Here's How To Break The Law?

Tim:

I think you are a bit too enthusiastic here. I'm not the lawyer, but it's my understanding that it's not illegal to present valid science in science classes EVEN IF the motivation for doing so is religious. And I think it's clear that Strang has managed to swallow whole the DI's claim that Intelligent Design, however religious its proponents may be, is nonetheless valid science. Strang believes that ID lost out in the Dover case not because it's bad science, but because those trying to insert it into classrooms had religious arguments for doing so, and the court focused on the religious arguments rather than on the sound science.

Yes, I know the decision made it abundantly clear that there was no science underlying ID claims, which are nothing more than straight repackaged creationism. But Strang (and his readers) WANTS it to be science, and WANTS to believe the DI's bogus claims. And in the religious world, this is how things come true.

His broad complaint falls along these same lines. God IS, Jesus IS, salvation IS, this isn't religion, this is TRUTH. And here we are, trying to force everyone to pretend otherwise for spurious reasons and accomplishing nothing good, and maybe even threatening the salvation of souls. For Strang, religion is FACT, and forcing the Government to deny Jesus is like denying the sun rises. It's plainly perverse, for no good reason.

Yes, others believe differently. But isn't this the very thing education is supposed to be FOR, to correct error and inculcate with correct knowledge?

Prof. Lee Strang -
Instead of presenting overtly religious arguments for intelligent design, present the strong --- explicitly scientific --- claims put forward by intelligent-design proponents such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington.

One problem, there are no strong explicitly scientific claims ut forward by intelligent-design proponents. I really wish that people supporting ID would take the time and actually read the "work" that is being produced by ID proponents. Just saying there is strong scientific support for ID or that there are holes in evolution does actually prove that either of those statements are true.

Prof. Lee Strang has to show the validity of ID, before it can be taught in the classroom.

I blogged about this article this morning. Two of them from NR actually. Both were wretched. I put a trackback below.

Strang's suggestion of lying is essentially the same as a Christian lawyer talking to area clergy recently in Dover did when he suggested that "I think we need to do a better job at being clever as serpents" when hiding religious motivations.

Flint has a point: if Strang were contending that ID is science, but was struck down because people advocating it gave bad arguments for it in the future, and that people should avoid bad arguments in the future, that would be one thing. But I don't think that's what Strang is saying, in the context of his whole article. If that were his claim, why would he spend time criticizing the concept of separation of church and state, and claim that courts are "purging" religion from public places? His claim seems to me to accept the fact--and I emphasize, fact--that ID is religion; he then seems to be arguing that it should be sneaked more cleverly into classrooms. And that seems clearly to be recommending a course of action of how to break the law--not just the law, but the supreme law of the land, which, as a sworn attorney, Mr. Strang has doubtless taken an oath to support and defend.

The line about "being clever as serpents" was also memorable to me. It's such an obviously immoral, even Satanic thing for a Christian lawyer to be spouting.

If the Lancaster Online article were a CS Lewis book, he would say that and then his eye would glint menacingly.

Instead of presenting overtly religious arguments for intelligent design, present the strong --- explicitly scientific --- claims put forward by intelligent-design proponents such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington.

Strang's suggestion of lying is essentially the same as a Christian lawyer talking to area clergy recently in Dover did when he suggested that "I think we need to do a better job at being clever as serpents" when hiding religious motivations.

I'm a Christian and a believer in evolution.

I suppose I have to say believer in evolution because I haven't reviewed
all the science that makes evolution what it is. Instead, I have to trust
scientists to be honest in their work. Thus I believe in these people.
Other scientists do this all the time. They base their work on the work
of other scientists without repeating every step from the beginning.
Science is a massive web of trust.

What angers me greatly is the open invitation to deceit and lying in order
to promote Christianity that is an integral part of the ID movement.

A large part of my personal belief in God centers on the concept of God as
both truth and light -- in the broadest way possible. That cuts a lot of
ways. Among them is a confidence that my faith isn't a paper wall that
I am going to punch throw accidentally if I press to hard. I've long had
a running joke --
"If God had meant man to think, he would have given him a brain".

To lie in order to bring people to God strikes me as fundamentally wrong --
even fundamentally evil. How can you bring people honestly closer to the
ultimate truth and light by lying?

I don't think you can.

I dunno. I can't read minds, but I can read that many people know science is good and that it works, and that God exists and ALSO works. These beliefs are reconciled in different ways. I personally read Strang as believing that God is in everywhere and everything. For him ID is simply good biology without God (his version) removed (which is *always* improper), and he also sees us as a nation removing (his) god, also improperly, from public discourse, public policies, and the like. For Strang, the State is *properly* the administrative arm of the church in very important ways, especially in public education. Strang seems to think school should teach creationist science, creationist shop, creationist home economics, creationist civics. For Strang, the lie is leaving God (his version) OUT of such instruction.

