Yup! 'Christians' Caught LYING Under Oath

[Nickdfresh]

Intelligent design is curtailed by judge
Ruling condemns mixing of religion and science

By MICHAEL POWELL
Washington Post
12/21/2005

Associated Press

Barrie Callahan, left, a plaintiff from Dover, Pa., and attorney Witold Walczak hold a news conference hailing the ruling against School Board policy on teaching the theory of intelligent design.

A federal judge Tuesday barred a Pennsylvania school district from mentioning "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolutionary theory in a scathing opinion that criticized local school board members for lying under oath and for their "breathtaking inanity" in trying to inject religion into science classes.

U.S. District Court Judge John Jones III, a Republican appointed by President Bush, did not confine his opinion to the missteps of the local school board. Instead, he explicitly sought to vanquish intelligent design, the argument that aspects of life are so complex as to require the hand, subtle or not, of a supernatural creator. This theory, he said, relies on the unprovable existence of a Christian God and therefore is not science.

"The overwhelming evidence is that Intelligent Design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory," Jones wrote in a 139-page decision. "It is an extension of the Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution."

In November, voters in Dover threw out eight of nine School Board members; the ninth was not up for re-election. The new School Board, which favors teaching evolution, will not appeal the ruling.

Jones' decision puts an exclamation mark on a courtroom battle widely hailed as the successor to the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, when proponents of modern scientific methods first battled creationists in court over the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution. State and local school boards have mounted challenges to evolution, and these officials had watched Dover closely in hopes of divining how much leeway they might get in federal court.

If Tuesday's decision is any guide, opponents of evolution now face a very tough task, advocates on both sides agreed.

"The court has held that it's not a scientific theory," said Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and one of the trial lawyers for parents who sued the School Board. "At a time when this country is lagging behind other countries, we can ill afford to shackle our children's minds with 15th century science."

John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, a leading intelligent design think tank in Seattle, took a dim view of the judge, arguing that he evinced a "grandiosity" and "egregious" judicial activism. But he agreed that the decision comes as a heavy blow. "There's no doubt that people will trumpet this and that now they can say a federal judge agrees, and that doesn't help," West said. "His angry tone was not helpful."

This latest skirmish in a centuries-long cultural war began when the School Board in Dover, a small central Pennsylvania farm town slowly evolving into a suburb of Harrisburg, voted last year to require ninth-grade biology teachers to read a four-paragraph statement casting doubt on Darwin's theory of evolution.

The mandatory statement notes that intelligent design offers an alternative theory for the origin and evolution of life.

The board members made little secret of their own views, which hewed not so much to intelligent design as to Young Earth Creationism, the fundamentalist Christian belief that the world is but 6,000 years old and that Noah's flood shaped the earth.

Eleven parents filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking to block the new policy on the grounds that intelligent design was but biblical creationism in the cloth of science. The Supreme Court had ruled in 1987 that nothing like creationism could be taught in public school science courses.

"The board was selfish," said Eric Rothschild who represented the parents along with the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "This was all about imposing their religious viewpoint on a diverse community."

"Intelligent Design is not science," Jones wrote. "Proponents . . . occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, [but] no serious alternative to God as designer has been proposed."

The sheer breadth of Jones' decision set the legal barriers much higher for intelligent design. But even those who applauded the court's ruling doubted he had closed the door. Most polls show that 40 to 55 percent of Americans favor a strict biblical creationist view of evolution.

Link

[Hardrock69]

Sounds like a resonable call to me.

Keep religion in the churches.

[Ally_Kat]

What I find funny about this whole arguement is that in our world that has so grabbed onto Locke, we have forgotten that when these discoveries were made and when things were written, the Locke-ian way of thnking wasn't in hold and they were done with Providence in mind and by men who strongly believed in Providence. Both sides need to learn a bit about Mr. Darwin and not the Neo-Darwinism and selected quotes that we are taught in history classes. It would make it easier for people like me who do see things on the same level he does to say, "yeah, Darwin was on to something."

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all [original italics] satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest. Yours sincerely and cordially, Charles Darwin" (Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860)

[Unchainme]

I remember reading or hearing somewhere that on his deathbed, Darwin auctually renounced his theory. Don't know if this true or anything. Just thought I'd mention it here and see If anyone else heard the same thing.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Unchainme
I remember reading or hearing somewhere that on his deathbed, Darwin auctually renounced his theory. Don't know if this true or anything. Just thought I'd mention it here and see If anyone else heard the same thing.

