South Carolina state Sen. Mike Fair is one of the most committed and aggressive creationist legislators in the country. He’s tried a number of ways to get his religion inserted into science classrooms and weaken the teaching of evolution and now he’s penned an op-ed for the Greenville newspaper blathering ignorantly on the subject.
Do I believe evolution occurs. Certainly. Evolution means change and it is observable in that sense. There are big dogs and little dogs but big or little dogs are all still dogs. Change occurred but change cannot occur outside the phylum to which dogs belong.
See, this is why we shouldn’t let people who know nothing about science try to influence how science is taught. Dogs are not a phylum, for crying out loud. Dogs are part of the phylum chordata. So are we. So is every animal in the world that has a spine. If you can’t pass the AP biology exam, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote on the biology curriculum.
The “establishment clause” of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution proclaims: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Its meaning is clear!
Noah Webster was considered the Father of Education. In his 1828 published dictionary he defined “establish” as the “use of authority to enact an institutional structure.”
As colonies became states, state religions, mostly Anglican, were common. However, after the Constitution was ratified, taxpayer funded religions violated the establishment clause.
Webster’s 1828 definition of the Constitution includes these words: “the Christian New Testament is the Moral Law for the United States.” So, Noah Webster, was reflecting the fact that the majority of our founding fathers promoted the Christian faith as individuals but agreed the government would not establish a state faith funded by taxpayers.
I have no idea why he thinks this is relevant. Webster was not one of the Founding Fathers and whatever he thought was the “moral law” of the United States, that has nothing at all to do with the proper interpretation of the First Amendment. “I found a really old dead guy who agrees with me” is hardly a compelling argument.
For example, the courts defined science so as to exclude any theory or information not contained in naturalism — also known as Darwin’s theory of Evolution. The judicial system made those decisions. Intelligence is effectively banned by the courts and intelligence is often absent in the courts!
This is gibberish. Darwin’s theory of evolution is not the same thing as naturalism, for crying out loud. The theory of evolution is naturalistic in precisely the same sense that every scientific theory is naturalistic, yet Fair only objects to it in this one case (okay, probably two — add in global warming as well, I’m sure).
Another court case ruled “Intelligent Design” violated the Establishment Clause and was therefore ruled unconstitutional. “Intelligent Design” is an explanation for the cause for specified complexity. It is not a theological construct. It is hard for me to believe that “intelligence” has been ruled unconstitutional in the public schools!
No, intelligent design is not an explanation for the cause of specified complexity (aside: wouldn’t you love to hear Fair try to explain what “specified complexity” is? That could keep me entertained for hours). Intelligent design is a repackaging of the same old discredited creationist arguments against evolution. The ruling in the case he refers to includes mountains of evidence to prove that. As for intelligence being ruled unconstitutional, it seems to me that Fair would be all for that — it would prevent him from ever violating the constitution.