I regard the "clever as serpents" comment as a practical observation that the armies of the Lord increasingly have to be devious as lawyers, NOT because it's their nature, but because it's necessary in the cultural war, to finesse their way around the Godless barriers being put up by the atheists.

Flint,

It seems to me that a religion that can only recruit followers via lies and deceit is the epitome of Satanic worship.

If your religion is this feeble, it's teachings so empty of meaning that you must *lie* to convince people to practice it, then perhaps it doesn't deserve followers. And perhaps you should shop for another religion/belief.

What angers me greatly is the open invitation to deceit and lying in order to promote Christianity that is an integral part of the ID movement.

— Jim Ramsey

Adam,

We're never going to agree. We start from different points. My reading of
your post is that you are looking for Christianity to prove itself to you.
I've made the decision to be a Christian and work from there. I've said
before that becoming a Christian is like stepping off a cliff. All the
knowledge you have just determines where you step off.

It's also true that the interaction of Christianity with power and money and
government over the centuries makes the current conflict over ID seem pretty
small time. At least we aren't killing people in large numbers with this one.

The irony is that there are thousands of scientists out there working away
at expanding our understanding of the world around us and then going to
Church or to Temple or to Mosque. These people are surprised when someone
tries to tell them that they can't do this. My guess is that they mostly
ignore such silliness and get on with their lives.

There was a poster in our university bookstore (our university has an Episcopal seminary) that said:

"Christ died to take away our sins, not our mind"

I would think that the quest of truth and knowledge is our obligation as Christians. Lying is never okay. Bringing people to the faith with lies is never okay. Controlling people through ignorance and fear is never okay. Forcing one's views on others is never okay. If it weren't for the open-minded, searching, curious and accepting nature of my local church community, I would have given up on religion a long time ago, and not because I am interested in learning science, but because of the judgemental, hateful, ignorant ranting of some professed "Christians" around me.

Adam, Jim, and KL;

I'd like to use selective quotes from you & this thread in various other discussions in which I participate. Would it be OK for me to quote you (I can either point back to this thread, just include a name reference, quote you but not include any reference. or not quote you at all).

I think your words on this issue have very clearly expressed a very strong feeling I've had but been unable to adequately express about this issue for a long time.

That's cool-my quote and $4 will get you a cup of coffee at any participating Starbucks....

There is simply no such purge---no more than there's a "war on Christmas."

— Timothy Sandefur

Sure.

If you preface what we say with, "look at these idiots", don't tell us.

Adam, Jim, and KL; I'd like to use selective quotes from you & this thread in various other discussions in which I participate. Would it be OK for me to quote you (I can either point back to this thread, just include a name reference, quote you but not include any reference. or not quote you at all). I think your words on this issue have very clearly expressed a very strong feeling I've had but been unable to adequately express about this issue for a long time.

— jim

We're never going to agree. We start from different points. My reading of your post is that you are looking for Christianity to prove itself to you. I've made the decision to be a Christian and work from there. I've said before that becoming a Christian is like stepping off a cliff. All the knowledge you have just determines where you step off.

— Jim Ramsey

Adam,

I would have to say that when people decide their behavior from facts, logic, & reason; the society seems to be more enlightened and better for the population.

When people decide their behavior based upon emotion, superstition, and ignorance; the society seems to be as you describe more violent and much worse for the population.

I don't think this means that religion per sea is bad. It's just that those people that end up governing prefer to use emotion and ignorance to govern their populaces (since it's easier to predict) than logic. Fundamentalists are more likely to try this approach.

A great example of this is jury selection. Both sides want scientists and engineers removed from the jury because they are perceived to rely more upon the facts than other jurors.

Jim
You are getting warm.
Ask yourself this .....why do the political promoters of this nonsense want it to become the dominant paradigm......
Are you familiar with George Orwell ?

ke,

Yes, I understand your reference and your point.

I suppose my point is that religion is neither necessary nor sufficient to control people through emotions and ignorance.

It's not necessary in that you can acheive this control without religion (e.g. tell a bunch of athiest feminists that you're going to revoke their abortion rights).

It's not sufficient in that there are religious followers that are not easily controlled through emotions and ignorance.

One thing I find especially pugnacious in the fundamentalists relgion is that it's a sin to challenge what you're told by either researching or out right questioning. The people caught in this web fight to maintain this status quo harder than the leaders of the movement.

FWIW,

I very much apologize for my example. I just reread my post and found it, distasteful.

I was searching for an emotionally charged issue to use as an example and didn't fully consider how my reference my look.

Jim said:
"
The people caught in this web fight to maintain this status quo harder than the leaders of the movement."

The Fundamentalist leaders I conclude are WELL aware that the masses they control through Obscurantism (the complete opposite of enlightenment)
produce a soldier mentallity, thou art that, and "thou shalt do as one is told"......no questions asked!

A great example of this is jury selection. Both sides want scientists and engineers removed from the jury because they are perceived to rely more upon the facts than other jurors.

— Jim