Creationism in Connecticut

The comments pages on the Hartford Courant website are a little awkward to use, as some of you will see. I have been commenting there for a few days now.

With little effect.

The fact is that Mr. Harris is elected. Nothing we can do about that.

Having just been elected, he is attempting to influence the teaching of biology in the district. That does suggest that me might get a second shot at the DI, and IDC. I don't live in Hartford, so I welcome the next round in court.

Equal time should be given to each and every creation story including each native american tale (from Canada to Argentina).... Without bypassing aboriginal, asian and african stories and let's not forget the greeks, romans and the vikings....It's the only balance that our children deserve, we can call the class "origins science" and the first lesson should be on the scientific method and the meaning of scientifc theory....it would be a great model with face on comparitive studies and we will let the childre decide for themselves.....

mario said: Equal time should be given to each and every creation story including each native american tale (from Canada to Argentina).... Without bypassing aboriginal, asian and african stories and let's not forget the greeks, romans and the vikings....It's the only balance that our children deserve, we can call the class "origins science" and the first lesson should be on the scientific method and the meaning of scientifc theory...

That Huffington Post would publish an article complaining (appropriately in this case) about pseudoscience is the height of irony, since HuffPo itself is one of the worst sources of pseudoscience on the Web, including support for one of the most dangerous forms of pseudoecience, the anti-vaccination movement. They also provide space for the mumbo-jumbo output of luminaries as Deepak Chopra and many other such vacuous thinkers. I think no reference to HuffPo should be made by those who care about good science without reference to this scandalous side of their efforts. For extensive analysis of the garbage published in the so-called "Health" section of HuffPO, see the many discussions to be found at Repectful Insolence (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=huffpo+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fscienceblogs.com%2Finsolence%2F).

Sorry for the slight error. That should be Respectful Insolence (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/).

Richard B. Hoppe wrote: Lenny Flank’s rule still holds.

There are credible scientists that challenge Darwinism. It is unconscionable to censor those views from students in the classroom.

John Pieret said:

There are credible scientists that challenge Darwinism. It is unconscionable to censor those views from students in the classroom.

Wait a minute! Doesn't the DI keep telling us that they are not seeking to have ID taught in public schools? Have I lost track of which side of their mouths they're speaking out of?

When someone suggests equal time for all the alternatives, I suggest that that should include equal time for alternative rules for high school sports.

Maybe the team with the lowest score should be the winner.

Paul Burnett said:

John Pieret said:

There are credible scientists that challenge Darwinism. It is unconscionable to censor those views from students in the classroom.

Wait a minute! Doesn't the DI keep telling us that they are not seeking to have ID taught in public schools? Have I lost track of which side of their mouths they're speaking out of?

The Dishonesty Institute has different sets of lies to use, depending on which group of rubes they're trying to scam. Somebody needs to get on record showing us which peer-reviewed articles Casey's "credible scientists" have had published challenging "Darwinism" - but don't hold your breath.

Gary,

You might advise readers to look at this Yale Peabody Museum website of its recent exhibition devoted to Darwin and his discoveries at Yale University:

http://www.peabody.yale.edu/explore/darwin150.html

In particular there are two exceptional short films, including one of current and former Yale scientific faculty, demonstrating how and why Darwin's ideas are so important and so relevant to our daily lives.

Haven't seen your comments at the Hartford Courant's website but I have no doubt that you are doing an excellent job. Hopefully others from Yale and here at Panda's Thumb will be joining you if they haven't already.

Appreciatively yours,

John

scholl board member: “Evolution is basically an assumption that there is no God.”

I look forward to seeing Casey represent the defense in the next trial. Unless he ends up hiding under the bed next to Dembski.

Chayanov said: I look forward to seeing Casey represent the defense in the next trial. Unless he ends up hiding under the bed next to Dembski.

Mr Luskin is paid to babble like an idiot, not tremble like a coward.

Stanton said:

Chayanov said: I look forward to seeing Casey represent the defense in the next trial. Unless he ends up hiding under the bed next to Dembski.

Mr Luskin is paid to babble like an idiot, not tremble like a coward.

Meant to say a befuddled biology teacher in my previous post. Sorry about that.

Gary Hurd said: The comments pages on the Hartford Courant website are a little awkward to use, as some of you will see. I have been commenting there for a few days now. With little effect. ...

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Weird. When I got to the website, there were zero comments listed, so I thought maybe that you had commented on another article. I thought "Gee, I'll be the first!" I made my comment, then registered, and submitted it. All of a sudden there were over 140 comments! Anyway, I was very happy to see that the vast majority of comments were in favor of good science education. A hopeful sign.

Gary Hurd said: The comments pages on the Hartford Courant website are a little awkward to use, as some of you will see. I have been commenting there for a few days now. With little effect. ...

This is very scary indeed, but I'm not totally surprised. YECism has been creeping up everywhere. I'm sure that every more or less conservative church in the country has at least a few YECs on board.

