Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:14 pm

s1m0n wrote:Well, the "US Code defining marriage" HAS been seriously challenged on the basis of it's failure to conform with the equal treatment provisions of the MA constitution

Are you seriously suggesting that a state or local rule could successfully pre-empt a federal Code? You're not from California or Oregon are you?

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:19 pm

Lorenzo wrote:
s1m0n wrote:Well, the "US Code defining marriage" HAS been seriously challenged on the basis of it's failure to conform with the equal treatment provisions of the MA constitution
Are you seriously suggesting that a state or local rule could successfully pre-empt a federal Code? You're not from California or Oregon are you?

I think he is and in this instance he's right: Federal law can define marriage up and down and to the wazoo and back, it doesn't matter a bit if the states, not the union is competent to make law in this area.

Now, the federal constitution, that would be a different matter: it is directly binding on the states. That's why the push is for a constitutional marriage amendment.

Wormdiet · Post by **Wormdiet** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:21 pm

Where and what exactly is the definition of marriage we're talking about? Is it an actual document in the Federal law code or a hypothetical that we've reified mistakenly?

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:28 pm

Bloomfield wrote:I think he is and in this instance he's right: Federal law can define marriage up and down and to the wazoo and back, it doesn't matter a bit if the states, not the union is competent to make law in this area.

Now, the federal constitution, that would be a different matter: it is directly binding on the states. That's why the push is for a constitutional marriage amendment.

Temporary law is no law at all...as we found out in Oregon and California. A higher authority has the last call and there's bound to be a challenge.

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:31 pm

Wormdiet wrote:Where and what exactly is the definition of marriage we're talking about? Is it an actual document in the Federal law code or a hypothetical that we've reified mistakenly?

I gave the link in an earlier post, but here it is again with an entire C&P.

§ 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
Release date: 2005-05-17

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html ... _10_1.html

Wormdiet · Post by **Wormdiet** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:45 pm

Danke.

ninjaaron · Post by **ninjaaron** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:45 pm

I would like to weigh in with my opinion as a scholarly minded seminary student. Mostly because this is one of the few things I am actually qualified to comment on. I don't know crap about music (at least I have no peices of paper that say so), but I a bunch of credits toward a Biblical studies degree.

While I believe that the Bible is God's words, graciously given to us, and is historically accurite for the great majority; I also believe that in the in the Bible God spoke through the personalities of men to other people of that culture. It is pretty clear that the main intention of the author of Genesis was to say something about humans, as well as something about the human-divine relationship. It is more than anyone can say to presume he is speaking literally about the creation of the world. It is very Jewish to explain something with a word picture. In western thinking, we speak in abstracts, and talk about ideas. Easterners speak in metaphores.

He might be speaking literaly, but his main concern is clearly not to explain the method God used to create the world. It is pretty clear that he is saying God created the world, but the rest could well be metaphores, explaining some things about human nature, and God's nature.

I don't know as much about science as I do about the Bible, but I don't see why God couldn't have created the world through an evolutionary prosses.

On the flip side, the Theory of Evolution is shakey at best. I believe in the Bible no matter what. If science is correct, then it obviously wasn't meant to be taken literally. If it was meant to be taken literaly, then science must be wrong, which it is, from time to time.

I think that in science class, the findings of science aught to be discussed, The Bible is not a science text book. It was never meant to teach people about science. I think using it in such a way is an abuse of God's word. I'm not in favor of that.

I do think that there are some theories which are credible that are not discussed which should be, such as the young earth theory, for which there is plenty of empirical evience. Creationism is a possible logical consequence of of the young earth theory, but the theory itself is scientifitcly measurable. Intellegent Design is more in the relm of philosophy, and certianly aught to be discussed there, but it's not science.

As for Creationism, that is pretty much purely theological, and mostly irrelevant to the christian life. It belongs entirely to the world of biblical scholarship. All christians believe that God created the world. Anything beyond that fact is conjeture.

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:26 am

ninjaaron wrote:On the flip side, the Theory of Evolution is shakey at best. I believe in the Bible no matter what. If science is correct, then it obviously wasn't meant to be taken literally. If it was meant to be taken literaly, then science must be wrong, which it is, from time to time.

I don't think that science can be wrong. Scientists can be wrong. It can be poor science. But science means knowledge, and no matter how much we believe something, it is not science if it's a mistake. That said, mistakes are surely a part of the scientific process. We learn from mistakes.

ninjaaron · Post by **ninjaaron** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:07 am

Walden wrote:
ninjaaron wrote:On the flip side, the Theory of Evolution is shakey at best. I believe in the Bible no matter what. If science is correct, then it obviously wasn't meant to be taken literally. If it was meant to be taken literaly, then science must be wrong, which it is, from time to time.
I don't think that science can be wrong. Scientists can be wrong. It can be poor science. But science means knowledge, and no matter how much we believe something, it is not science if it's a mistake. That said, mistakes are surely a part of the scientific process. We learn from mistakes.

There are multiple working defintions of science, and if we want to get semantical about it, we could well mince words all evening.

I was refering in this case to the scientific community at large. Of course, there are scientists that find the young earth theory to apparently have more empirical support, which doesn't leave a lot of room for evolution, at least not in the way it has traditionally been veiwed.

Not that I know much about either theory. I've just heard bits and read articles here and there. It doesn't really seem like either of them have strong legs to stand on. We can theorize all we want, but experiments that have never been tried are difficult to predict. The few things we have shown to be true using the scientific method have generally shown that humans have been very bad guessers. I think The scientific method is fairly reliable, however I don't really see a way to apply it to evolution that has already taken place. It can only ever be a guess, and as I have said two senteces ago, we are horrid at guessing games, especially with so many variables unaccounted for... Which is more or less why I'm studing the Bible instead of science. Science changes it's mind. God is always right.

Cayden · Post by **Cayden** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:46 am

ninjaaron wrote:God is always right.

If that's what you believe.

Flyingcursor · Post by **Flyingcursor** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:05 am

Peter Laban wrote:
ninjaaron wrote:God is always right.
If that's what you believe.

Thus stealing is wrong only if you get caught.

Cayden · Post by **Cayden** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:33 am

Flyingcursor wrote:
Thus stealing is wrong only if you get caught.

I miss the point there.

Religion is an area I am a complete stranger to, statements like 'God is always right' are beyond me. But if that's what you believe, fine. That was the point. I just can't comprehend how you can think that way.

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:38 am

Peter Laban wrote:Religion is an area I am a complete stranger to, statements like 'God is always right' are beyond me. But if that's what you believe, fine. That was the point. I just can't comprehend how you can think that way.

Religion, or at least Christian religion, teaches that God is omniscient, which, if true, would make it incomprehensible for Him to be in error.

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:13 am

Flyingcursor wrote:
Peter Laban wrote:
ninjaaron wrote:God is always right.
If that's what you believe.
Thus stealing is wrong only if you get caught.

There are plenty of views that distinguish "right" from "wrong" without recourse to god or divine commandments.

missy · Post by **missy** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:14 am

Bloom wrote:

"But coming from another angle, the separation of powers, missy has a point: Judges are and should be constrained in their decision by statutes (and precedents). ............... In practice, of course, it is precicely the cases that don't seem to have a clear answer which reach the courts (clear cases settle)."

Thanks Bloom - you stated exactly what I was poorly trying to say. I was talking more in "theory" than in actual "practice". And I understand the reason for the difference.