Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design in Florida

[Pelt]

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/evolution-battl.html

Why? They had their butts kicked in Dover, PA. And have been proven wrong, that ID is not a science. So why do they persist?

Because the Dover ruling applies only in Middle Pennsylvania, and because ID's proponents disagree with you and figure they can win.

 

[Astronuc]

Because the Dover ruling applies only in Middle Pennsylvania, and because ID's proponents disagree with you and figure they can win.

But doesn't the Dover decision set a precedent for other similar cases that are brought before the Federal Courts, and that sense, the Dover decision applies throughout the US?

 

[Pelt]

But doesn't the Dover decision set a precedent for other similar cases that are brought before the Federal Courts, and that sense, the Dover decision applies throughout the US?

Other federal courts are certainly free to cite Dover in their own decisions, but they are not bound to do so. The Kitzmiller decision, for example, cites Selman as authority.

 

[russ_watters]

Except inso far as the courts always have the option to overturn previous decisions, so what, Pelt? The fact of the matter is that that it is very rare. Precedent is important. In fact, can you cite any issue in the history of the USSC that was decided 7-2 and was later reversed on the same point of law? Heck, we could always repeal the 1st Amendment if we wanted to too. Theoretically possible? Yes. Likely? No.

You're arguing weasel words, Pelt. What you are saying is technically true, but completely pointless.

The bottom line is this: the combination of stupidity and tenacity means that these Discovery Institute types will always be around, looking for a way in. But after being slapped as hard as they have been, their self-preservation instincts will give them pause - the risks of a direct challenge of these rulings are just too high. And even if they do take a shot, their odds of the issue even staying alive long enough to make it to the classroom are exceedingly slim. The odds of the issue actually succeeding in court are virtually nonexistent.

 

[Pelt]

Except inso far as the courts always have the option to overturn previous decisions, so what, Pelt?

It matters because a decision isn't considered stare decisis simply because it was issued before another one on a substantially similar matter, especially if the decision is only binding in a certain jurisdiction.

The fact of the matter is that that it is very rare.

That's http://law.shu.edu/journals/circuitreview/issues/01_2005/005_to_026_Emery_Lee.pdf .

Precedent is important.

Indeed it is, depending on the place in the judicial hierarchy of the court that originated it, the quality of the decision, and ideological makeup of subsequent courts, and a variety of other factors.

In fact, can you cite any issue in the history of the USSC that was decided 7-2 and was later reversed on the same point of law?

Uh, yeah. Plessy v. Ferguson?

Heck, we could always repeal the 1st Amendment if we wanted to too. Theoretically possible? Yes. Likely? No.

Except, as I've shown here, we're talking Vegas odds (4-6) for professional gamblers, in a game where the return is 20 years of good luck.

You're arguing weasel words, Pelt. What you are saying is technically true, but completely pointless.

Weasel words? You're just making stuff up and drawing silly analogies. While it might feel good to insult the intelligence of the opposition, it might help if you grounded some of that hubris in a small measure of fact. After Dover, I sincerely doubt the ID proponents intend to be caught off guard like that again.

And even if they do take a shot, their odds of the issue even staying alive long enough to make it to the classroom are exceedingly slim. The odds of the issue actually succeeding in court are virtually nonexistent.

I'd agree with you on the odds of Aguillard being overturned, it's negative case history is only 4 percent of the total turned up by a quick KeyCite. On the other hand, Discovery and Thomas More aren't trying to overturn Aguillard. They're trying to present ID as an Aguillard-acceptable alternative to creationism. With two mixed decisions on record on this particular issue, it is too early to determine which way the courts will swing.

 

[vector3]

According to the Declaration of Independence it would seem the writers believe that it is the "Creator" that endows the unalienable rights. It continues with "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

It seems, then, "good science" or "bad science" is not relevate, but the will of the people is what matters here. Both theories are part of the overall "body of knowledge" of man and that both are useful when presented in there intended purposes.