I live in Fairfield County in Connecticut, in a very upscale town. We are less than an hour away from NYC. A few years ago, a church in town used a Vacation Bible School curriculum from Answers in Genesis! I was horrified. To make matters worse, this church takes in many children from other area churches for its VBS program. If this happens again I'll be writing warning letters to the local paper. It's bad enough to teach your own kids rubbish, but my objections is that exposing other kids to it without any kind of disclosure to parents is just not right.

Never, never think that it can't happen in your own community, no matter how good the schools are, no matter how educated everyone is, etc. It can, so be on guard. btw, I had left this very church some years before this incident and now attend a moderate church in NYC. It just shows I made the right move.

Karen S. said: This is very scary indeed, but I'm not totally surprised. YECism has been creeping up everywhere. I'm sure that every more or less conservative church in the country has at least a few YECs on board. I live in Fairfield County in Connecticut, in a very upscale town. We are less than an hour away from NYC. A few years ago, a church in town used a Vacation Bible School curriculum from Answers in Genesis! I was horrified. To make matters worse, this church takes in many children from other area churches for its VBS program. If this happens again I'll be writing warning letters to the local paper. It's bad enough to teach your own kids rubbish, but my objections is that exposing other kids to it without any kind of disclosure to parents is just not right. Never, never think that it can't happen in your own community, no matter how good the schools are, no matter how educated everyone is, etc. It can, so be on guard. btw, I had left this very church some years before this incident and now attend a moderate church in NYC. It just shows I made the right move.

Evolution is basically an assumption that there is no God.

Y'know, this shouldn't even be scary. This should be about as big a news event as someone wanting to teach astrology in a space science module, or phrenology in medical school. Really. What is wrong with people??? Yeah, I get it, they have a well-funded organization behind them (oh, and God, don't forget God), but they're still just crackpots.

Paul Burnett said:

Richard B. Hoppe wrote: Lenny Flank’s rule still holds.

For those new to the fray, see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/unfair.cfm for "Lenny Flank’s rule." What a travesty - a school bus driver who wants to tell science teachers what is and is not science - democracy in action.

If anyone wishes to doubt this, then they can look at his latest risible example of breathtaking inanity: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/0[…]_from_a.html

— John Kwok

The detector is the evidence of design in nature, which must be there because, uh, they say it is.

Just Bob said: The detector is the evidence of design in nature, which must be there because, uh, they say it is.

I have another kind of detector that has this strange tendency to go off when the DI opens its mouth.

The Lenny Flank rule that applies here goes something like "You can always count on the ID Creationists to shoot themselves in the foot."

They can't help but bring religion into the discussion; it's truly what it's all about to them.

Karen S. said:

I have another kind of detector that has this strange tendency to go off when the DI opens its mouth.

So it's like one of those self-cleaning cat litter boxes?

Zimmerman said: “I sort of got stuck on one thing with [the science teachers], which was basically the teaching of evolution in the schools and how it tends to ride roughshod over the fact that various religions – Christian, Hebrew, Muslim – hold a theistic world view,” Harris said one morning during a break from his job driving a school van. “Evolution is basically an assumption that there is no God.”

So as a Christian creationist, is he now proposing that equal time be given to the Christian, Hebrew and Muslim creationist, et. al tales? I dare say not, although the old IRC would have initially gone along with that proposal as long as it ultimately watered down the time devoted to the teaching of evolution, only to be ultimately replaced with the YEC views of the IRC.

Regarding the deity detector, I posted that question directly to John West of the Dishonesty Institute. He blabbered about history and precedence and all kinds of nonsense, but ultimately threw in the towel when confronted with the fact that his deity detector was merely a figment of his (and the DI's) imagination, for it could not distinguish between the Christian God, the God of Islam, nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Weird. When I got to the website, there were zero comments listed, so I thought maybe that you had commented on another article. I thought "Gee, I'll be the first!" I made my comment, then registered, and submitted it. All of a sudden there were over 140 comments!

Chester said:

"Evolution is basically an assumption that there is no God."

RIght. And admitting that the earth is not flat is assuming that there is no god. And admitting that the earth goes around the sun is assuming that there is no god. Face it, these guys just want to be the center of the universe and they will oppose anything that they feel diminishes their specialness. They need to face up to reality and get over themselves.

Chester said: “Evolution is basically an assumption that there is no God.”

DS said: Chester said: "Evolution is basically an assumption that there is no God." RIght. And admitting that the earth is not flat is assuming that there is no god. And admitting that the earth goes around the sun is assuming that there is no god. Face it, these guys just want to be the center of the universe and they will oppose anything that they feel diminishes their specialness. They need to face up to reality and get over themselves.

The principal noted that the school board member has the right, as has any other community member, to meet with the teachers.

Is this type of meeting a common occurrence in this district? How could the teachers view this as anything other than intimidating? Does this board member not know how to access information about the district curriculum through the district office? Doesn't this board member have the power to influence the teachers' employment, especially as he's "very passionate" about this topic? And is it too much to expect this principal to grow a pair?

