The US Declaration of Independence starts off:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Although the majority of the US population would agree with it, a substantial "enlightened minority" (ie most on this forum!) hold that just the opposite is the case: ie that a Creator is not self-evident. In fact they would say that all the evidence is against a Creator.

Although the Declaration is not a scientific document, and reflected the mindset of the 18th c, could in theory a legal case be made that this paragraph is incorrect and should be amended to reflect current thinking, or is it set in stone?!

what evidence is there that there isn't a creator?

and I think by 'selfevident' they mean unprovable.

The Declaration of Independence is an historical document. What purpose would be served by "amending" it?

These were men trained in the classic arts of philosophy, of Aristotle and Euclid. Like those sages, they chose certain 'axioms', assumptions that could be seen to be true and that did not need proof, that were 'self-evident'.
See the Wikipedia on axiom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom.

From these assumptions, they developed their system of belief, or in this case a political philosophy, by logical argument.

Their assumptions are:
Men are equal
Men have rights
(Men, of course, in the sense of 'humans')
That they added the assertion, not an axiom, that those rights were the gift of a god has no bearing on the validity or not of their logical development of those assumptions into a philosophy that we would call democracy. In logic your case doesn't stand a snowball's.

John

Good point. The U.S. isn't declaring its independance from anyone anymore. I can't see any point to raising the hackles of so many folks that would start barking at even a hint of messing with the Declaration. I'm guessing that it wouldn't even be a possible consideration for amending.

But I wonder if the Declaration of Independance has ever been used in court case here in the U.S.? As evidence, perhaps? As an exhibit?

__________________
How many times have you been about to grasp the truth when somebody else suddenly yanked it out of your reach?

Actually, the focus of the statement is the self-evidence of unalienable Rights, things that we hold to be true. It has little to say about the "Creator."

I doubt it. I think many here would say that there is no objective evidence for a creator of the universe, however.

What would be the point? It isn't the Constitution. As PetersCreek said, this is a historical document.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I'm not sure the Declaration of Independence has much sway, except moral and emotional, in the US legal system (as opposed to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights).

I assume the thread title is particularly about Intelligent Design and, for example, the teaching of it (or not) in US public schools. The legal arguments about ID have usually centered around the First Amendment, particularly the establishment of religion.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

I'm pretty sure Jefferson would be opposed to the ID movement anyway. He was a deist and very into scientific study.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

"Deism is defined by the view that reason and logic, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject both organized and revealed religion and maintain that reason is the essential element in all knowledge. For a "rational basis for religion" they refer to the cosmological argument (first cause argument), the teleological argument (argument from design), and other aspects of what was called natural religion. Deism has also come to be identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism".

How exactly does deism differ from pure ID, which doesn't even refer to "God" or "creation"?

Well, if you take ID as it is presented, it's a scientific hypothesis that there are aspects of life and the universe that show signs of design, but that the source of the design can't be determined because that's beyond science. (I'll refrain for now from stating my views on the real nature of ID.)

I suppose Deism is compatible with ID, but they're in different areas: the former is religion, the latter (allegedl) is science.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Wow nonkers, the declaration of independence is a beautiful document with some amazing and important ideas in it, and you just totally do not get it. And that makes me sad.

As others have pointed out, the bit you quoted doesn't say that the creator is self-evident. The bit you quoted is, however, perhaps the most important idea behind our government - namely, that government does not give us our rights. This is in stark contrast to many other governments, where the central idea is that your government picks and chooses certain rights, and then gives them to you, and you should get down on your knees and thank the government for its kindness. The American idea is that you are born with those rights. They do not come from the government. The American idea is that government is not all powerful. You are born free.

And you really, honestly, just suggested that we "amend" it? I demand to know who your history teacher is so that I can send him this thread and hopefully shame him into early retirement. You should know what the DoI is, you should know why it is so important, and you should have a deep sense of pride that your ancestors had such significant and progressive ideas. You should have learned that in school. The US has done plenty of bad things - I bet you're learning all about those, aren't you? - but this one thing they got right, they got it right in a very big way.

Could the teaching of ID next to Evolution debate in science classes go to the Supreme Court?

Could the justices rule that in their opinion, provided the subject of origins isn't discussed, both are equally plausible scientific theories/explanations/hypotheses, and that both should be taught in science classes?

Could they even go further and cite the Declaration, saying "If referring to the Creator was good enough for the Founding Fathers, then a fortiori (or is it a minori ad majus?) ID, which is in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, yet doesn't even refer to a Creator, should be allowed?

Sure, sometime.

Only if they ignore science.

No, I believe that would not happen, for reasons already stated in this thread.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

What about "In God we trust", printed on all coinage and in courthouses? That's quite an argument towards claiming that the U.S. is a "Christian" nation... Or at least a nation "under God", as was also in the Pledge of Allegiance.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

I don't think that has to be taken literaly, except the pledge of allegance thing. I beleive that was added during the cold war, to remind everyone they are different from the 'godless commies'. They don't say what god, and american money is full off all sorts of pagan symbols.

The Declaration does not define "Creator", so you're out of luck there

And notice how they capitalized everything...

Who framed the US "Pledge of Allegiance" and when?
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

In 2002 an atheist Michael Newdow tried to have it declared unconstitutional, but failed.

If an immigrant fails to add the words "under God", can he be debarred entry, or is there no obligation to say it?

A different oath is required. It seems that the current words are suggested ones, but the sentiments are mandated.

Wikipedia: Oath of Citizenship

It ends in "so help me God," but that's optional.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, wrote the pledge in 1892 without the "under God" clause. This was added in 1954 by Congress after the Knights of Columbus successfully campaigned to have the pledge changed.

According to Bellamy's granddaughter he would not have like this change. From here:
True. There have been other attempts to restore the pledge to its original form.

The only oath that is required of new citizens is this one.. It ends with the clause "so help me God". The oath can be modified to delete the "so help me God" clause according to these INS regulations.

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard