Darwinists' double standard on Jefferson
The Prayer at Valley Forge by Arnold Friberg
* Sung to the tune of Old-Time Religion
=====================================
An article in Evolution News & Views says,
When Stephen C. Meyer wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe on Thomas Jefferson as a proto-ID supporter, outraged science journalist Callaway at the New Scientist [use this link -- the link in EN&V is wrong] couldn’t even mount an argument. He calls linking Jefferson and ID a “ridiculous assertion.” But he doesn’t tell us why it’s ridiculous.
The Darwinists have a hypocritical double standard -- they are allowed to invoke Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders but the critics of Darwinism are not. In his commencement speech at Dickinson College, Judge John E. Jones III had Jefferson in particular in mind (in fact, he praised Jefferson in his speech) when he said that his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was based on his cockamamie notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions -- he said,
. . . .this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.
Intelligent Design is in fact part of Jefferson's "true religion."
Labels: Establishment clause (new #2)
9 Comments:
> Intelligent Design is in fact part of Jefferson's "true religion." <
In what way? Just stating this does not make it a fact, especially when there is no obvious connection.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8150000/8150333.stm
>>>>>>> Intelligent Design is in fact part of Jefferson's "true religion." <
In what way? Just stating this does not make it a fact, especially when there is no obvious connection. <<<<<<<
Read the Boston Globe article.
[quote]Intelligent Design is in fact part of Jefferson's "true religion."[/quote]
No it's not. Theistic evolution arguably might have been part of Jefferson's "true religion." Theistic evolution is not the same thing as ID, and Jefferson abhorred the types of arguments that proponents of ID make.
Jefferson believed that the only way to distinguish between true religion and false religion was through free, rational enquiry. According to Jefferson, whether or not a religion was organized had no bearing on whether it was true or false.
Gizmo said,
>>>>> Theistic evolution arguably might have been part of Jefferson's "true religion." <<<<<<
What did Jefferson know about evolution?
>>>>> and Jefferson abhorred the types of arguments that proponents of ID make. <<<<<<
He did? That is not what Meyer's Boston Globe article indicates.
> What did Jefferson know about evolution? <
Well take one side or the other on this. You are trying to take both.
>>>>>> What did Jefferson know about evolution? <
Well take one side or the other on this. You are trying to take both. <<<<<<<
Well, it's true that the way I defined ID as the study of the probability that evolution theory alone could account for the complexity and diversity of living things, someone would have to know something about evolution to be an ID supporter. But you don't accept that definition of ID, so you are out of luck.
Actually, Jefferson could be considered to be an ID supporter just because he saw design in nature.
> But you don't accept that definition of ID, so you are out of luck. <
How do you know what "Anonymous" accepts? Is "Anonymous" one of your sock puppets?
>>>>>>> But you don't accept that definition of ID, so you are out of luck. <
How do you know what "Anonymous" accepts? Is "Anonymous" one of your sock puppets? <<<<<<<
I have never known an "Anonymous" here who thinks otherwise. Well, Anonymous, am I mistaken about you?
Post a Comment
<< Home