She is a bit steamed, both at people who don't listen and at the MSM, which doesn't provide good quotes from the discussion:
It's a bit annoying to me, because I cannot stand when people jump to the conclusion that someone they want to believe is stupid is being stupid when they say something that seems wrong. Think first. Is it wrong?I suspect most of us can't fully articulate what the First Amendment says, since it says a lot:♠
And I hate the converse — the assumption that the supposedly smart person has said something smart. Stop. Slow down. Read/listen closely. It's often the case that what we have is a banal political disagreement. And that's what I think this O'Donnell/Coons thing is.
I really wish I had the verbatim transcript of the colloquy, and that's the main reason I've been dragging my feet posting on this. The reporters aren't presenting the quotes in a reliable fashion. And we need to begin with stark clarity that the text of the Establishment Clause is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Hat tip to Instapundit.
Regards — Cliff
♠ My number one exception being writer Nat Hentoff, whose column occasionally appears in The Lowell Sun.
17 comments:
Once someone asks something to the effect that "if evolution is real, why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?", I have a hard time taking other things they say at face value, and for the precise reason that THEY demonstrate an absolute unwillingness to understand and respect opposing positions, and, as bad a habit as that might for me as a voter, it's arguably one of the single greatest flaws that can exist in a legislator. (Well, second behind corruption, but that's an even greater point against organized political parties these days, but lets not digress).
Althouse objects that reporters aren't presenting the quotes in reliable fashion. Excuse me? Is there a "reliable fashion" to explain not just the blind belief in creationism, (a first-amendment-protected right of all Americans I'm happy to support), but also the profound and absolute demonstration of ignorance of related disagreements over such?
Personally, I have zero problem conceiving a supreme being capable of spinning "creation" and humans and everything else now present on God's green earth via a mechanism of "evolution", or whatever the scientists prefer to call it. In fact, I'm rather impressed at the elegance of such a hypothetical solution, not to just fashion the monkeys in the diorama out of protoplasmic clay, but to fashion them out of genetic codes and mutations and eons of evolution to arrive at such a beautiful outcome.
So, maybe my objection to O'Donnell isn't her "creationism", but her dumb and clumsy creationism that insists that my God isn't smart enough to create humans via billions of years of preparatory meiosis, as opposed to just mishmashing them/us out of thin air. (Or whatever passed for atmosphere 6000 years ago when some people insist the whole party got started).
As for the point Althouse is trying to illuminate, as to Congress being constrained from making any law, as opposed to local school boards, I still have to go back to as "for what purpose"?
O'Donnell is not arguing the Constitution any further than is necessary to give her the ideological basis to restrict what children may be taught in public school based on HER religious principles. I find it hard to be upset that the monkeys are flinging journalistic dung at her for it.
kad, I just wanted to share something that may help out here as someone who is a theist wrapping her head around why God created the universe as He did. I actually told my six year old son, that God created dinosaurs so we can have something interesting to dig up some time ago.
Anyways here is a decent article from Mark Shea that was published this week, a former atheist regarding why God made 'Empty Space'.
"When I was a new Christian, it bothered me that the theory of evolution, if true, meant God "wasted" 4.5 billion years on non-human-related projects like dinosaurs and trilobites. If man is His special darling, why spend 150 million years creating dinosaurs that no man will ever see and then let them all go extinct? Seems like a major waste of awesomeness, as well as a huge waste of space in the calendar.....
But then, as I started thinking about it, I realized there are also great empty gaps in space as well as time. Here on earth, there are large portions of the surface covered by barren sand and even more barren ice. If you step back, for instance, about one light hour from Earth, what you notice is how little there is to notice. Our solar system, like the rest of the universe, has a lot of nothing between the occasional interesting spot. Oh, sure, there's a lot of interesting activity on Mars, Io, Europa, and so forth. But there's nobody there to be interested in it. It didn't become interesting until the human mind got wind of it and took an interest.
-----
Also from a secular source on the creation of the Universe...
The Biggest Big Question of All
Why is there something rather than nothing?
"The theist’s answer to the question is that God existed before the universe and subsequently brought it into existence out of nothing (ex nihilo) in a single creation moment as described in Genesis. But the very conception of a creator existing before the universe and then creating it implies a time sequence. In both the Judeo-Christian tradition and the scientific worldview, time began when the universe came into existence, either through divine creation or the Big Bang. God, therefore, would have to exist outside of space and time, which means that as natural beings delimited by living in a finite universe, we cannot possibly know anything about such a supernatural entity. The theist’s answer is an untestable hypothesis."
kad, I just wanted to share something that may help out here as someone who is a theist wrapping her head around why God created the universe as He did. I actually told my six year old son, that God created dinosaurs so we can have something interesting to dig up some time ago.
Anyways here is a decent article from Mark Shea that was published this week, a former atheist regarding why God made 'Empty Space'.
