Rhetoric 3302 Questions

Chapter 22 was pretty interesting that the judge would bring the trial outside for the public to be a part of. But I guess with the consideration that it really wasn't getting presented as a trial it would be alright to have the trial outside in front of the public since they were already broadcasting it all over the nation. I find it funny that in the chapter at the end they say that the issue between religion and science are clear now and nobody argues about them anymore which is not true people today still argue about the religion and scientific issue that was presented in this trial. It blows my mind that they would actually say that in this book to actually say that science and religion don't have a problem with each other anymore and that everything is resolved at least that's what I got from the chapter at the end. There are a lot of cases that deal with evolution and religion. They all are very good causes. There are a lot of cases that say that schools that are public have to teach all science classes even evolution in some of these court cases. How is intelligent design like religion or even how is it related in that sense? What is intelligent design anyways is it part of religion or is it part of science? I think it is a good thing to look at intelligent design and evolution with an open mind you can't just disregard something without knowing anything about at least I can't. The last paragraph in this article is very interesting to the fact that at the beginning they said that intelligent design can't be science because it is not the definition of science because you can't explain it and now at the end they say science and intelligent design are the same. Why can't they make up there minds it is getting me very confused?

The Scopes Trial

Not much to say this week, not many questions to ask. It surprised me to see how much manipulation and media-centric motives were at play here. Dayton civic leaders seem to have intentionally churned up this issue and brought Scopes on board as the defendant, even though he wasn’t guilty of breaking any statues, just to get themselves on the map! Darrow, of course had other motives for his involvement, as did Bryan; I was particularly interested in Darrow’s insistence on “prosecuting the statute” rather than defending the defendant! The manner in which Darrow “designed” the jury to be inadequately capable of weighing the scientific and religious issues at hand was brilliance on his part.

Summaries of Seven Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creation

I was surprised in reading this list how similar the court cases of today are to the ones from the 60’s and 80’s (apparently nothing important happened regarding this issue in the 70’s…). The decision in 1994 finding that is it “appropriate to require a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class” should sum up the issue quite nicely—but the debate rages on, just as strong as ever. Many still insist on “teaching evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to… other religious views”. It would be nice if we could put an end to this argument once and for all (though of course such a thing is impossible in a free society!). Evolution is a science, therefore it should be taught as science. Creationism is not a science, therefore it should not be taught as science.

Judge: Intelligent Design is Re-labeled Creationism

I was interested in finding out about the book on intelligent design referred to by the Judge in this case (Of Pandas and People), so I went to Amazon.com. I found that the book itself has a rating of 2.5 / 5 stars, and that each reviewer gave it either 1 star or 5 stars—hardly any in between! As surveys of public opinion show that there is a nearly even split between evolution-believers and creation-believers, it was no surprise to find such polarization here!

Chapter 22

Along with the other court cases, this one was particularly interesting to read. Religion and Science never have positive outcomes at the end. Once again, we are battling with science and religion together. Evolution and creationism are very much science, but they both have a little touch of a religious aspect to them. This is why, school districts get huffy and puffy about it. In this particular school district, Scopes is the one who taught evolution to the students. Isn't evolution a scientific theory? Why would it not be able to be taught in schools? I know these questions have been argued many times. But don't students have the right to know about evolution and creationism? How else are they going to know about it? Are the parents or other adults suppose to tell or teach them? I really found the questioning to be interesting that Darrow did with Bryan. I would tend to agree with Bryan's answers that he gave,such as; "...I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man and make both of them do what he pleases..." I thought this answer was good, when they where talking about a scripture in the Bible. He makes a good point and it is very true. Another one of Bryan's responses with Darrow about believing what it says about the four periods without the sun, he said, "I believe in creation as there told, and if I am not able to explain it I will accept it". Some people would agree with that statement and have his same idea, but there are many other people out there that say that answer is just not good enough. People want the proof, they don't want to just believe. Lastly, I liked how the judge had part of the session outside, along with many people interested to hear the case. At the end, it sounded as if the crowd was more on Bryan's side, would you not agree? Does that mean, there are more people out there that want evolution and creationism taught in schools?

