01-18-2005, 12:58 PM
Where are the folks who ragged on GWB when he instituted new (looser) regulations on stem cell research? Weren't they the ones saying the government should stay out of science? Hmmm...
Links available at site
<a href='http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15142' target='_blank'>http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section...ContentID=15142</a>
Sticker Wars
A Case of the Blind Leading the Rest of Us
BreakPoint with Charles Colson
January 18, 2005
Last week a federal judge, egged on by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ordered a Georgia school district to remove stickers from biology textbooks. Why? Because, according to the judge, a simple statement written on the stickers—that evolution is a theory, not a fact—was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. He held evolution as fact!
This is just the latest example of a plague of intellectual blindness among our secular elites.
In Georgia’s Cobb County, school officials added the stickers two years ago onto the textbooks which presented evolution as an established fact, ignoring competing ideas about life’s origins. Now, this is not just another burst of Christian-bashing. What this ruling really represents is a blindness to reality—a mindset rampant within our culture.
According to this mindset, any challenge to Darwinism is by definition religious. Now, imagine applying this logic to any other area. Suppose your state passed a law against murder, and the ACLU went to court, claiming it was an endorsement of religion. After all, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder! Or imagine someone suing a town over its zoning laws. The Bible tells us to put a fence on our roof so that no one will fall off. Are building codes, therefore, religious? If the courts approached conflicts over other laws the way they do over biology, we’d soon have no laws left at all—except maybe pooper-scooper laws, because I don’t think the Bible says anything about that.
The constitutional argument is phony. Honest observers quickly realize that the debate here over life’s origins is not one of science versus religion, but of science versus science. Take the work of biochemist Michael Behe, a professor at Lehigh University. Initially, Behe accepted Darwinist teachings. But then he began reading articles questioning evolutionary theories. He found the arguments compelling. So he began to do research of his own.
In his book published ten years ago, Darwin’s Black Box, he introduced a concept he calls “irreducible complexity.
Links available at site
<a href='http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15142' target='_blank'>http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section...ContentID=15142</a>
Sticker Wars
A Case of the Blind Leading the Rest of Us
BreakPoint with Charles Colson
January 18, 2005
Last week a federal judge, egged on by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ordered a Georgia school district to remove stickers from biology textbooks. Why? Because, according to the judge, a simple statement written on the stickers—that evolution is a theory, not a fact—was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. He held evolution as fact!
This is just the latest example of a plague of intellectual blindness among our secular elites.
In Georgia’s Cobb County, school officials added the stickers two years ago onto the textbooks which presented evolution as an established fact, ignoring competing ideas about life’s origins. Now, this is not just another burst of Christian-bashing. What this ruling really represents is a blindness to reality—a mindset rampant within our culture.
According to this mindset, any challenge to Darwinism is by definition religious. Now, imagine applying this logic to any other area. Suppose your state passed a law against murder, and the ACLU went to court, claiming it was an endorsement of religion. After all, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder! Or imagine someone suing a town over its zoning laws. The Bible tells us to put a fence on our roof so that no one will fall off. Are building codes, therefore, religious? If the courts approached conflicts over other laws the way they do over biology, we’d soon have no laws left at all—except maybe pooper-scooper laws, because I don’t think the Bible says anything about that.
The constitutional argument is phony. Honest observers quickly realize that the debate here over life’s origins is not one of science versus religion, but of science versus science. Take the work of biochemist Michael Behe, a professor at Lehigh University. Initially, Behe accepted Darwinist teachings. But then he began reading articles questioning evolutionary theories. He found the arguments compelling. So he began to do research of his own.
In his book published ten years ago, Darwin’s Black Box, he introduced a concept he calls “irreducible complexity.