Maybe this board member's just trying to follow in the footsteps of Buckingham & Bonsell of Dover PA.

Too many people don't understand how science operates at even a basic level. Ignorance of science combined with fear of atheism is why creationism, with all of its ridiculous canards and denial of reality, can exist.

Having just been elected, he is attempting to influence the teaching of biology in the district.

"It’s time for balance. … And I just want to be there so there’s a voice that says there’s room for all of us."

And those who firmly grasp the capacity at critical reason too often enable such denial by placating under the guise of respect and free speech.

idiocracy is inevitable; It can only be contained by adaptive forces selecting for the capacity to handle the rapid increase of accumulating information.

Religion (philosophy) has been a driving force for restarting cultures when ever thinkers are repressed. I imagine a possible exodus of new founders... but that might only occur after years of need for a grand reformation

James F said: Too many people don't understand how science operates at even a basic level. Ignorance of science combined with fear of atheism is why creationism, with all of its ridiculous canards and denial of reality, can exist.

Jesse wrote:

"I have come to the conclusion that many of them simply cannot cope with the idea that the world is not static. To them, if it ain’t strapped down tight, it ain’t reality. There’s obviously more to it than just that, but I think that must be a part of it."

I think you are right. Hence the need to believe in the fixity of species. It might stem form their own existential angst. After all, a brief look at the real history of life on earth is enough to teach us that the fate of all species is extinction and the fate of a ll individuals is death.

Or maybe they were just raised on old time TV, where Gilligan never got off the island, Lucy was always married to RIcky, Andy Taylor was always sheriff, BAtman and RObin never got killed by the bad guys and Hogan never escaped from the prison camp. The casts of the old sitcoms never seemed to change.

Evolution is change. Change is good. Change is inevitable. Deal with it already.

Hence the need to believe in the fixity of species. It might stem form their own existential angst.

— DS

DS said: Evolution is change. Change is good. Change is inevitable. Deal with it already.

Wait a minute! Doesn't the DI keep telling us that they are not seeking to have ID taught in public schools? Have I lost track of which side of their mouths they're speaking out of?

FL said: And if Mr. Harris will carefully consider and patiently apply the lessons learned from recent science education efforts in Texas and Louisiana, he might just achieve a deliciously positive influence thereupon.

FL said:

"It’s time for balance. … And I just want to be there so there’s a voice that says there’s room for all of us."

Well said dude. Good success (more accurately, God's success) to you. FL

stevaroni said: Actually, Mr. Harris seems to be walking the Dover path. The end result of that affair being a $1.1 bill for the district.

These guys are their own worst enemies. Let the boob try for "balanced treatement." Talk about someone so far behind the latest creationist scams that it is difficult to believe that such a person could even exist. Yet, the creationist scam artists rely on the ignorant, incomeptent and dishonest to support them. Once the guy gets turned on to the latest switch scam who would believe that it was because of his desire to improve education?

The most tragic thing about the current anti-evolution fiasco is that there are no competent and honest people involved any longer. Their greatest desire at the moment is to find a pristine group of anti-evolution supporters that have not opened their mouths about what they want to teach and get them to lie about wanting to teach the controversy or teach more about evolution. Everyone knows that they would be lying, but that is the only hope that these guys have.

There has to come a time when the decent guys with some type of conscience have to say that it is time to stop. Once your only hope is desception what are you trying to accomplish? If dishonesty and bogousity are all you have, what are you claiming to worship?

I have been wondering when this sideshow was going to pop up in CT.

If Mr. Harris is thinking of making a some type of "Dover" play here, he will be met with a more than ready resistance.

Andrew Sullivan points to the topic of coping with the randomness of reality and the need/desire to believe in God.

Over at ScienceBlogs:

http://tinyurl.com/ylem9x8

I'd rather be related to dogs, cats and broccoli than some of the organisms that pass themselves off as H. sapiens ("thinking" man). When broccoli uses bad logic, you kind of expect it.

Ron Okimoto said: The most tragic thing about the current anti-evolution fiasco is that there are no competent and honest people involved any longer. Their greatest desire at the moment is to find a pristine group of anti-evolution supporters that have not opened their mouths about what they want to teach and get them to lie about wanting to teach the controversy or teach more about evolution.

Ron Okimoto said: The most tragic thing about the current anti-evolution fiasco is that there are no competent and honest people involved any longer. Their greatest desire at the moment is to find a pristine group of anti-evolution supporters that have not opened their mouths about what they want to teach and get them to lie about wanting to teach the controversy or teach more about evolution. Everyone knows that they would be lying, but that is the only hope that these guys have.

There has to come a time when the decent guys with some type of conscience have to say that it is time to stop.

The Flat Earthers are almost but not quite gone. 26% of the fundies are still Geocentrists.