"...7 Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creation"

I have heard about these type of cases, but I have not read further in depth with them. In Epperson vs. Arkansas, there was a good point made, such as; "A state is entirely free, for example, to decide that the only foreign language to be taught in its public school system shall be spanish. But would a state be constitutionally free to punish a teacher for letting his students know that other languages are also spoken in the world? I think not!" Once again this goes back to my point earlier from another article, that students do have the right to know about evolution and creationism. If we don't teach it in schools, how are students suppose to know about it? Are the parents or other major adult figures going to teach them? I think teachers should be able to teach it. In McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education, it talks about how "creation science" is not a science. Then in Edwards vs. Aguillard, it says that evolution can be taught, as long as it is instructed from someone in the field of "creation science". This clearly shows no body knows what should and should not be taught in our schools today. In other cases, the reason why creation science and evolution are not taught is because of the religious aspect of the two. But isn't there a way we can teach it, and not elaborate on the religious aspect? Also, in Freiler vs. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education it says that intelligent design is equivalent to teaching creation science. How so? They may be similiar in ways, but I think both should be noted and discussed seperately.

Judge: Intelligent design is re-labelled creationism

In this court case, it says that teaching intelligent design in public school science lessons is a promotion of religion and is then unconstitional. Also it goes on to say that intelligent design is not science, but like creation science in disguise. How are these two not science? Is intelligent design exactly like creation science? The article further goes on to talk about intelligent design and its designer and how it works outside of the natural processes, and by definition is not science. Who is the designer in intelligent design? And if we say for example the designer is God, is this then one reason why it has to do with religion? Overall, all the articles were fun to read.

Court Cases: I think that the decisions of the appelate courts are quite clear. Religion taught in science classrooms as fact in public schools violates the Constitution, in that the state-funded schools cannot be affiliated with a religion. Of important note here is how that overrules an individual (teacher's) "right" to speak freely on the subject of Creationism. I use "right" in quotes, because teaching children is different from engaging in political discourse. There is no right in the Constitution that allows you to force or indocrinate children to adopt a specific view point. THe purpose of public education is to provide a basis of knowledge and reason with which that individual can function productively in society. Proselytizing is not a right granted us either. Yes, one can speak in public about religion, etc-- that is acceptable and upheld legally, while forcing one's religious beliefs (especially upon the vulnerable minds of children) is ethically wrong. I don't know about the rest of you, but if any of my [assuming facts not in evidence] children's teachers or the school board try any of the Creationist or ID stuff-- I will stop them the old fashioned american way: a lawsuit. It has certainly been very effective in recent years.

Judge: I think the public opinion of this matter is made clear with this sentence: "An appeal seems unlikely, since the board members who advocated the policy were voted off in November, in favour of candidates who opposed teaching intelligent design as science." It is clear that the people in that community(who obviously the school board thought would support them) in the majority agree that science class is for science, not "sort of" Creationism or its other mutants. ID is (I agree with the judge) a new label for an old product. Just because ID advocates SAY they aren't advocating Christianity doesnot mean that is true. I will give them credit for being at least clever enough to fool some people, although simply changing one's mask does little to alter the fundamental and deeper issues at stake.

Scopes: I found it very interesting that the defense counsel (while not really defending their defendant!) tried to have a trial judge strike down a law. Furthermore, it is curious that no one made the argument of unconstitutionality due to church/state separation. They could have referenced Thomas Jefferson or the Federalist Papers (if memory serves) at length. I have a lot of resepect for Darrow, who despite unfavorable popularity at the time did an excellent job of questioning Bryan. It showed extensive knoweldge and research into the fields of theology and philosophy.