Yeah, I've heard of that. Never looked too much into it. I think ti was a close friend who claimed it. Nothing really solid in evidence, as far as I know. I'd have to look around for ya, though.

[Unchainme]

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) is usually recognized as the one who provided the world with the theory of evolution. Students often learn about his famous world voyage as naturalist on the HMS Beagle. While visiting remote parts of the world he became convinced that species became modified over time. This variation served as a basis for his principle of survival of the fittest by natural selection. This concept was further interpreted by Darwin as an evolutionary mechanism that would provide for advanced forms of life without the need of a Creator God.
While other scientists had also contributed to the concept, Darwin soon gained notoriety and recognition for this major contribution to a "scientific" world view. His evolutionary mechanism is still widely accepted, although in recent years it has evoked significant criticism even from within the scientific community. Darwin has been, and still is, famous for being a thought leader who made a major contribution to the secularization movement during the past two centuries, especially in the Western world. Darwin's notoriety has attracted a number of unwarranted and unwelcome "friends" who traded on his fame.
One of the more persistent themes, too often echoed by conservative religionists, is the story of Darwin's deathbed confession. For more than a century allegations have been made that Darwin turned towards Christianity when he faced the end of his life. Over one hundred such accounts have been published. One clergyman reported this only a few days after Darwin's death.
Probably the most important source of many such accounts is the famous "Lady Hope Story." Lady Hope worked diligently for the cause of temperance, sometimes ministering to the drunkards and the destitute not too far from Darwin's estate at Down in England. Darwin also had some interest in the cause of temperance. Lady Hope reports in detail a visit with Darwin in his home about six months before his death. According to her account, he was ill, but in good spirits, and had a Bible in hand. He spoke to her about the grandeur of the book of Hebrews and of salvation in Jesus Christ, but was pained when asked about creation. He expressed surprise that some of his earlier queries and suggestions had spread like wildfire, and that people had made a religion of them.
The authenticity of this account has been much debated. The Darwin family has thoroughly denied it, although with inconsistencies. Some of the physical details given by Lady Hope leave little doubt that she had actually been in his home. A later version of this incident, also written by Lady Hope, differs in some details and suggests that there was more than one visit. The purported incident took place quite a long time before Darwin's death, hence is not a deathbed confession. There is no record of Darwin renouncing his views thereafter, and Darwin does not appear to have changed his mind on that point. His family has refuted any suggestion of a last-minute "conversion." Although we cannot be absolutely certain, the argument should not be used until good evidence can be brought forth. Unfortunately, the story has been used by many as evidence of the strength of the Christian gospel message. It is impressive to have the hero of evolution finally see the light of the gospel.
Secularists have also latched onto Darwin's fame in support of their world view. They usually deny the Lady Hope story and readily point to Darwin as one of their champions who helped emancipate humanity from religious superstition. Darwin's home at Down has become, in a sense, a shrine for rationalists and free thinkers; so much so that some tourists of a different mindset have been afraid to enter. However, Darwin's relation to the secularists has not been placid. When two atheists came to visit him at Down, he severely remonstrated with them for being so belligerent. He advocated passive agnosticism instead of aggressive atheism. A few months after this incident, Darwin died. Because of his fame he was given a religious State funeral with burial in Westminster Abbey. One secularist quipped that though the Church had Darwin's corpse, it did not have his ideas — ideas which were undermining its foundation. To secularists Darwin was an ally, working for their cause. However, when Darwin's family published a "purified" version of his Life and Letters which over-emphasized his religious concerns, some freethinkers countered with a pamphlet that accused Darwin of hypocrisy, of lapsing from disbelief, and of yielding to the pressure of the priests and their fire (pyre)! An unexpurgated version of his Life and Letters was not published until 76 years later. Nevertheless, since Darwin provided the secular community with a model for the origin of species that excluded God, Darwin's authority is readily appropriated in support of secular philosophy.
What were Darwin's real religious beliefs? While they are often summarized by the word "agnosticism", this is a gross oversimplifcation of the conflicts and changes that occurred over his lifetime.
While religious beliefs are difficult to discern with much accuracy, some facts shed light on this elusive question. Darwin had theological training at Cambridge University as he was preparing to become a country parson; however, his interest in natural history soon dominated. His wife was a devout Christian who worried about his eternal salvation. Darwin's children were christened at the Down church, and he gave generously to some of its activities, although he was not faithful in attendance. The question of religion in the Darwin home was a matter of tension which was not much discussed: Darwin and his sons tending more towards secularism, while his wife and daughters favored religion.
In his later years, Darwin thoroughly repudiated revelation and Christianity, but he remained open on the question of life after death. He shied away from controversy, the irreligious, and atheism, but he boasted of having "no remorse of having committed any great sin." While Darwin was somewhat despondent during his final year, one of his last utterances was "I am not the least afraid to die." It is also of interest that in the closing paragraph of the last five of the six editions of his famous book On the Origin of Species, Darwin casually refers to the Creator originating life. This still leaves intact his evolutionary concept for the origin of most life forms. The mixed picture one derives from these details indicates that Darwin is not one who should be claimed as the hero of either the secularists or the religionists. Actually, the popularity of evolution is probably due more to the work of secularists than to Charles Darwin.
We like to associate our views with the famous. This can lend credence both to our views and to ourselves. "Name dropping" is especially successful if the name being called is very famous. But is this being forthright, especially when the views of those with whom we associate do not agree with the conclusions being emphasized? Accuracy is ill-served by such practices. Both the secularists and the religionists appear to have been misusing Darwin.
We can also learn other lessons from the incidents reported above: e.g., using care in formulating conclusions, and not being too gullible. The cause of truth would also be generously served if we would drop the practice of name dropping.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21059.htm