— raven

Not that I doubt that, but do you have a reference?

wikipedia Modern Geocentrism: Morris Berman quotes survey results that show currently some 20% of the USA population believe that the sun goes around the Earth (geocentricism) rather than the Earth goes around the sun (heliocentricism), while a further 9% claimed not to know.[7]

There has to come a time when the decent guys with some type of conscience have to say that it is time to stop.

Republicans are not (necessarily) creationists. But creationists are Republicans.

Republicans are also not racists. But racists are Republicans.

There must be SOMETHING about that particular party that attracts such folks.

Just Bob said: Republicans are not (necessarily) creationists. But creationists are Republicans. Republicans are also not racists. But racists are Republicans. There must be SOMETHING about that particular party that attracts such folks.

Just Bob said: Republicans are not (necessarily) creationists. But creationists are Republicans. Republicans are also not racists. But racists are Republicans. There must be SOMETHING about that particular party that attracts such folks.

Note - Harris is one more example of the near 100% association of creationism with “conservative Republican” politics.

Haven't looked at that Jon Stewart video yet, but I do plead guilty. I'm a registered Republican and call myself a Conservative with very, very pronounced Libertarian biases.

I think equal time should be given to ALL theories. Alternatives to the theory of aerodynamics should be discussed; just don't blithely accept modern air travel as truth.

And why isn't Maxwell's Demon given classroom time? Challenge the experts and their religion of thermodynamics!

And the theory of electromagnetism? Doesn't the speed of light suggest that all those stars and galaxies put forth their light before the Day of Creation? It's running roughshod over my world view. It's time to repeal that speed limit!

My common sense notions outweigh those silly scientists and their false proclamations. Why, God is directing my very words as I type them into this computer.

Evil Merodach said: And why isn't Maxwell's Demon given classroom time? Challenge the experts and their religion of thermodynamics!

John Kwok said: One of the most prominent Young Earth Creationists I know of is Democratic Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor. You can't pin the blame squarely on the Republicans since substantially more people reject evolution for various reasons than are registered Republicans according to recent polling data (Don't have that handy, so am not providing any links.). Also bear in mind too that two of the most prominent defenders of teaching only valid science in science classrooms - Federal Judge John Jones and biologist Paul R. Gross (co-author with Barbara Forrest of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" - are Conservatives and are either now or once were Republicans.):

Just Bob said: Republicans are not (necessarily) creationists. But creationists are Republicans. Republicans are also not racists. But racists are Republicans. There must be SOMETHING about that particular party that attracts such folks.

Stanton said:

Evil Merodach said: And why isn't Maxwell's Demon given classroom time? Challenge the experts and their religion of thermodynamics!

The only reason why Maxwell's Demon is not given classroom time is because hiring Maxwell's Exorcist is financially prohibitive.

Jesse said:

Stanton said:

Evil Merodach said: And why isn't Maxwell's Demon given classroom time? Challenge the experts and their religion of thermodynamics!

The only reason why Maxwell's Demon is not given classroom time is because hiring Maxwell's Exorcist is financially prohibitive.

Pffft, they're already teaching Morton's Daemon. They decided to *nix the exorcist because they felt it wasn't necessary though. I think that explains the creationist crowd.

stevaroni said:

Ron Okimoto said: The most tragic thing about the current anti-evolution fiasco is that there are no competent and honest people involved any longer. Their greatest desire at the moment is to find a pristine group of anti-evolution supporters that have not opened their mouths about what they want to teach and get them to lie about wanting to teach the controversy or teach more about evolution.

I see the Discovery Institute seems to be sniffing around. I wonder if they've contacted Harris and the other board memebers and offered their "help". If so, I sure that they've fully explained that the last time they "helped" a school district, in Dover, that district lost in excess of a million dollars in the resultant lawsuit.

Stanton said: It's enough to make your head spin.

raven said:

There has to come a time when the decent guys with some type of conscience have to say that it is time to stop.

How so? No one has ever seen them show the slightest bit of honesty, integrity, or intelligence. It is too late for them to start now. They will just annoy people and eventually go the way of the Flat Earthers and the Geocentrists. This could take another few hundred years. The Flat Earthers are almost but not quite gone. 26% of the fundies are still Geocentrists. Don't they ever wonder how we get out space probes to Saturn and Mars without them being burned up by the sun? I guess they assume NASA sneaks them past the sun at night or something. Despite that 26% number, I've hardly ever met any Geocentrists although there are 60 million in the USA. They must not be bright enough to have internet access.

Ron Okimoto said: ...that doesn't make them geocentric creationists, just ignorant of reality.

raven said:

There has to come a time when the decent guys with some type of conscience have to say that it is time to stop.