Personally, It's a joke to think that anyone person or group of people can intellectually absorb the millions of associated variables, not to mention the random phenomenon over the eon's of time that affect the possible outcomes and call it either science or philosophy. At best, evolution is nothing more than an extrapolated guess given only a few of the variables. At worst ID is just a simple story.

The best work of greatest minds that have ever lived resulted in simply E=mc^2. Most people can barely handle the wave equation with 2 spatial variables let alone the development of the universe with millions of variables... Come on...

Education does not embody science only but philosophy as well... There is room for both in education.

 

[Evo]

Education does not embody science only but philosophy as well... There is room for both in education.

Are you familiar with the stated goals of The Discovery Institute, the people that invented Intelligent Design? This isn't an innocent case of "oh it's just another viewpoint".

 

[Moridin]

According to the Declaration of Independence it would seem the writers believe that it is the "Creator" that endows the unalienable rights. It continues with "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

That was before the constitution. The constitution is a secular document.

http://ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

It seems, then, "good science" or "bad science" is not relevate, but the will of the people is what matters here. Both theories are part of the overall "body of knowledge" of man and that both are useful when presented in there intended purposes.

Intelligent design creationism does not constitute valid knowledge at all. It is an issue of what is science and demonstrably accurate and what is not science and demonstrably false. Relativists need not apply.

Personally, It's a joke to think that anyone person or group of people can intellectually absorb the millions of associated variables, not to mention the random phenomenon over the eon's of time that affect the possible outcomes and call it either science or philosophy. At best, evolution is nothing more than an extrapolated guess given only a few of the variables. At worst ID is just a simple story.

Your ignorance is showing. Evolution has a massive convergence of evidence from diverse areas such as biochemistry, paleontology, molecular biology and comparative anatomy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html

We've known for a long time that we humans share common ancestry with the other great apes—gorillas, orangs, chimps, and bonobos. But there's an interesting problem here. We humans have 46 chromosomes; all the other great apes have 48. In a sense, we're missing a pair of chromosomes, two chromosomes. How did that happen?

Well, is it possible that in the line that led to us, a pair of chromosomes was simply lost, dropping us from 24 pairs to 23? Well, the answer to that is no. The loss of both members of a pair would actually be fatal in any primate. There is only one possibility, and that is that two chromosomes that were separate became fused to form a single chromosome. If that happened, it would drop us from 24 pairs to 23, and it would explain the data.

Here's the interesting point, and this is why evolution is a science. That possibility is testable. If we indeed were formed that way, then somewhere in our genome there has to be a chromosome that was formed by the fusion of two other chromosomes. Now, how would we find that? It's easier than you might think.

Every chromosome has a special DNA sequence at both ends called the telomere sequence. Near the middle it has another special sequence called the centromere. If one of our chromosomes was formed by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, what we should be able to see is that we possesses a chromosome in which telomere DNA is found in the center where it actually doesn't belong, and that the chromosome has two centromeres. So all we have to do is to look at our own genome, look at our own DNA, and see, do we have a chromosome that fits these features?

We do. It's human chromosome number 2, and the evidence is unmistakable. We have two centromeres, we have telomere DNA near the center, and the genes even line up corresponding to primate chromosome numbers 12 and 13.

If not evolution, how would you explain this?

The best work of greatest minds that have ever lived resulted in simply E=mc^2. Most people can barely handle the wave equation with 2 spatial variables let alone the development of the universe with millions of variables... Come on...

Unfortunately, that is on an entire different level. The equivalence of matter and energy and wave equations is irrelevant. Also note that Einstein made much, much more than simply state E = mc²

 

[siddharth]

Both theories are part of the overall "body of knowledge" of man and that both are useful when presented in there intended purposes.

On the contrary, one of the "theories" (ie, evolution) is a fact, and is backed by enormous amount of empirical evidence while the other is wishful speculation, whose premise is inherently unverifiable, and also a load of nonsense.

Personally, It's a joke to think that anyone person or group of people can intellectually absorb the millions of associated variables, not to mention the random phenomenon over the eon's of time that affect the possible outcomes and call it either science or philosophy. The best work of greatest minds that have ever lived resulted in simply E=mc^2. Most people can barely handle the wave equation with 2 spatial variables let alone the development of the universe with millions of variables... Come on...

