There have been a few scientific breakthroughs and changing social mores since then. Taken for granted by a population that had very few alternatives is not the same thing as ignoring advancements in science in order to promote a religious agenda. Especially one that has proven to be harmful.

More importantly, the founding fathers were able to look a bit farther than the way things were. Although they may not have foreseen a country with a high percentage of non-Christian citizens, they created a constitution which protected those with other or no religion.

ETA: Dang it! Hokulele beat me to it.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Now let's play this game consistently: Please prove, with adequate citations (which, since you assume the right to evaluate my sources, I get to evaluate), that the Discovery Institute is NOT guilty of fraud. Please prove that they are NOT trying to establish a theocracy. Obviously allusions aren't good enough, since you rejected clear allusions to it from me.

You've been around skeptics long enough to know that this sort of burden-shifting doesn't hold water.

You made affirmative claims about DI. It's not my responsibility to prove they're not true.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

You've been around skeptics long enough to know that this sort of burden-shifting doesn't hold water.

You made affirmative claims about DI. It's not my responsibility to prove they're not true.

Alright. Please prove that the goals of the DI are the advancement of science and not the advancement of a religious agenda.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Again, I think you're way overstating the conclusions of the Dover court. But maybe you're right; I read the opinion when it came out and not since.

Can you provide an actual citation to the part of the opinion, or other court document, where the Discovery Institute is "ON RECORD IN COURT for being guilty of fraud", please?

Can't speak for Dinwar, but I think I adequately addressed this question.

Originally Posted by Good Lt

Probably the latter, and by fraud, it might have been better to just say "lying," but it's a pretty thin hair to be splittting.

Creationists in Kitzmiller v. Dover tried to argue - in court - that ID was not a re-branding of creationism. The plaintiffs produced evidence from the original drafts of Of Pandas and People (which were obtained via subpoena) in which the editors of the creationist textbook had altered phrases in early editions to change occurrences of the word "creationism" to "intelligent design" in later editions. That creationist textbook was the book that the defendants (the creationists on the Dover school board) were trying to force into the Dover science classrooms.

Pretty dishonest to then argue that ID and creationism aren't one and the same thing. Creationists themselves know they are.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by bookitty

More importantly, the founding fathers were able to look a bit farther than the way things were. Although they may not have foreseen a country with a high percentage of non-Christian citizens, they created a constitution which protected those with other or no religion.

I haven't seen anything in the wedge document that would dismantle those protections.

A society in which most people, including scientists, agree with special creation as an explanation for origins is not necessarily a society run based on religion. The Founders recognized that; I'm not sure why you believe we couldn't recognize that today.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by bookitty

Please prove that the goals of the DI are the advancement of science and not the advancement of a religious agenda.

I believe the goals of DI are the advancement of a religious agenda.

It doesn't follow that they're trying to establish a theocracy, or that they're lying to us.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

A society in which most people, including scientists, agree with special creation as an explanation for origins is not necessarily a society run based on religion. The Founders recognized that; I'm not sure why you believe we couldn't recognize that today.

When it's being taught as science in public schools, that's the government teaching as fact (ie, endorsing) religion.

That's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I haven't seen anything in the wedge document that would dismantle those protections.

As I implied earlier, I don't believe you're looking very hard.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

As I implied earlier, I don't believe you're looking very hard.

I'm trying to take the document at face value, since that's the claim Dinwar made.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I believe the goals of DI are the advancement of a religious agenda

As long as we agree that their agenda has nothing to do with science.

They were arguing in Kitzmiller that intelligent design WAS science. Which makes them, you know, kind of duplicitous. At best.

Quote:

It doesn't follow that they're trying to establish a theocracy, or that they're lying to us.

It does follow, however, that they're trying to use the force of government - through the public school system - to advance that religious agenda and to force it on every child in the public school.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Good Lt

They were arguing in Kitzmiller that intelligent designe WAS science. Which makes them, you know, kind of duplicitous.

I don't agree with that.

I also don't agree that that's what the decision in Dover said.

But since nobody's actually citing to the case, I guess we'll just end up keeping our opinions, huh?

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I haven't seen anything in the wedge document that would dismantle those protections.

A society in which most people, including scientists, agree with special creation as an explanation for origins is not necessarily a society run based on religion. The Founders recognized that; I'm not sure why you believe we couldn't recognize that today.

When this theory of special creation is being promoted in the US as a method to increase exposure of Christianity* to children in secular public schools, it is part of an agenda to promote a religious, specifically Christian society. The constitution was designed to protect us from that, so I believe the founders may have had a problem with it.