How so? No one has ever seen them show the slightest bit of honesty, integrity, or intelligence. It is too late for them to start now. They will just annoy people and eventually go the way of the Flat Earthers and the Geocentrists. This could take another few hundred years. The Flat Earthers are almost but not quite gone. 26% of the fundies are still Geocentrists. Don't they ever wonder how we get out space probes to Saturn and Mars without them being burned up by the sun? I guess they assume NASA sneaks them past the sun at night or something. Despite that 26% number, I've hardly ever met any Geocentrists although there are 60 million in the USA. They must not be bright enough to have internet access.

So at the end of the day, all you have here is a Connecticut school board member, a creationist, who is warm and friendly, willing to meet with science teachers, and who is hoping to promote balance in science education.

Harris has got you guys worried, he's even got that ole atheist Michael Zimmerman stressed, but Harris has done nothing wrong.

The Haddam high school principal hasn't reported any negatives or improprieties on Mr. Harris's part. No parent complaints. No ACLU lawyers chasing after him. So what's the problem?

Here's a suggestion:
The problem is that Mr. Harris is a quiet, unobtrusive, friendly, but still powerful indictment of your evolution-based religious beliefs. His Biblical creationist beliefs shine an uncomfortable light on your un-Biblical (and in some cases un-Christian) beliefs, so you get all bristled and porcupined about him, even though he's not making any trouble.

Think about it. Isn't that a very plausible suggestion for some of you? Yes?

FL

The problem is that Mr. Harris is a quiet, unobtrusive, friendly, but still powerful indictment of your evolution-based religious beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

FL, should only Christian origins be taught in the "balance"? Are you happy to have your children taught the Hindu or Buddhism as just as valid as Christianity?

FL said: So what's the problem?

The answer to that question belongs on the Bathroom Wall.

Evil Merodach said: I think equal time should be given to ALL theories.

TomS said:

Evil Merodach said: I think equal time should be given to ALL theories.

Could you describe what alternative theory there is for the variety of life? A theory which tells us what happened and when that resulted in - for example - the human body occupying its position near chimps in the taxonomic tree? A theory which does not involve descent with modification?

So at the end of the day, all you have here is a Connecticut school board member, a creationist, who is warm and friendly, willing to meet with science teachers, and who is hoping to promote balance in science education.

Wayne Francis said: FL, should only Christian origins be taught in the "balance"? Are you happy to have your children taught the Hindu or Buddhism as just as valid as Christianity?

Paul Burnett said:

Ron Okimoto said: ...that doesn't make them geocentric creationists, just ignorant of reality.

There's a difference?

Frank J said:

Wayne Francis said: FL, should only Christian origins be taught in the "balance"? Are you happy to have your children taught the Hindu or Buddhism as just as valid as Christianity?

FL might not want to answer that, but IDers will simply say that they don't want any of those religious ideas taught, only the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution.

Fundamenatalist Loser said: ...all you have here is a Connecticut school board member, a creationist, who is warm and friendly, willing to meet with science teachers, and who is hoping to promote balance in science education.

Karen S. said: Should astrology be taught to balance out astronomy?

One of the most prominent Young Earth Creationists I know of is Democratic Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor. You can’t pin the blame squarely on the Republicans

Harris is one more example of the NEAR 100% association of creationism with “conservative Republican” politics. This is NOT a knock on conservative Republicans who are not creationists, there are other venues for that. Nor should old school conservatives necessarily consider their views to be represented by the contemporary Republican party. Nevertheless, this relationship is worth noting.

FL said: The Haddam high school principal hasn't reported any negatives or improprieties on Mr. Harris's part. No parent complaints. No ACLU lawyers chasing after him. So what's the problem?

FL might not want to answer that, but IDers will simply say that they don’t want any of those religious ideas taught, only the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.

harold -

But there are leading conservatives and Republicans who can and still do criticize our fellow conservativs and Republicans who are evolution denialists. I'll just name two to start with: Paul R. Gross (whom I don't have to introduce merely because many here ought to be familiar with his prior acoomplishments, especially with regards to rebutting Intelligent Design creationism) and the National Review's John Derbyshire, who has been an important critic from my side of the fence against Ben Stein and "Expelled".

I didn't ignore what you wrote and what you repeated again as emphasized in your latest remarks. But clearly we do have a problem with evolution denialism in the United States and it is a problem not confined only amongst Republicans, but also many Democrats and Independents. It may be too easy to pick upon my fellow Conservatives and Republicans now simply because so many are active global warming denialists too (And I am well aware, as reported by both the New York Times and the National Center for Science Education recently, that there are some efforts to "balance" the teaching of anthropogenic global warming in secondary school science classrooms with much of the same rhetoric for the "balanced" teaching of evolution.).

Sincerely,

John

P. S. Thanks for your endorsement. Wish certain others would recognize that, especially when they are supporting someone now who would tolerate a threat - later claimed to be a joke - about raping and killing two prominent science bloggers and their online supporters which was posted on his blog a couple of weeks ago.

FL said:

FL might not want to answer that, but IDers will simply say that they don’t want any of those religious ideas taught, only the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.