I don't know if you've read about evolution, but there isn't any single "equation" with millions of variables which describes evolution. Evolution is the theory/fact that http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html" as you seem to imply. For example, natural selection is a non-random process.

Education does not embody science only but philosophy as well... There is room for both in education.

No. Teaching religious creationist propaganda as a science is certainly not education.

 

[Pelt]

Are you familiar with the stated goals of The Discovery Institute, the people that invented Intelligent Design? This isn't an innocent case of "oh it's just another viewpoint".

These goals? Looks like their key tangible objective is to compete with the mainstream on their own turf. The rest seems like boastful and probably unjustified optimism in their chances for success. If there's anything certain about DI's aims, it's that they've learned that after Aguillard there's no going back to 1925.

On the contrary, one of the "theories" (ie, evolution) is a fact, and is backed by enormous amount of empirical evidence while the other is wishful speculation, whose premise is inherently unverifiable, and also a load of nonsense.

Theistic claims about origins by particular people--whether they buy into creationism or evolution or whatever--are unverifiable. But specific predictions and even observations generated by creationist and ID proponents have been tested and falsified. Personally, I think coming up with a reasonable, testable design hypothesis is at minimum a useful exercise; it's been knocked down in so many ways by so many people that it helps improve understanding of what evolution is and isn't, how it works, what predictions it makes, as well how successful it is in and of itself and in a constellation of related areas of research. I wish my field generated this much public attention. ;)

 

[jim mcnamara]

On the contrary, one of the "theories" (ie, evolution) is a fact, <snip>

The use of words is a problem. Theory as used by scientists mean something with A LOT of testing and evaluation behind it. The guy you are quoting thinks

theory = some hare-brained idea I just came up with

because that is the meaning of theory out there in the popular-speak-English world.

You have to be careful with words like theory, model and so on.

See:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/8_1.html and thanks to ZapperZ for puttting this url up to start with.

 

[Gokul43201]

According to the Declaration of Independence it would seem the writers believe that it is the "Creator" that endows the unalienable rights. It continues with "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

It seems, then, "good science" or "bad science" is not relevate, but the will of the people is what matters here.

Okay.

Both theories are part of the overall "body of knowledge" of man and that both are useful when presented in there intended purposes.

Absolutely not okay as soon as you used the words "both theories". There are no two theories here. IDC is not a theory; it is not even science. Science belongs in science classes and non-science can look for a place in non-science classes. There's really nothing more to say about that.

Personally, It's a joke to think that anyone person or group of people can intellectually absorb the millions of associated variables, not to mention the random phenomenon over the eon's of time that affect the possible outcomes and call it either science or philosophy.

Personally, it's a joke to think it's the number of variables or the length of time involved that determines whether something is science.

At best, evolution is nothing more than an extrapolated guess given only a few of the variables. At worst ID is just a simple story.

The best work of greatest minds that have ever lived resulted in simply E=mc^2.

You just don't recognize how much of an insult that is, do you? Besides, it's making absolutely no sense whatsoever. The statement of Darwinian natural selection is also extremely simple in form. So what?

Most people can barely handle the wave equation with 2 spatial variables let alone the development of the universe with millions of variables... Come on...

What does the mathematical capability of the average person have to do with the ability of professional scientists. In any case, the whole point of saying "there are so many variables" is completely moot, as far as science is concerned.

Education does not embody science only but philosophy as well... There is room for both in education.

But there is no room for non-science in science.

 

[mheslep]

...On the contrary, one of the "theories" (ie, evolution) is a fact, and is backed by enormous amount of empirical evidence ...

In the context of this discussion, evolution is a scientific theory, not a fact. Evolution theory is drawn from a large fact base: the fossil record - fossils found at location X (fact), dated to period Y (fact), and have features similar to other fossils found at X1 and earlier period Y1 (fact). Species A shares genes with species B (fact). Evolution is a scientific theory drawn on this (large) fact base.

... Theory as used by scientists mean something with A LOT of testing and evaluation behind it. ...