I really enjoyed the chapter on the Scopes Trial. I always thought Darrow was a brilliant lawyer, but I hadn't heard a lot of the specifics of this case, mostly just his Leopold and Loeb stuff. I'm not surprised at all that this trial was such a media circus. Especially when Bryan went up against Darrow, I mean come on, that's like science and religion in a direct battle. In such a polarized debate, this had to be the first time two rather famous orators on each side faced off. I for one really want to see a tape of it, even if it's just to see them yelling and shaking their fists at each other, which is how most debates of this topic end.

As for the 7 court decisions, I guess to echo what people before me have said, I see a lot of similarities between the cases. Which to me is surprising as you would think after one case of “teaching creationism as a science, equal to evolution is unconstitutional” people, school boards and congressmen would get the picture. But no, they keep trying and trying, maybe tweaking a few small details here and there. This leads me to the “Judge: Intelligent design is re-labeled creationism” article. After (perhaps) finally figuring out that creationism as a science is not going to work out in schools, people just decided to fit creationism through the science mold and ID popped out. It’s still creationism just in a different shape. If the judgment on this case is any indication, I guess this tactic of getting creationism in the science classroom isn’t going to work, I wonder what they’ll think of next.

Chapter 22: I had heard of the Scopes Trial in the past – but I had never read about it that in-depth before. I find it intriguing how Bryan responded when Darrow asked him if there was a fish big enough to swallow Jonah. He replied, “Yes sir. Let me add: One miracle is just as easy to believe another.” I thought that was a clever answer. Who’s to say which ‘miracles’ have more logic? They’re all believable aren’t they?
Significant Court Decisions: I didn’t realize the issue of teaching evolution in school was actually taken to court THAT many times! I knew that SOME of the situations went to that level – but I had no idea there were that many. Maybe I’m not seeing the big picture – but I fail to see why this is such a big issue to a lot of people.
Judge: Intelligent Design: Yet again, people don’t seem to have an open mind. When I was taught evolution in high school, it was stressed that there are many versions and opinions on how we came to exist. We were taught the basic curriculum (that had been taught from the same books for decades –and mostly centered on scientific views) and then were allowed to compile a research paper and explore the different explanations and interpretations – along with writing our own personal conclusion in the end. There was no “this theory is wrong” or “this theory was right.” No one was WRONG and no one was RIGHT. Even if a school’s curriculum teaches a certain viewpoint, it is not saying that you have to BELIEVE in it. The main goal of a classroom is to “educate” people, it is not trying “convert” them.

I thought it was interesting to learn more about the Scopes trial. I think it is interesting that Scopes was not actually a biology teacher, but rather a general science teacher. I also did not know it took place so long ago—mainly because it is difficult to believe that people were beginning to protest a ban on teaching evolution as early as 1925. I feel like we have not made enough of an advance now, over 81 years later. Not to mention that (according to the Larson reading) only about half of Americans accept evolutionary theory. Based on the apparent growth of modern science since the Scopes trial, ID seems like a plausible solution for Christians to balance evidence supporting evolution with traditional creationism. Teaching ID in schools, however, does not seem like an issue that should be controlled by a president or governmental power—especially if there is a clear conflict with a constitutional law. Yes, I think that it is definitely a federal concern (stabilizing a basic curriculum) and there should be appropriate standards put in place. These standards should be established by a collective group of experts in the scientific sector and enforced by legislators. Does this type of standard-establishing group exist or something similar? Even if ID is being taught at a private school (which I think is perfectly fine), I don’t think that it should be taught in a science classroom. If teaching ID in a biology classroom is okay, it’s time to redefine science and eliminate the separation of church and state.

Seven Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creation Issues: I thought that it was interesting that all these seven cases were very similar. I don't understand why someone would do something that the courts have said was unconstitutional. I thought it was really interesting some of the things schools tried to get away with. I really like the one that told teacher they had to have a warning before they taught evolution. Like it was something that children should be afraid of. One of the things that came out of these trails that I really agree with is that creationism should only be taught in a creationism science class, even though creationism is not a science.
Judge: Intelligent design is re-labeled creationism: I really like this article considering that ID really doesn't teach any scientific background. The whole point is to make creationism taught as science in schools, in order to get past the law the religion and state must not be joined. I really liked how this idea was proved when a book that was about creationism, just changed all the words, creation to ID. I also really liked that even though ID is considered a "science", science is considered understanding the natural world with no supernatural forces. I think that if they are to teach this as a science they should also teach that this science is an exception to the real meaning of science and not really a valid science proof at all.
The Scopes Trial: This is probably one of the best known trials in our time. I mean there are movies, and plays about it. I think that this trial is so portrait in entertainment was because the trial itself was entertainment. The public came is crowds to see it. I am almost positive that is was broadcast. This was the entertainment to all these people; they didn't even try to understand the real issue in this trial. They thought evolution was so unbelievable they never even considered the merit it really holds. But then what can people do when something is so ingrained in people head without them even willing to question it or listen to other possibilities.

I found the whole Scopes Trial to be quite interesting. It is a strange thing when a standard legal procedure becomes much more meaningful and stands for a much deeper struggle than just a teacher violating a school district rule. When one small event can represent a giant struggle. I really enjoyed the story of the debate that took place after the Scopes Trial. That type of debate really makes for great entertainment. When two people from opposite sides of an argument, who are well versed in their argument, go at it in a public space. Nothing of the trial was mentioned during this debate; only the deeper cultural conflict remained. The bible is such a loaded topic that not many people voice their opinions to people who would object. This is why this debate and trial got so much attention. There are underlining conflicts in the back of people’s minds which are usually silenced by the society around them. The conflict between science, the state and religion is very much apart of our county’s underbelly, and seems to build tension exponentially until it explodes in a public event such as the Scopes Trial.

I have no real objection to teaching ID concepts in schools. ID *does* raise interesting ideas and promote good discussion about important topics. By all means, discuss ID in philosophy classes. Discuss it in theology classes. Discuss it in rhetoric classes such as this one. Discuss it in history of science classes. But please, keep it out of science classes.

It’s no mystery as to why the advocates of ID are so eager to get it included in science curriculums: science holds a great deal of credibility, legitimacy and respect for most people. The problem is that ID basically violates the essential things that gives science that credibility, legitimacy, and respect in the first place: the reliance on empirical evidence, the emphasis on testable hypotheses, and, perhaps more relevantly, the refusal to rely on the supernatural to explain the world. Regardless of if it really is religion or not religion, ID is fundamentally a non-testable theory dependant on the supernatural. As such, it’s not science and shouldn’t be taught as science. Unless science itself is redefined, the issue ends there in my mind.

After reading the article "Judge:Intelligent design is re-labelled creationism", I thought that it was really good that Judge John Jones ruled against requiring intelligent design in public school saying that it promotes religion. I don't think that intelligent design should be taught in school since it does associate religion into its concepts. I agree with Jodge Jones that ID is not a science because it relies on the supernatural and is based on a designer and not natural process so it cannot be considered a science.

In response to the 7 court decisions regarding evolution/creation, I felt that some of them contradicted each other. Some prohibited the teaching of evolution while others said that creationism is not considered a science and therefore should not be taught. I think it is good that the courts suggested that students understand that evolution explains the "how" and not "ultimate cause" and does not either support or discredit the presencr of a creator. I agree with that because students should be able to make their own decission and discuss those issues with family. I remember when I learned about evolution back in middle school, my teacher had to make a statement saying that the theory of evolution is meant to promote critical thinking and is not the only possibility. Then she said how she had to make the statement because it was required by the school district. I remember thinking how stupid it was that she was forced to say something like that because the board members are affraid students questioning religion all together.

After reading the Scopes Trial, I am greatful that this case happened because it opened the door for debate whether theories of evolution and human origin should be taught in schools. Even though the trial ended in a "draw", it allowed people and other school districts to contemplate the controversial issues of evolution or creationism.

