Senate nominee O'Donnell asks whether Constitution prohibits establishment of religion

[_Simpson_ 250]

Actually, the UK incorporates case law into its (unwritten) constitution, and frequently makes reference to case law in determining how to run the country. Not being argumentative, just making a point of clarification.

Not to be augmentative but I got a one way ticket to the UK/Promise land.

[mawilson 2,133]

Not to be augmentative but I got a one way ticket to the UK/Promise land.

Augment away!

[The_Dude 1,142]

Not to be augmentative but I got a one way ticket to the UK/Promise land.

English does not seem to be your strong suit today.

[_Simpson_ 250]

English does not seem to be your strong suit today.

I think it has more to do with spelling considering I put my faith in spell check.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

What If Christine O'Donnell Were Right About The First Amendment?

surely I am not the first person to notice this grammar fail?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What If Christine O'Donnell Were Right About The First Amendment?

The dimwit that she is, she simply wouldn't have noticed.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

surely I am not the first person to notice this grammar fail?

Could be the "Imperial We". Perhaps They want to run for Pope.

Worse yet, that article comes from William A. Jacobson,

Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY.

Edited October 22, 2010 by ##########

[Danno 1,228]

Christianity is behind the push for Creationism being used as a valid 'scientific' theory about why we are here. Theology class fine, science class no.

Religion named.

I think the problem is, you are not that tuned into the subject you are commenting on.

Creationism is a concept embraced by many, no, most faiths.

In this country we have so many Christians you seem to associate it with this one faith but I think if you check, you will find nearly every faith embraces the idea that the world was created by a supreme being.

IN the second place your terms are all mixed up.

YOu are confusing "creationism" with "intelligent design".

One is a more general belief the other is a study based in science.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Creationism is a concept embraced by many, no, most faiths.

So, it's religion and doesn't belong into a science class. Remember: Religion <> Science.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, at best you're being disingenuous. You know full well that the creationism taught is the Christian version of it.

Apparently you know something about this curriculum, please link an example of a "Creationism" course having been taught in a public school.

It would be interesting to see how they work Jesus into it. (as you say)

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So, it's religion and doesn't belong into a science class. Remember: Religion <> Science.

Thomas Aquinas would have disagreed with you.

[Danno 1,228]

So, it's religion and doesn't belong into a science class. Remember: Religion <> Science.

While it is religious in nature it is not religion.

THat you suggest it would be taught in a classroom is telling.

Can you name a science class where Creationism has been taught?

You and Ready4one are so hopped up on this topic yet you seem to be attacking the wrong thing.

You should be addressing "Intelligent design".

Here let me help you understand better .....what it is you don't like.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable[1] theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.[2] As Jonathan Wells wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." [3] Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the Darwinian assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory of creation" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.[4]

The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that design is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive (see: design detection). With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of intelligent design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of evolution such as chemical and Darwinian evolution [5] that the design exhibited in our universe is merely apparent design, i.e., unintelligent design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.[6]

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).[7] An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.[8]

Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to subjective historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.

[웃 910]

Makes perfect sense that a mute, powerless, thing created everything, and it is hiding somewhere within the universe, and it murdered it's only child to show his love to humans 1000s of years ago sometime after the story of the talking evil snake whom conned a naked chick to eat an apple, which was forbidden by the creator.

Oooo, oooo, me, me, I'll teach creationism

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I think the problem is, you are not that tuned into the subject you are commenting on.

Creationism is a concept embraced by many, no, most faiths.

(blah blah blah)

IN the second place your terms are all mixed up.

YOu are confusing "creationism" with "intelligent design".

One is a more general belief the other is a study based in science.

You are confused. Intelligent Design is Creationists attempting to paint their faith as plausible scientific theory. Only the logic challenged fail to see through the thin disguise.

[mawilson 2,133]

surely I am not the first person to notice this grammar fail?

There's no "fail" - the usage is correct. "Were" is a remnant of the past subjunctive

in English, which denotes a mood of verbs used when the content of the clause is being doubted,

supposed, feared true, etc., rather than being asserted.

"I'd read a grammar book if I were you."