Thanks for the Quinn article.

 

[siddharth]

In the context of this discussion, evolution is a scientific theory, not a fact. Evolution theory is drawn from a large fact base: the fossil record - fossils found at location X (fact), dated to period Y (fact), and have features similar to other fossils found at X1 and earlier period Y1 (fact). Species A shares genes with species B (fact). Evolution is a scientific theory drawn on this (large) fact base.

My point is that, evolution is both a fact and a theory. While the existence of evolution is a fact, like gravity, there are several theories which explain the mechanism by which it takes place.

As jim mcnamara pointed out, the way the words theory and fact are used in common language and by biologists is disparate. So, I wanted to point out that evolution is much more than "only a theory"

 

[Moridin]

In the context of this discussion, evolution is a scientific theory, not a fact.

Technically, evolution is an observed fact. Evolution by means of natural selection is the scientific theory, in which

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

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

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=2

 

[Pelt]

Technically, evolution is an observed fact. Evolution by means of natural selection is the scientific theory...

Presently, evolution is shorthand for both the class of accepted theories that forms the modern synthesis or evolutionary synthesis (terms used most frequently in evolutionary biology literature ). It is also an observed fact in all its particulars. Universal common descent, on the other hand, marries evolutionary synthesis with cladistics, paleontology, geology and some other stuff to come up with a set of unobserved facts. As I understand it, this is where what passes for serious debate between pro and anti-"evolution" partisans.

A word on "theory." It's accurate or useful to argue that the term has a special meaning in science that it lacks elsewhere. The term in law, philosophy, mathematics and even colloquial use refers to an set of inferences that merits confidence based on how well it fits the evidence both in hand and subsequently uncovered (prediction). The only difference is the standard of proof thought to verify or defeat an idea.

 

[Moridin]

Technically, we are currently in the post-synthetic theory of evolution.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/few-biologists.html#comment-73885

Eugenie C. Scott is the Executive Director, NCSE.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol21/1610_defining_evolution_12_30_1899.asp

 

[Pelt]

I've only seen "post-synthetic" refer to novel developments that add to established body called the synthesis. Evolutionary synthesis itself is essentially original Darwinism with soft inheritance replaced by population genetics and a minimum of three canonical mechanisms.

 

[Moridin]

Original Darwinism? Darwin basically added natural selection without knowing anything about heritability or the origin of variation. In moder evolutionary biology, Darwin is a nobody.

 

[vector3]

Are you familiar with the stated goals of The Discovery Institute, the people that invented Intelligent Design? This isn't an innocent case of "oh it's just another viewpoint".

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with DI... I suspect it is organization against ID...

Regardless, Intelligent Design, Great Mother Earth, Ancient Greek Philosophy... Theoretically, it is the will of the people that should ultimately determine what is taught. What's scary is the government telling the people what truth to believe.

That was before the constitution. The constitution is a secular document.

The same guys that wrote the Declaration wrote the Constitution.

Intelligent design creationism does not constitute valid knowledge at all. It is an issue of what is science and demonstrably accurate and what is not science and demonstrably false. Relativists need not apply.

So we should not study Ancient Greek Philosophy? Studying the belief structure of the American Indian is not valid knowledge? Please... Who's ignorance is showing now?

Your ignorance is showing. Evolution has a massive convergence of evidence from diverse areas such as biochemistry, paleontology, molecular biology and comparative anatomy.

We've known for a long time that we humans share common ancestry with the other great apes—gorillas, orangs, chimps, and bonobos. But there's an interesting problem here. We humans have 46 chromosomes; all the other great apes have 48. In a sense, we're missing a pair of chromosomes, two chromosomes. How did that happen?
If not evolution, how would you explain this?

I would say you’re probably a gorilla?

Unfortunately, that is on an entire different level. The equivalence of matter and energy and wave equations is irrelevant. Also note that Einstein made much, much more than simply state E = mc²

Obviously, It was not my intent to put down Einstein or to minimize any of his contributions.