What specifically do the Texas and Louisiana science standards say? Go read 'em when you get a chance. That's what I'm specifically favoring. Nobody's asking for Bible readings in biology class. You should not even find this threatening, but you do, don't you?

FL said:

FL might not want to answer that, but IDers will simply say that they don’t want any of those religious ideas taught, only the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.

What specifically do the Texas and Louisiana science standards say? Go read 'em when you get a chance. That's what I'm specifically favoring. Nobody's asking for Bible readings in biology class. You should not even find this threatening, but you do, don't you?

If we are going to teach creationism, we should teach Alien Intervention as well for balance. As a matter of fact, the Intelligent Alien Intervention Institute is preparing to put its teachings into the public school curriculum very shortly. And I have this video to prove it!

RO: I think you are confusing 26% geocentrists. There was a poll of adults in New York (I think) where around 26% didn’t know that the earth orbited the sun and a larger fraction didn’t know that it took the earth one year to orbit the sun, but that doesn’t make them geocentric creationists, just ignorant of reality.

GVLGeologist: Raven, I know you’ve mentioned this before, but I’ve got to say that I’d like to see how the geocentrism question was phrased. Lots of people just don’t pay enough attention to questions, and something like that could slip through.

RO: They claim that the Wedge document was only a “fund raising” ploy, but who believes them, and if it was, isn’t that mail fraud, if they sent it out to suckers?

Jesse: “Strengths and weaknesses” is nothing but code for “Lets teach ID, but we’ll never use the words design or designer.

That’s what I’m specifically favoring. Nobody’s asking for Bible readings in biology class. You should not even find this threatening, but you do, don’t you?

— FL

FL said: What specifically do the Texas and Louisiana science standards say? Go read 'em when you get a chance. That's what I'm specifically favoring. Nobody's asking for Bible readings in biology class. You should not even find this threatening, but you do, don't you?

Obviously Mr. Harris loves his bus driving job so much that he wants all of the kids in his district to be prepared for the very same career.

John Kwok -

I assure you that I have no sympathy for ANYONE who promotes sectarian dogma in public education, and/or public policy based on denial of, censorship of, or distortion of accurate science.

I appreciate those few conservatives who stand up for science and science education, with respect to that particular issue. I hope they also join me in advocating access to high quality, affordable science education for all American students. I reserve the right to massively disagree with them on other issues, of course.

None of this takes away from my earlier comments, which I stand by.

FL said: The problem is that Mr. Harris is a quiet, unobtrusive, friendly, but still powerful indictment of your evolution-based religious beliefs. Think about it. Isn't that a very plausible suggestion for some of you? Yes?

Junk food faith for a fat head nation

The US, a nation overwhelmingly god-fearing, also overwhelmingly rejects science. Many millions lack an intelligence sufficiently educated and critical to reject the unctuous Fundie Fare they stuff into their brains.

True believers across the US demand that scientific knowledge should be dictated by some theo-political ideology whether rooted in 17th century Protestantism, or 13th century Catholicism, or 12th century Islam.
For these 21st century iPod consumers and Twitter users, technology is Cargo Cult -- magic devices created by the ancestors and delivered to an Apple Store by ghosts.

As consolation, the US is the grossest outlier among developed nations in its affinity for religious enthusiasms and in its failure to accept now elementary basic truths like evolution via natural selection.

Consumption of junk food faith leads directly to intellectual blockage, gastric self-righteousness, and boundless ego inflation.

Surely fundie prayers have been answered: Super size me Jesus!

Note: Check the Pew surveys on Religion and Society.

http://www.pewtrusts./our_work_category.aspx?id=318)

Karen S. said: Obviously Mr. Harris loves his bus driving job so much that he wants all of the kids in his district to be prepared for the very same career.

They are devolving back to YECism but are not going away.

— raven

harold said: John Kwok - I assure you that I have no sympathy for ANYONE who promotes sectarian dogma in public education, and/or public policy based on denial of, censorship of, or distortion of accurate science. I appreciate those few conservatives who stand up for science and science education, with respect to that particular issue. I hope they also join me in advocating access to high quality, affordable science education for all American students. I reserve the right to massively disagree with them on other issues, of course. None of this takes away from my earlier comments, which I stand by.

Frank J said: That's true in the sense that they are pandering more than ever to the YEC and geocentrist "masses."

James F said: Also, Senator Ben Nevers (D-Bogalusa) of Louisiana was the one who sponsored the so-called Academic Freedom Act, which later became law. If memory serves, that was the Discovery Institute's first and thus far only successful attempt to get such a bill passed. Creationists are thus not all Republicans, but the Republican Party is currently infested by members of the Religious Right, which translates to Republicans being more likely to be creationists. It wasn't always this way; remember that William Jennings Bryan was a Democrat.

The problem FL, is that Mr Harris wants to use the organs of the state to teach unsubstantiated religious beliefs in a science class in a public school. Or barring that possibility, at least to have the school stop teaching demonstrable, objective, reality because he finds said reality theologically inconvenient.