"When I was a new Christian, it bothered me that the theory of evolution, if true, meant God "wasted" 4.5 billion years on non-human-related projects like dinosaurs and trilobites. If man is His special darling, why spend 150 million years creating dinosaurs that no man will ever see and then let them all go extinct? Seems like a major waste of awesomeness, as well as a huge waste of space in the calendar.....
But then, as I started thinking about it, I realized there are also great empty gaps in space as well as time. Here on earth, there are large portions of the surface covered by barren sand and even more barren ice. If you step back, for instance, about one light hour from Earth, what you notice is how little there is to notice. Our solar system, like the rest of the universe, has a lot of nothing between the occasional interesting spot. Oh, sure, there's a lot of interesting activity on Mars, Io, Europa, and so forth. But there's nobody there to be interested in it. It didn't become interesting until the human mind got wind of it and took an interest.
-----
Also from a secular source on the creation of the Universe...
http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/the-biggest-big-question-of-all
The Biggest Big Question of All
Why is there something rather than nothing?
"The theist’s answer to the question is that God existed before the universe and subsequently brought it into existence out of nothing (ex nihilo) in a single creation moment as described in Genesis. But the very conception of a creator existing before the universe and then creating it implies a time sequence. In both the Judeo-Christian tradition and the scientific worldview, time began when the universe came into existence, either through divine creation or the Big Bang. God, therefore, would have to exist outside of space and time, which means that as natural beings delimited by living in a finite universe, we cannot possibly know anything about such a supernatural entity. The theist’s answer is an untestable hypothesis."
kad, I just wanted to share something that may help out here as someone who is a theist wrapping her head around why God created the universe as He did. I actually told my six year old son, that God created dinosaurs so we can have something interesting to dig up some time ago.
Anyways here is a decent article from Mark Shea that was published this week, a former atheist regarding hy God made 'Empty Space'.
"When I was a new Christian, it bothered me that the theory of evolution, if true, meant God "wasted" 4.5 billion years on non-human-related projects like dinosaurs and trilobites. If man is His special darling, why spend 150 million years creating dinosaurs that no man will ever see and then let them all go extinct? Seems like a major waste of awesomeness, as well as a huge waste of space in the calendar.....
But then, as I started thinking about it, I realized there are also great empty gaps in space as well as time. Here on earth, there are large portions of the surface covered by barren sand and even more barren ice. If you step back, for instance, about one light hour from Earth, what you notice is how little there is to notice. Our solar system, like the rest of the universe, has a lot of nothing between the occasional interesting spot. Oh, sure, there's a lot of interesting activity on Mars, Io, Europa, and so forth. But there's nobody there to be interested in it. It didn't become interesting until the human mind got wind of it and took an interest.
-----
Also from a secular source on the creation of the Universe...
The Biggest Big Question of All
Why is there something rather than nothing?
"The theist’s answer to the question is that God existed before the universe and subsequently brought it into existence out of nothing (ex nihilo) in a single creation moment as described in Genesis. But the very conception of a creator existing before the universe and then creating it implies a time sequence. In both the Judeo-Christian tradition and the scientific worldview, time began when the universe came into existence, either through divine creation or the Big Bang. God, therefore, would have to exist outside of space and time, which means that as natural beings delimited by living in a finite universe, we cannot possibly know anything about such a supernatural entity. The theist’s answer is an untestable hypothesis."
I don't think there is a dime's worth of difference between "Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion..." and saying the First Amendment calls for, among other things, the "separation of Church and State." One wonders if the candidate is protesting too much.
Lance, I think it is how in a matter of public policy how the 'separation of Church & state' is used against a theist though. Basically it a daily struggle of people accusing of imposing your religious beliefs on others, when you make any argument or hold any position.
For instance I'm in favor of affordable housing and against casinos, secular progressives have no problem aligning themselves with religious groups on political causes they agree with. Then if you talk about rights of the unborn or that because a man can get a woman knocked up through sexual activity, we should have sort of concept/ideal they could work together as one family unit well then I'm a imposing my faith on others.
Renee, thanks for the theological ideas. I don't hesitate to marvel at the universe, or hesitate to refer to it as "creation".
As to the point at hand, I think the essence of this issue is that you, like Christine O'Donnell, feel the "separation of church and state is used against a theist". Yes it is, and no it is not.
The "separation" concept protects you and me and everyone else from the imposition of religion or related doctrine by the state or anyone else looking to use the state to do it. Unfortunately, for Christine O'Donnell, she appears unwilling to respect that this also requires her to refrain from imposing her religion on others.
Public school curriculum, as an extension of the public government which mandates it, cannot become beholden to a religious point of view and remain constitutional.
Looking at Kad's last point, I am not sure that the position being pushed at this time by the ACLU, etc, is really neutral. It represents a modified materialist point of view and wishes to impose it as the basis for public discussion. Having had my early years as a Roman Catholic in a very WASP town, I am used to not having my view given much credit, and so it is here, but I would not wish folks to think that I don't have a view.