On the contrary, one of the "theories" (ie, evolution) is a fact, and is backed by enormous amount of empirical evidence while the other is wishful speculation, whose premise is inherently unverifiable, and also a load of nonsense.

Never implied that ID was fact. Again, is the study of the Greek Gods nonsense as well? The teachings of Budha? Gandhi? I’m surprised that in a forum that is supposed to be purely science related that their wells up such great emotion. It is the greatness of emotion that clouds objective thinking.

I don't know if you've read about evolution, but there isn't any single "equation" with millions of variables which describes evolution. Evolution is the theory/fact that http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html" as you seem to imply. For example, natural selection is a non-random process. .

Don’t put words “in my post” so to say. Did not say evolution was a purely random process. And perhaps equation with variables is the wrong analogy. I was trying to say the universe is one single system (equation) with millions of processes (variables). And to think oneself capable of assimilating and reducing that amount of data… well… please… come on…

No. Teaching religious creationist propaganda as a science is certainly not education.

Teaching is, in part, conveying knowledge. Knowledge comes in may forms, not just the physical sciences.

 

[mheslep]

Technically, evolution is an observed fact. Evolution by means of natural selection is the scientific theory, in which
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=2

If you mean it has been repeatedly observed that, say, colonies of one cells evolve over generations then yes, that is a fact. If you refer to the past then no, as the past can not be directly observed, one must look to observations of current proxies (facts) to construct a theory.

 

[Moridin]

The same guys that wrote the Declaration wrote the Constitution.

Lets' see..

Benjamin Franklin - deist / atheist
Tomas Jefferson - deist / atheist
Thomas Paine - deist / atheist
John Adams - deist / atheist

The reference to the "creator" does not appear in the constitution.

So we should not study Ancient Greek Philosophy? Studying the belief structure of the American Indian is not valid knowledge? Please... Who's ignorance is showing now?

We should not teach ID creationism for the same reason that we should not teach that the Earth is flat. Both are factually incorrect.

Never implied that ID was fact. Again, is the study of the Greek Gods nonsense as well? The teachings of Budha? Gandhi? I’m surprised that in a forum that is supposed to be purely science related that their wells up such great emotion. It is the greatness of emotion that clouds objective thinking.

To teach the Greek Gods as facts are indeed nonsense. As mythology?

Don’t put words “in my post” so to say. Did not say evolution was a purely random process. And perhaps equation with variables is the wrong analogy. I was trying to say the universe is one single system (equation) with millions of processes (variables). And to think oneself capable of assimilating and reducing that amount of data… well… please… come on…

The vast majority of those "variables" does not apply in this case. It is an argument from incredulity.

 

[Moridin]

If you mean it has been repeatedly observed that, say, colonies of one cells evolve over generations then yes, that is a fact. If you refer to the past then no, as the past can not be directly observed, one must look to observations of current proxies (facts) to construct a theory.

You seem to be confused about the term "observe". We can observe things without actually seeing them.

 

[D H]

I would say you’re probably a gorilla?

I would say you're working on a ban.

Never implied that ID was fact. Again, is the study of the Greek Gods nonsense as well? The teachings of Budha? Gandhi?

Red herring. We don't study the Greek gods or the teachings of Budha in science classes. The first is the domain of mythology, the second, philosophy and comparative religions. ID is not even close to science, and it should not be treated as such.

 

[Moridin]

I would say you’re probably a gorilla?

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/behe-review/index.html

Well, according to Catholic cell biologist Kenneth Miller, humans and gorillas have a 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin.

 

[mheslep]

Any sources (primary) at all on these labels? Don't bother with agenda sites.

Lets' see..

Benjamin Franklin - deist / atheist
Tomas Jefferson - deist / atheist
Thomas Paine - deist / atheist

Does the slash here mean 'either-or' as in there not much difference? They're opposites. Jefferson and Franklin were deists. A hard case to prove atheism.

John Adams - deist / atheist

Adams was a Unitarian.

 

[vector3]

Okay.
Absolutely not okay as soon as you used the words "both theories". There are no two theories here. IDC is not a theory; it is not even science. Science belongs in science classes and non-science can look for a place in non-science classes. There's really nothing more to say about that.

