Posts Tagged ‘ACLU’

CAN CHARLES DARWIN BE TRUSTED?

April 3, 2014

Historical people, like the rest of us, sometimes contradict themselves and often change their minds over time.  It is generally fair to conclude what scientists say in their older age represents their true lifetime professional opinion, rather than what they might have said when they were younger.

Human language definition often changes over historical time and words sometimes develop multiple meanings.  To be fair and accurate, one must consider how words were defined when they were spoken, rather than how those same words might be defined today.  Careful historians apply a discipline called “philology” to help understand human language in historical context.

For example, broad-brushing the American founders as “deists”, a consistent bad habit of modern educators, is a historical lie.  The majority ascribed to some form of Christianity and, the very few who claimed to be deists apparently believed God hears prayers and interacts with human affairs.  There is no evidence any American founder was a deist as the term is normally defined today.

Charles Darwin, in the opening sentences of his final revision of “On The Origin of Species”, is humble enough to credit our Creator for being behind whatever universal processes and reality there may be. This edition was published about five years prior to Darwin’s death and thus, it represents a lifetime conclusion.

Some ‘scholars’ today, pretending they can somehow know Darwin’s intentions, claim that he only mentioned God to make his wife and family happy and to otherwise appease the religious leaders of his day.  Because Darwin throughout his lifetime consistently openly debated with religious leaders and others concerning his ideas, such a claim has no historical merit.  One might fairly ask, if we can’t trust Darwin regarding this most fundamental of human beliefs, how can we trust anything else he said?

Perhaps Darwin made no mention of our Creator in his first edition because the overwhelming evidence for creation was agreed to by the vast majority of scholars of his time.  Maybe only after the publishing of his theories had caused considerable controversy, did Darwin then find it necessary to place our Creator where he, like Einstein and Jefferson apparently believed God belongs, far above all human science, reason and understanding.

In a letter published two years before his death, Darwin strongly denies being an atheist, saying his mind was “mainly agnostic but not entirely”.  Because agnostic at that time sometimes referred to distrust in religion and human claims about God, rather than questioning God’s existence, Darwin could attest to our Creator and still remain agnostic but not entirely without contradiction.

Is it fair to pretend one of human history’s greatest scientists can’t be trusted to be honest regarding what he fundamentally believed?  Is it fair to just arbitrarily ignore various words ascribed to Jefferson, Einstein and Darwin because modern liars don’t like what they actually said? Is it fair to speak for historical people, rather than allowing their own words to speak for them?

Can Charles Darwin be trusted?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Video for this article

Advertisements

FIXING AMERICA IN 500 WORDS OR LESS: a free online book with interactive songs and videos

March 2, 2010

LINK HERE TO READ BOOK

LINK HERE TO READ BOOK

WHAT IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE?

March 2, 2010

It is much easier to criticize political leaders than to truly have a better idea.   Regardless of political party or agenda, what would you do if you were in charge, to help regain public confidence in our long since vanished, dream of a democratic process?

Since a political leader should know what he or she is talking about without referring to notes, would you announce there will be no teleprompter allowed when you make speeches and hold press conferences?   Would you declare every speech you give will be drafted by you personally?

Would you take questions from press conference reporters impartially by drawing numbers from a hat, regardless of how recognizable their name is or what media they represent?

Would you hold publicly televised townhall events monthly in different cities, where ten members of the public with no press or organizational credentials, were selected by lot and allowed to ask direct unscreened questions?   Would you answer them while the cameras roll without cue cards and if necessary, conduct research and include anything not answered at the next event?

Would you clearly detail your current agenda for the nation at these townhall meetings, demonstrating that regardless of political fallout, there will be no secrecy, vagueness or uncertainty about the specific goals of your administration?

Would you cancel White House social events, annual Christmas and New Year festivities, elite “black-tie” gatherings and similar, until every American willing and able to work has a job that pays enough to afford basic necessities?   Would you promise you and your staff won’t eat better food on the taxpayer’s dime than average working-class families can afford?  Would you forbid your staff to fly on corporate jets and indulge in dinners, events and vacations paid for by someone else?

Although you could not control what members of Congress chose to do, would you put public pressure on all congressional leaders to set the same standards for themselves and their staff?

Would you prevent all lobbyists from being allowed access to either you or your staff, other than those representing individual taxpayers with specific individual needs not related to corporate interests?   Would you especially put intense and unrelenting public pressure on all Congressional leaders to do the same?

Would you require members of your cabinet to hold at least two scholarly degrees in their area of expertise, while insuring none of them are former lobbyists or, a member or former member of any financial institution?

To remain impartial, would you refuse to appear on media programs primarily devoted to politics and rather if invited, appear on popular shows like Oprah, Leno and Letterman, where you could freely communicate to the American people your concerns and goals, without being rudely interrupted by talking-point pundits with a private agenda not in the best interests of our nation?

Would you insist that neither you nor any member of your staff earn a wage higher than the median American wage?

If you were in charge, what would you do?   You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

DOES THE ACLU DEFEND THE 1ST AMENDMENT?

October 17, 2009

According to the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  This amendment clearly meant something entirely different to the Constitutional framers than the ACLU pretends it did.

Jefferson edited the New Testament while a sitting president and, attempted to have his version become the official U.S. government-endorsed version, ensuring it would be read in every public schoolhouse of his day.  Madison stated he believed the 1st Amendment would aid in the spread of Christianity and, Franklin openly complained the framers were not seeking God’s guidance enough while drafting the Constitution.

Many so-called “experts” interpret “religion” to mean belief in God, while it is far more likely it meant institutional religion to the framers.  Regardless, protection of free expression has nothing to do with what is actually true about God, science or anything else.  Whether modern evolutionary theory is true or just a poorly constructed fairytale, is not relevant to 1st Amendment protections.

According to various polls, over 80% of adults and 50% of American educators believe in a Designer.  Though several major living scientists believe the evidence indicates design, the ACLU refuses to protect their highly credentialed scientific viewpoint.  Instead, they demand American educators deliberately lie to our children by omission, leaving out the known fact that major historical and living scientists and every Declaration signer believe(d) the scientific evidence indicates design.

The “God question” is central to the scientific thought and inquiry of virtually every major historical scientist, including Darwin himself.  Still, so-called “progressives” pretend God is not a question for science.  To allow only one myopic viewpoint is to teach children questioning what is true is not relevant to education. These are the same ‘progressives’ who are angry over the one-sidedness of talk radio.

Modern evolutionary theory does in fact, address the “God question”.  Any theory assuming that everything in the universe is a result of “natural” unguided processes is stating there is no God, not to mention, scientifically completely wacko.  Nobody from our perspective could possibly know the overall process is unguided. Atheism has no more protection under the 1st Amendment than Catholicism. Is freedom of speech or science really being served when only a non-evidenced based superstitious assumption is allowed to be taught?

According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Albert Einstein said:  “I have a deep feeling of faith, a deep religiosity that comes from my appreciation of the way the Lord made the universe.” Every signer of the Declaration of Independence agreed the evidence of a Creator is beyond all rational dispute.

Should we forbid Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Faraday, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Einstein and leading DNA expert Francis Collins to teach a public science class?  Or, should we petition our Creator to toss the ACLU into a bottomless black hole and throw away the key, allowing our children a proper education without any further undue hindrance from the feeble-minded?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article:
http://www.freedomtracks.com/500/firstamendment.html