* Unless you think DI would be ok with promoting the Islamic creation story.

[Hokulele]

I must be on ignore.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by bookitty

When this theory of special creation is being promoted in the US as a method to increase exposure of Christianity* to children in secular public schools, it is part of an agenda to promote a religious, specifically Christian society. The constitution was designed to protect us from that, so I believe the founders may have had a problem with it.

I expect the Founders would have.

It's still not tantamount to establishing a theocracy.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

I must be on ignore.

You're not; I see you had a good comment up there that I ignored. Sorry.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I expect the Founders would have.

It's still not tantamount to establishing a theocracy.

No, you're right. Pushing for Christian creation theories in the class room is not, in and of itself, the same as establishing a theocracy. But it is one of the symptoms of encroaching Christian fundamentalism into every social and political sphere.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I don't agree with that.

I also don't agree that that's what the decision in Dover said.

But since nobody's actually citing to the case, I guess we'll just end up keeping our opinions, huh?

When you read the Kitzmiller decision, did you miss this part or something?

Citation.

Quote:

Although as noted Defendants have consistently asserted that the ID Policy was enacted for the secular purposes of improving science education and encouraging students to exercise critical thinking (Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 130 of 139 131) skills, the Board took none of the steps that school officials would take if these stated goals had truly been their objective. The Board consulted no scientific materials. The Board contacted no scientists or scientific organizations. The Board failed to consider the views of the District’s science teachers. The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC. Moreover, Defendants’ asserted secular purpose of improving science education is belied by the fact that most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precisely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is ludicrous. Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test. As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake.

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 131 of 139 132 Any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and are merely secondary to a religious objective. McCreary, 125 S. Ct. at 2735; accord, e.g., Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 308 (“it is . . . the duty of the courts to ‘distinguish a sham secular purpose from a sincere one.’” (citation omitted)); Edwards, 482 U.S. at 586-87 (“While the Court is normally deferential to a State’s articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham.”). Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID policy are equally insincere.

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount
to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the
public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Judge Jones doesn't agree with you at all. Taste his boomstick.

Now, the DI argued on behalf of the defendants (Behe), gave them legal advice, was in touch with them throughout the trial, etc.

Are you really suggesting that the defendants in the case were not trying to assert that ID was not a re-branding of creationism?

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm trying to take the document at face value, since that's the claim Dinwar made.

Then you shouldn't be leaving "and also politics" out of their statements in a discussion about their political intent.

Example: one of their twenty-year goals is:

Originally Posted by TFA

To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

It's damned disingenuous to leave that out and you know I'm not the kind of person to back down and let you get away with it if only you're obtuse enough. You're a schmott guy; I know you aren't doing it mistakenly.

You can argue that the kind of political influence they're gunning for doesn't count in some kind of way, but don't try to argue that getting it isn't part of their stated intent.

[AvalonXQ]

I'll re-cite the most relevant passage again:

Quote:

Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID policy are equally insincere.

Yes, "flagrant and insulting falsehoods". I think that satisfies Dinwar's earlier statement that the Court recorded DI as having committed fraud.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I haven't seen anything in the wedge document that would dismantle those protections.

A society in which most people, including scientists, agree with special creation as an explanation for origins is not necessarily a society run based on religion. The Founders recognized that; I'm not sure why you believe we couldn't recognize that today.

Wow, creation without a creator. Wonder of wonders.

Or total BS.


I can guess...

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Again, your claim: "They've stated that their goal is a theocracy."

I don't see support for this claim.

Now, if your new claim is "They've state that their goal is to take over culture, and I believe that the end result of this would be a theocracy", then you can back up that claim with additional evidence.

I don't know about the claim of fraud, but if you want evidence of the highlighted claim about the goal being theocracy, you need look no further than the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document. Seeing as how the Discovery Institute was/is the clearinghouse for creationism since the mid-1990s, this would seem to constitute significant evidence.

There are a number of very specific statements in the Wedge Document which back up the claim made above. One of the most obvious is, and I quote:

Quote:

... Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to popularize our ideas in the broader culture.

And another big one, titled "Twenty Year Goals", which really shows the aim of placing a theocratic government into power is:

Quote:

*To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
*To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
*To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Will that suffice?

ETA: Seems like someone else already nailed the fraud claim by referencing the court decision in Dover v. Kitzmiller. Ouch.