It would seem, the United States government disagrees with you. It seems the courts are still sorting the issue out.

Personally, it's a joke to think it's the number of variables or the length of time involved that determines whether something is science.

That’s exactly what I posted?

You just don't recognize how much of an insult that is, do you? Besides, it's making absolutely no sense whatsoever. The statement of Darwinian natural selection is also extremely simple in form. So what?

It would never be my intent to insult anyone personally or professionally. If it makes no sense how does it become an insult anyway? I think you’re missing the point.

What does the mathematical capability of the average person have to do with the ability of professional scientists. In any case, the whole point of saying "there are so many variables" is completely moot, as far as science is concerned.

You’re missing the point. There are to many interrelated processes at work to reduce the question to a single definitive statement.

But there is no room for non-science in science.

Agreed. I would add, knowledge and understanding as it relates to the non-sciences is no less important than knowledge and understanding in the sciences.

 

[Astronuc]

Unitarian was a disparaging term back in 18th and 19th centuries, and to those of the larger denominations, Unitarians might as well be deists since they rejected the traditional trinitarian views.

 

[Moridin]

deist / atheist means that they openly affirmed the existence of a creator, not the creator mentioned in Christianity.

http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/az.html (Benjamin Franklin)
http://www.ansp.org/museum/jefferson/otherPages/enlightenment.php (Thomas Jefferson)
Thomas Paine? Age of Reason, enough said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/paine_04.shtml

Adams was a Unitarian.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html

He rejected the trinity and many other concepts of Christianity, thus making the claim that the US was a Christian nation quite weak. Unitarians are basically just one step removed from Deists.

A good book is https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805074422/?tag=pfamazon01-20 by Susan Jacoby.

 

[Astronuc]

The US was founded primarily as a commercial enterprise, with an emphasis on individual/personal liberty of which freedom of religion was one aspect. The colonies had been established under the auspices of the King of England, Parliament and various commercial companies.

 

[Pelt]

Unitarian was a disparaging term back in 18th and 19th centuries, and to those of the larger denominations, Unitarians might as well be deists since they rejected the traditional trinitarian views.

They still are treated disparagingly, although the orthodoxy is far more ecumenical in its dealings with them in the modern age. On a related note, the presence of a minority deists and Unitarians amongst the Founding Fathers does not nor should not lead us to conclude that the nation was founded on values of secular humanism or even humanism period. The vast majority of founders were Episcopalians and Calvinists who believed in the Trinity, the inherent fall of man, and all that good stuff. What does matter is that deist and Unitarian humanism--suspicious of both organized religion and secularism--found common ground with a Protestant religious orthodoxy to push forward two national ideals: "e pluribus unum" and "annuit cœptis."

The US was founded primarily as a commercial enterprise, with an emphasis on individual/personal liberty of which freedom of religion was one aspect. The colonies had been established under the auspices of the King of England, Parliament and various commercial companies.

Well, it was considerably more than that. If it were primarily a commercial enterprise it would've made sense to organize American politics along Dutch lines; 16th and 17th century Netherlands was the very model of economic success without the egalitarian sentiment and there were plenty of learned Dutch living in the thirteen colonies.

 

[Moridin]

The vast majority of founders were Episcopalians and Calvinists who believed in the Trinity, the inherent fall of man, and all that good stuff.

The point is that:

- Some of the biggest names where deists / atheists / critical of Christianity.
- There is no mention of god or Christianity in the constitution.

Thus, making the United States not founded on Christian principles. In fact, the Establishment Clause gives more support for this notion.

 

[Pelt]

He rejected the trinity and many other concepts of Christianity, thus making the claim that the US was a Christian nation quite weak. Unitarians are basically just one step removed from Deists.

Non-trinitarianism is as old as Christianity proper. It would be terribly inconvenient if we had to define Christianity in such a way that its founding isn't until the 4th century AD.

The point is that:

- Some of the biggest names where deists / atheists / critical of Christianity.
- There is no mention of god or Christianity in the constitution.

