God and Courts

See Jacinth's post below on creationism. Here is one sidelight to the Scopes trial: the textbook at issue not only included accurate information about evolution but also argued in favor of eugenics and racism. "If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved," the book opined, "it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection." For its discussion of race, see here. (Also see the very fictional version of the trial in Inherit the Wind.)

Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls, so it it worth considering his remarks on the subject.

With perfect timing for this course, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in a case involving religion, patriotism, and the meaning of the Declaration. Dr. Michael Newdow said that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to include "under God" in the Pledge and "In God We Trust" on currency. From The New York Sun:

At times, the courtroom could have been mistaken for a college class on religion or philosophy as judges and lawyers argued about the beliefs of the founding fathers and about the meaning of the word, "God," in the pledge and on currency. At one point, Dr. Newdow, of all people, quoted scripture in an effort to demonstrate how the Hebrew Bible promotes hostility to atheists. A lawyer for a group supporting the rights of religious adherents, Kevin Hasson of the Becket Fund, said the God in the pledge is the same God referred to in the Declaration of Independence, but is not the deity in the Bible. "It wasn't the Christian God. It wasn't the Jewish God. It was the philosopher's God," Mr. Hasson said. He said the "under God" reference refers to a creator early philosophers and scientists like Aristotle concluded "could be known by reason alone."