FL said:

The problem FL, is that Mr Harris wants to use the organs of the state to teach unsubstantiated religious beliefs in a science class in a public school. Or barring that possibility, at least to have the school stop teaching demonstrable, objective, reality because he finds said reality theologically inconvenient.

So where did Mr. Harris say all this, Stevaroni? Where did the principal say this? The students? The parents? The ACLU? It's so easy to do accusations against creationists, but shouldn't they be *substantiated* first? FL

FL said:

The problem FL, is that Mr Harris wants to use the organs of the state to teach unsubstantiated religious beliefs in a science class in a public school. Or barring that possibility, at least to have the school stop teaching demonstrable, objective, reality because he finds said reality theologically inconvenient.

So where did Mr. Harris say all this, Stevaroni? Where did the principal say this? The students? The parents? The ACLU? It's so easy to do accusations against creationists, but shouldn't they be *substantiated* first? FL

“I sort of got stuck on one thing with [the science teachers], which was basically the teaching of evolution in the schools and how it tends to ride roughshod over the fact that various religions – Christian, Hebrew, Muslim – hold a theistic world view,” Harris said one morning during a break from his job driving a school van. “Evolution is basically an assumption that there is no God.” … And I just want to be there so there’s a voice that says there’s room for all of us.”

FL said: So where did Mr. Harris say all this, Stevaroni? Where did the principal say this? The students? The parents? The ACLU? It's so easy to do accusations against creationists, but shouldn't they be *substantiated* first? FL

Fundamentalist Loser said: So where did Mr. Harris say all this? ... It's so easy to do accusations against creationists, but shouldn't they be *substantiated* first?

Unfortunately you are merely being quite delusional:

and believe me, FL, John is someone who KNOWS delusional up close and personal.

“I sort of got stuck on one thing with [the science teachers], which was basically the teaching of evolution in the schools and how it tends to ride roughshod over the fact that various religions – Christian, Hebrew, Muslim – hold a theistic world view,” Harris said one morning during a break from his job driving a school van.

so, so tired of this.

tell ya what, religionauts, the moment all of your churches are completely shut down by the state, you would have an argument that there is no balance in your child's education.

...or will you claim you never took yourself or your child to a church, ever?

delusional pack of liars, is what you all are.

Ichthyic said: “I sort of got stuck on one thing with [the science teachers], which was basically the teaching of evolution in the schools and how it tends to ride roughshod over the fact that various religions – Christian, Hebrew, Muslim – hold a theistic world view,” Harris said one morning during a break from his job driving a school van. so, so tired of this. tell ya what, religionauts, the moment all of your churches are completely shut down by the state, you would have an argument that there is no balance in your child's education. ...or will you claim you never took yourself or your child to a church, ever? delusional pack of liars, is what you all are.

Ichthyic said: Unfortunately you are merely being quite delusional: and believe me, FL, John is someone who KNOWS delusional up close and personal.

John Kwok said: Have seen a lot of nonsense from the left with regards to science denialism, of which the most notable example may be the anti-vaccination movement:

I tried several times to register and leave a comment at the Hartfort Courant site to no avail. So out of frustration, I'm leaving it here. Sorry if it repeats other's arguments:

If Mr. Harris wants to have his religion's creation "theory" taught in a science class along with what science asserts, saying he wants "room for all of us," then he should also have no problem with the Samoan creation myth being taught as well. Lets' also not leave out the Eskimo creation myth, the Navajo creation myth, the Hmong creation myth, the Australian aborigine creation myth, the Amazon forest people's creation myth, the several creation myths of the traditional African religions, and on, and on.

After all, if you're going to teach religion in a science class, fair is fair, so you have to teach them all.

Maybe instead, Mr Harris could lobby to raise taxes so a separate class on world religion creation myths could be offered for any students who wanted it. I'm sure that would be really popular with the taxpayers.

FL said: So at the end of the day, all you have here is a Connecticut school board member, a creationist, who is warm and friendly, willing to meet with science teachers, and who is hoping to promote balance in science education. Harris has got you guys worried, he's even got that ole atheist Michael Zimmerman stressed, but Harris has done nothing wrong. The Haddam high school principal hasn't reported any negatives or improprieties on Mr. Harris's part. No parent complaints. No ACLU lawyers chasing after him. So what's the problem? Here's a suggestion: The problem is that Mr. Harris is a quiet, unobtrusive, friendly, but still powerful indictment of your evolution-based religious beliefs. His Biblical creationist beliefs shine an uncomfortable light on your un-Biblical (and in some cases un-Christian) beliefs, so you get all bristled and porcupined about him, even though he's not making any trouble. Think about it. Isn't that a very plausible suggestion for some of you? Yes? FL

Sylvilagus said:

John Kwok said: Have seen a lot of nonsense from the left with regards to science denialism, of which the most notable example may be the anti-vaccination movement:

Can you provide any evidence that the anti-vaccination movement is "leftist"? As a life-long socialist I have never known any serious leftie to espouse such a view. In my experience it comes from new agers with vaguely libertarian views. Most often from chiropracters and other alt med quacks who tend to be anti-tax small business owners, often "tolerant" of diversity and thus vaguely cultural liberals but usually solidly libertarian conservative on policy like health care, taxes etc.