Frankly, I am against prayer in school and I think that evolution should be taught in schools. That said, I also think we should be teaching, in history or civics, that we have to be careful about taking "science" too far. While it was just before my time, we did have a very social-Darwinist point of view in this nation and felt free to sterilize people and conduct medical experiments on those we valued less than others. We stopped, but possibly only because of the Germans. I am not convinced we couldn't go back to those days. There are no guarantees in this life, except death and taxes.
As for Lance's point, I think there are lawyers booking thousands of billable hours over just such points down to this day.
Regards — Cliff
Students need to know about other religions and the tenets of the beliefs, and can do it without the physical act of it.
You can have a class room from a public school tour a Catholic Church and learn about Mass without having the Eucharist received to the students, just as a more recent issue where students visited a local Mosque where make students simulated daily prayer services.
There is a point where understanding diversity turns into mocking it.
Rene--the utility of learning about other religions should not be confused with science class. That would be sociology, or divinity, or some other such subject. Both should certainly be taught, but not confused with each other as one course.
Cliff, first of all, I'll have to plead ignorance as to the relevance of the ACLU to a discussion of Christine O'Donnell's religion-based "science" curriculum, other than I know they tend to have opinions about such things. I honestly don't understand the context of your comment (or what you might mean by "modified materialist") and I don't mean to skip past it without asking.
However, in advance of those further discussions, I'd like to express whole-hearted agreement that scientific review of our rich history of "scientific" inaccuracy is extremely important, as would be a sociological study of how misunderstanding natural facts can lead to horrific human behavior. Just because Christine O'Donnell is wrong does NOT make those who disagree with her necessarily right, and I should hope we will continue to learn all the ways in which our present understandings of "evolution" are wrong, in the same way that we've come to understand the errors of many other commonly accepted "truths" which turned out to be fictions. (I first learned CPR to prioritize clearing the airway, and I'm now told that chest compressions should be first, instead, for one practical example).
Bullet points from me.
- I believe creation was done through evolution. My "God" isn't confined to the Bible version of things. Not to say the Bible is wrong, but it sure ain't completely correct. It's a glimpse of the devine, imho.
- In K-12, the effort is made to ensure students fully grasp the scientific method. A method, I should add, that is designed to be skeptical of itself. In college, a student of phyical sciences, at least, are taught more about how flaws in methodology can propogate error and bias.
When a person of science asserts findings, it may seem arrogant. It is more likely a high degree of confidence. As the science community painfully focuses on reducing flaws in method and prootes peer reviews to open any work to skeptical dissection.
Jack
I like the theory. I like following the facts. That should be taught to kids in K-12.
Funnily enough, in my mind those facts don't exclude the possibility that everything was created several thousand years ago. They just don't point that way. But, there should be room enough in our society for those who do so believe. More than once I have seen someone suggest an "alternative" that was flat wrong, but the questioning opened up the fact that the solution being proposed was also wrong and allowed for the selection of a much better third alternative.
Thanks
Regards — Cliff
Sorry, Cliff.
Science is not based on magic.
The Earth is not a few thousand years old. Even playing with this notion undermines science.
That may not be your intent, but it is the agenda of some powerful forces in this world. Those forces are not unified in goal. Some seek profit. Some seek validation of faith.
Each seeks to destroy Science.
As one that straddles the fence, I think God is in the details and science helps us investigate.
I think I must have expressed myself poorly. I don't think the universe was created a few thousand years ago or that we should teach same as science. On the other hand, I am open to this being the case. For "science" to say, "oops, it looks like the Universe is only seven thousand years old" would not shake my confidence in science.
Regards — Cliff
Science, at it's core, is about moving from the possible towards the probable. It does that by rigorous testing and re-evaluation.
As a person of faith, I can believe that something is possible without any verifiable evidence. However, it is near impossible for me to argue what is proven probable, by a hint of the possible.
Those clinging to artifacts of their dogma are entitled to their opinion. But facts are derived by consensus. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the fields of science.
My arguement is not with you. Anyone that straps a rocket under their ass and propels through the thin air has, imho, proven themselves to be faithful to physical and spiritual laws.
Distinctions between data and theory are important. Fossil records (i.e. data) presents evidence that our planet is far older than 6,000 years, and that human beings have been preceded by other beings of similar build. Theories to explain that fossil record include "big bang" and "evolution", but the truth or fiction of either or both of those theories does nothing to refute the existence of those fossils that are over 6,000 years old, and of hominids similar to humans. With that evidence in hand, it's fair to say that a scientific interpretation of the Bible must necessarily include the probability of poetic license in certain passages.
Or, back to the point at hand: For someone to say they don't like the huge gaping logical holes in the theory of evolution, and can articulate this through a different interpretation of the existing data is one thing. To say "the bible told me so" and to deny the fossil record is quite another, not to mention a pretty serious problem if it were to replace current public school curriculum.
Post a Comment