Thus, making the United States not founded on Christian principles. In fact, the Establishment Clause gives more support for this notion.

On the other hand, the large majority of the Founders were Christians who believed in a personal deity expressed in the Trinity, and the national motto is an applause of pluralism, so arguably the United States was founded on mostly Christian principles as understood by the collective wisdom of the Founders. One thing is clear, none of the framers were so egotistical to describe a Constitution that could be amended by future conventions to be a divinely inspired covenant. There's no need to rewrite history to acknowledge that fact.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, it was considerably more than that. If it were primarily a commercial enterprise it would've made sense to organize American politics along Dutch lines; 16th and 17th century Netherlands was the very model of economic success without the egalitarian sentiment and there were plenty of learned Dutch living in the thirteen colonies.

Except the British and Dutch had a falling out -

For more than three centuries England and Holland had been the closest of friends; but now, at the close of the long and bloody Thirty Years' War, which ended with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the power of Spain was crushed, and the Dutch, no longer having anything to fear from his Catholic Majesty, rose to dispute with the English the dominion of the seas. This brought about an unfriendly rivalry between the two nations, and the unfriendliness was increased by the fact that the Dutch of new Netherland traded freely with the English colonies. They carried great quantities of Virginia tobacco to Holland, and thus at least £10,000 a year was lost in customs duties to the British government.

The first Navigation Law, 1651, was aimed largely at the Dutch trader, but the wily Dutchman ignored the law and continued as before. This was one cause that determined the English on the conquest of New Amsterdam. Another, and probably the chief one, was that the Dutch colony on the Hudson separated New England from the other English colonies and threatened British dominion in North America.

The English claimed New Netherland on the ground of the Cabot discoveries; and Charles II now, 1664, coolly gave the entire country, from the Connecticut to the Delaware, to his brother James, Duke of York, ignoring the claims of the Dutch colony, and even disregarding his own charter of two years before the younger Winthrop. Richard Nicolls of the royal navy set out with a small fleet and about five hundred of the king's veterans. Reaching New England, he was joined by several hundred of the militia of Connecticut and Long Island, and he sailed for the mouth of the Hudson.

. . . .

http://www.usahistory.info/colonies/New-York.html

This is much the history my kids learned in school.

 

[Gokul43201]

It would seem, the United States government disagrees with you. It seems the courts are still sorting the issue out.

Oh, I disagree with the US Courts on several issues. But I wasn't aware the courts were sorting this out. Have there been any instances of a court ruling that ID should be taught in a science class? I know that courts have ruled that Creationism (Aguillard) and IDC (Kitzmiller) should not be taught as science.

And in addition, there's this:

All major science organizations has taken the position that intelligent design creationism is not science.

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_statement_president_09182002_BA_georgia
APS
http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
http://www.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794
http://www.aip.org/gov/gov/policy7.html

and the list goes on...

That’s exactly what I posted?

No, it's the exact opposite.

It would never be my intent to insult anyone personally or professionally.

I don't think you realize that your statement is an insult - reducing the sum of all the great contributions in physics to one equation derived from the Lorentz transforms.

If it makes no sense how does it become an insult anyway? I think you’re missing the point.

While it is insulting to the actual contributions of physicists it serves no purpose in the context of the present debate. Besides, we're not here to debate whether Darwinian Natural Selection is or isn't science (in fact, such an assertion would be in violation of the forum guidelines). Unless we are scientists in at least a related field, our personal opinions really carry no weight.

You’re missing the point. There are to many interrelated processes at work to reduce the question to a single definitive statement.

What question?

Just because there are a huge number of variables at work does not mean science can not extract truths out of a situation. There several other fields of science that have gazillions of factors involved in their mechanisms, but still make strongly verified predictions about truths within that system.

Agreed. I would add, knowledge and understanding as it relates to the non-sciences is no less important than knowledge and understanding in the sciences.

So you would be happy for IDC to be taught as non-science in a philosophy or religion class? I'm don't doubt the philosophers or theologians would have a problem with that, but I'd breathe a sigh of relief.