I guess lying is okay so long as you do it in the name of God

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'll re-cite the most relevant passage again:



Yes, "flagrant and insulting falsehoods". I think that satisfies Dinwar's earlier statement that the Court recorded DI as having committed fraud.

I'd say so. DI wasn't on trial there - the school board members were - but DI was acting as a legal adviser, and provided 'expert testimony' in the trial in the form of one of their members, Michael Behe.

And considering that the DI was acting on behalf of the defendants (the school board members), I'd say that this places the DI in the category of having helped them commit "flagrant and insulting falsehoods" in court.

The judge thought so.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Will that suffice?

Ah, no. We were already discussing the wedge document. My point was that the goals articulated in the wedge document are perfectly consistent with a non-theocratic government.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by bookitty

When this theory of special creation is being promoted in the US as a method to increase exposure of Christianity* to children in secular public schools, it is part of an agenda to promote a religious, specifically Christian society. The constitution was designed to protect us from that, so I believe the founders may have had a problem with it.

* Unless you think DI would be ok with promoting the Islamic creation story.

Better yet, ask whether or not the DI would be okay with promoting Raelianism, which is an atheistic version of "intelligent design".

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Ah, no. We were already discussing the wedge document. My point was that the goals articulated in the wedge document are perfectly consistent with a non-theocratic government.

How so? When the document clearly states that it considers its natural constituents to be evangelical Christians, and then proposes to take "ID-theory", which they admit is based upon their version of Christian ideas, and then further proposes to infuse all those ideas into the political life of the nation, it's pretty easy to connect the dots.

It was pretty clear from the well-worded ruling in the Dover trial that the DI got caught pretty badly on promoting their clearly unconstitutional strategy. If you would bother to take the time to read what Judge Jones wrote instead of cherry-picking and ignoring the parts you don't like, then you might see this fact.

Of course, if one wants to be willfully obtuse and ignore the obvious, I can't help that.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

It was pretty clear from the well-worded ruling in the Dover trial that the DI got caught pretty badly on promoting their clearly unconstitutional strategy. If you would bother to take the time to read what Judge Jones wrote instead of cherry-picking and ignoring the parts you don't like, then you might see this fact.

Calm down, sparky. I've already acceded to the fact that I haven't read the Dover opinion since it came out and, sure enough, hadn't remembered the cited portions of the opinion.

Take a step back and read the whole thread before you start throwing around personal insults. It doesn't help.

I was primarily interested in how the judge was stretching the Establishment Clause to cover this situation.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Calm down, sparky. I've already acceded to the fact that I haven't read the Dover opinion since it came out and, sure enough, hadn't remembered the cited portions of the opinion.

Take a step back and read the whole thread before you start throwing around personal insults. It doesn't help.

I was primarily interested in how the judge was stretching the Establishment Clause to cover this situation.

Perhaps, before you start to form an ill-informed opinion, you should consider taking all of the relevant facts into account. Otherwise, don't whine when people here call you out on your lack of rigor, especially when you make unsupported claims.

Btw, I did read the whole thread. Perhaps you should read the whole Wedge Document and re-read the Dover ruling, and stop throwing stones while you sit in your glass house.

ETA: So, you can start to argue the facts of the situation (which are a part of the federal court record) and gain some respect here, or you can stick with your ill-informed opinion and hang yourself up on a cross while crying about how people are insulting you when they call you out. Either way, I don't care.

[Mark6]

Originally Posted by bookitty

When this theory of special creation is being promoted in the US as a method to increase exposure of Christianity* to children in secular public schools, it is part of an agenda to promote a religious, specifically Christian society. The constitution was designed to protect us from that, so I believe the founders may have had a problem with it.

* Unless you think DI would be ok with promoting the Islamic creation story.

Well, since Islamic creation story is the same one (Old Testament), I do not think ID would have a problem with that

Hindoo creation story, OTOH...

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Either way, I don't care.

Suits me.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

The Panda's Thumb pretty much proves that the difference between ID and YEC is that ID has a different name.

I thought it was a cheap tuxedo.

[Dog Breakfast]

I always had a fantasy that if I were ever a science teacher, and they made me teach creationism, I would teach the ancient Egyptian creationism story that starts out with Ra hatching from an egg in an endless sea, and then explain how evolution offers much more meaningful information. But of course I would be accused of being afraid to teach real creationism.

Namely, the Cherokee story of Beaver's Grandchild the water-beetle kicking mud up from the bottom of the sea to create the earth.