Last night, October 22, 2008, in Northern Kentucky, a rather remarkable thing happened.At Northern Kentucky University, within the shadow of the Creation Museum, in a mock trial, a jury of the entire audience overwhelmingly voted on the side of Evolution and against the teaching of Intelligent Design in the public schools.Some had opined that it was foolish to hold such an event?that the vote would be overwhelmed by the fundangelicals, that Evolution would lose, and that this would be harmful for the future of education in Kentucky.Well, that did not happen. The opposite happened.The issue for the pretend trial was the case of a ninth grade teacher in the Kentucky public schools who had been fired for teaching Intelligent Design in a Kentucky classroom. She sued, alleging she had a right to teach such mythology and to get her job back. Leading trial lawyers in the Northern Kentucky area represented the parties, a real retired judge presided, and the former dean of the law school moderated a discussion.A creation scientist testified for the teacher. Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director for American Atheists, and identified as such, testified as to his opinion that Intelligent Design is a religious, not a scientific, view and that the teaching of this religious view is prohibited by the Constitutions of the United States and of Kentucky.The result from the clickers of the audience:— 38% said the teacher should not be restored to her job.— 28% said the teacher should get her job back, and be permitted to discuss Intelligent Design, but only if she agrees to made it clear that most scientists reject Intelligent Design.— 31% said the teacher should get her job back without conditions.The clear result was that a large majority accepted the teaching of Evolution over Intelligent Design and did not see Intelligent Design as a scientific view. The audience accepted the position of the Atheist witness over that of the expert who held the religious view that life was created by magic.This victory should be noted by those who are afraid to challenge the forces of darkness in public dialogue.Edwin KaginNational Legal DirectorAmerican Atheists, Inc.
Forget about 4:00. I’m out of here now. Nice debate…I guess.
Bye. Nice knowing you.
666,
You’ve seen Obeah being SMART?? Where? Not in this thread!
You seem to be frying a different fish from this 3-cornered squabble between Tubal, Obeah, and me. I won’t get into that; I prefer one fight at a time.
Obeah,
I have made no assumptions. I’ve been reading your posts — which you apparently haven’t, tho I thot you said you had.
Just hazarding a guess as to why you’re being so unreasonable. Full disclosure — I don’t want to be accused of practising medicine without a license — I’m not a psychoanalyst, but I play one when talking to irrational people.
Well, duh!
No I don’t. I only know what you’ve said about them, and the crazy ideas you’ve picked up from them.
“eeek. I’m backing off” was funnier.
You have dissed Tubal’s intuitive approach, even when he was right.
May as well. You should have, since you started it. But you seem to be too far gone to pull back with reason, and that’s all I have to offer you. So I will.
NotSoFast
You do realize that the numbered list Obeah provided was a list of assumptions being made about him, and not assertions about himself, right?
Not So Fast,
I am still surprised by your animosity. From this end it seems it is you who haven’t read the comments very clearly.
NFS:”Like you apparently, I was raised in a Bibliolatrous church.”
Obeah offers a polite correction to that assumption: “I am fortunate to be descended from a long line of atheists.”
Suddenly NFS: “So where do you get off telling them how to define themselves?”
Ob: “I have just re-read the series of posts and I am at a lost [sic] as to the acrimony you both have for my comments.”
And from the same post:
“I have always thought it better to ask for clarification before using language like this.”
And
“In short, I?ve never met these illusive, non divine Christians.”
NFS:”After you’ve had a good nite’s rest maybe you’ll be able to comprehend that there may be others, as well.”
And
“this rigid doctrinalism you’ve been expressing strikes me as a (stereo?)typically Catholic thing.”
And
“I believe you may be carrying as much baggage from your religious roots as TubalCain is from his.”
And then this bit of pettiness:
“I don’t know if I’m “at a lost as to” anything or not, as I’ve never encountered that expression before. (Is it an Italian idiom?)”
This is where I begin to reply in kind. Refer to 10/29/08 @ 08:59
And your last posts, NotSoFast, seem to indicate that it is you who have difficulty with reading comprehension as well as betraying considerable insecurity.