Scopes Trial
The controversy surrounding this trial helped it to gain national recognition, and the public’s reaction to the issue of science and God being taught in public schools showed there was great interest. It is kind of hard to make a decision when it comes to beliefs of creation because not everyone thinks the same. I don’t know what the proposed solution could be, but I don’t believe in preaching the word of God to people who don’t want to hear it. Here in the United States most towns and cities have public schools as well as Catholic Schools, so if parents are afraid of evolution being taught to their kids they can just send them to a private school that is religious. The public is interested in what is best for everybody and since we have laws that uphold religious freedoms than maybe its okay that notions of God are not talked about in school because there probably are students who don’t believe in God and they may be discouraged if the schools would allow teaching about religious matters. Still the debate goes on even today and it is not an issue that has a quick, easy solution. I found it interesting that the Scopes trial started all of this controversy in the public eye and it hasn’t subsided in more than half a century.

Court Decisions
It seems like America wants God out of the picture when it comes to education. All the cases resulted in prohibiting teachings of a spiritual nature in schools. I think that the definition of science has come to mean the understanding of life without God. However, in law we have the right to religious freedoms but those freedoms are infringed upon when we are forced to be taught religious philosophies that we do not believe in, but I think that science is easier to handle and that is why the courts side with it.

Question
Should the law omit God when its very foundation is the principles of righteousness taught to us by religious scriptures that founded human beliefs and morales?

7 court decisions-
it's interesting to read about the progression of religion eventually being weeded out of public schools. thats crazy to me that evolution without "creation evolution" wasn't allowed to be taught in louisiana until 1987. the south always seems to be a little behind...

the kurt kleiner article is currently unavilable.

ch. 22
i think that the end of this chapter really summed it up nicely when it said that this trial was a symbol for this debate. i really enjoyed reading about the defense attorney and his beliefs in religion being taught in schools as irrational. i can only imagine the attack that one would be under for voicing those beliefs at the time that he did. i was sort of dissapointed that the outcome of the whole thing was a sort of draw though. when i read it, it seemed so obvious that bryan was again and again being proved wrong and that he had no valid argument. i suppose the social atmosphere of the period was entirely different. do people really think that something which is unproveable and exists based on a personal decision should be taught in schools? can any useful "knowledge" be collected out of reading the bible other than a historical vocabulary lesson? i'm not so sure.

Chapter 22- I found this chapter interesting, as I'd never looked into the Scopes Trial before. The part that jumped out at me was when Darrow had Bryan on the stand outside, and Bryan was determined to protect the faith. Darrow seemed to make him look rather foolish by pointing out stories from the bible that would either contradict logic, or somehow support science, i.e. the creation not being done in the bible's stated amount of time, but rather in periods. The point that got me was that Bryan said something about one miracle being as valid as another. Although a good point, I believe this, along with blind faith, have become the main defense that will discredit evolution. They aren't logically supported, and therefore can not be debated logically. Because of this, conversation is over and no more points will be received open-mindedly.

Significant court decisions - It's nice to see the moves that were made to actually separate church and state. Many of these trials come to the conclusion that creation science is not acutally a science, which to me is true, and that evolution shouldn't have to be paired with it to be taught. It would be considered holding some children back from what's on the cutting edge, therefore dumbing them down in a sense. Go evolution!

ID re-labeled as Creationism - I think this article and these judges raised some interesting points on the subject of ID being nothing but creationism. I've always kind of thought this, that these two are one in the same. It seems like ID is just a supplement of creationism. Also, the idea that creationism is nothing but a revolt against evolution raises an interesting point. This "science" didn't come around until evolution was beginning to challenge religious doctrine. The issues involved in it don't address any others than what is involved in the theory of evolution, and for this reason can be labeled as nothing but a counter measure to evolution.

Huge info collection --
http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/
buy generic biagra [url=http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/]buy generic biagra[/url]

Huge info collection --
http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/
buy generic biagra [url=http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/]buy generic biagra[/url]