Here I Found Something.

[LoungeMachine]

Everyone is a believer on their deathbed......LMAO

[DLR'sCock]

You know, it is possible to understand Evolution and still understand that God does play a part as well. I am all for keeping them separate when it comes to PUBLIC dollars. In private, do as you learn, wish, and choose.

Of course these right wing fundamentalist nut jobs are all about force feeding their beliefs on everyone else, their just like who now?


hmmmmm????

[Cathedral]

A Christian who lies is no Christian at all.
But this fact doesn't keep any of you from lumping them all together into one mix and making a sweeping judgement about all Christians, does it?

Children of God are to spread his word, that much is true. but those who force it upon you are in more need of salvation than the lost are because that isn't what God intended in the first place.
A christian who beats you over the head with their faith is only in it for their own souls, but they forget that God is watching them and knows their hearts, they just don't know Jesus as they should.

A true christian doesn't play cheerleader for politicians and their ungodly agendas.

[Warham]

I'm still waiting for one of you to post an article saying a Muslim lied, or a Wiccan lied, or a...well, you know what I'm getting at.

[LoungeMachine]

no, not really.....

what others do should have no bearing whatsoever on the morality of what your own do.

because others rob, steal, and murder, it's okay if we do?

so much for living by a higher standard

[bueno bob]

I think what gives Christians, and Christianity as a rule, such a bad name are Christians themselves...they seem rather prone to elitism and zealots as...well, more elitist religions (and by saying "they", I'm referring to the Pat Robertsons of the world, who, IMO, is probably one of the worst possible examples of Christianity to be put on the world stage - ever).

There's good and bad, normalcy and extremism in everybody and in every branch of religion from Wiccans to Christians to Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, et al; nobody's exempt.

A good thing to keep in mind is just because one Corgi bites at you, doesn't mean that ALL Corgi's will...there's always a few bad apples in any bunch. Nor does it mean a rottweiler is any less likely to bite at you just because he's a different mix.

Just to try and keep it all in perspective.

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm still waiting for one of you to post an article saying a Muslim lied, or a Wiccan lied, or a...well, you know what I'm getting at.

Satanists are allowed to lie as much as they want to!

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
You know, it is possible to understand Evolution and still understand that God does play a part as well. I am all for keeping them separate when it comes to PUBLIC dollars. In private, do as you learn, wish, and choose.

I still say we should have a world religions course where the main beliefs of each are analyized and none are imposed. This way you can spin it for those extreme Christians that their view is included AND it exposes children to different viewpoints and can be used as a way to bring about tolerance and acceptance of others, which I know so many complain that we do not have.

But my suggestion probably make too much sense to be taken seriously.

[WACF]

Nice suggestion Ally, that would be a wonderful thing.

Like you said it makes too much sense to taken seriously.

Alot of people fear open discussion and or comparision may show the flaws of their own specific belief...