Sylvilagus said:

John Kwok said: Have seen a lot of nonsense from the left with regards to science denialism, of which the most notable example may be the anti-vaccination movement:

Can you provide any evidence that the anti-vaccination movement is "leftist"? As a life-long socialist I have never known any serious leftie to espouse such a view. In my experience it comes from new agers with vaguely libertarian views. Most often from chiropracters and other alt med quacks who tend to be anti-tax small business owners, often "tolerant" of diversity and thus vaguely cultural liberals but usually solidly libertarian conservative on policy like health care, taxes etc.

the difference between liberal lefties supporting alt-woo and hard righties supporting evangelical xian nuttery is that I have yet to see the democratic leadership, or any congressionals, pushing to legitimize alt-woo, while on the other hand...

aside from that issue, I mean, just LOOK at the approach the current rethugclican party is taking after the health care vote:

http://www.gop.com/firepelosi/

I mean, seriously, pelosi is iconized like a witch ready be be burned at the stake!

sad.

Ichthyic said: the difference between liberal lefties supporting alt-woo and hard righties supporting evangelical xian nuttery is that I have yet to see the democratic leadership, or any congressionals, pushing to legitimize alt-woo, while on the other hand... aside from that issue, I mean, just LOOK at the approach the current rethugclican party is taking after the health care vote: http://www.gop.com/firepelosi/ I mean, seriously, pelosi is iconized like a witch ready be be burned at the stake! sad.

Jesse said:

Sylvilagus said:

John Kwok said: Have seen a lot of nonsense from the left with regards to science denialism, of which the most notable example may be the anti-vaccination movement:

Can you provide any evidence that the anti-vaccination movement is "leftist"? As a life-long socialist I have never known any serious leftie to espouse such a view. In my experience it comes from new agers with vaguely libertarian views. Most often from chiropracters and other alt med quacks who tend to be anti-tax small business owners, often "tolerant" of diversity and thus vaguely cultural liberals but usually solidly libertarian conservative on policy like health care, taxes etc.

I think that in today's political climate, you had better define liberal. We've twisted labels like liberal and conservative so far around that they are somewhat ambiguous. I can't give you any solid data, only anecdotal evidence, but I do know some people that you might consider liberal who are anti vaccine. One is a girl my sister grew up with. I'm pretty sure that if you asked her about anything that is wrong with this country, she'd blame it on Bush. Literally. Yeah, he sucked, but other people have screwed up to. I know another girl who is convinced that her brother has autism because he was vaccinated. I'm pretty sure she belongs to PETA. If not, it's not because she doesn't share their dislike of eating meat and wearing leather. Then I know an old hippie who thinks that they are just a scam for corporations to make money. That's not in any way, shape or form a representative sample and it's just my personal experience. I suspect that there are some religious reasons that some conservative wingnuts could find for being anti vaccination. It really wouldn't surprise to see this be a truly non-partisan case of denialism.

raven said: ... The number 20% geocentrists is for the entire US population. It is higher for fundie xians at 26%. These numbers vary from survey to survey but not by all that much. Even in Europe it runs around 10%! When I first saw them, I didn't quite trust them either. A lot of investigation indicates that they are what they are, hard as it is to imagine. ...

Polls conducted by Gallup in the 1990s has found that 16% of Germans, 18% of Americans and 19% of Britons hold that the Sun revolves around the Earth.[24] A study done in 2005 by Dr. Jon D. Miller of Northwestern University, an expert in the public understanding of science and technology,[25] found that one adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth.[26]

John Kwok said: Well Pelosi acts like she's a President with her own government-provided jet, etc. etc....

Pierce R. Butler said: For a little while there, JK, you had me thinking you might have one foot in the reality-based community. But then -

John Kwok said: Well Pelosi acts like she's a President with her own government-provided jet, etc. etc....

That particular piece of Republicrap was debunked years ago - to the degree that even Bush's BS Secretary Tony Snow declared it "silly".

You have missed the most important part of my comment, which is that several state Attorneys General will be filing Federal law suits against the House healthcare "reform" bill, claiming that it is unconstitutional. I'm not an expert on the United States Constitution, but regardless, this may prove to be quite interesting, and not necessarily "interesting" in the manner that the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congressional leadership had intended.

Don't tell me too that I am guily of some rightwing bias for reporting something which is now in the news.

Don’t you have a sense of humor, Pierce?

it goes only so far as your sanity, John.

Ichthyic said: Don’t you have a sense of humor, Pierce? it goes only so far as your sanity, John. You're a good judge of character as this early post of yours at one of Sheril Kirshenbaum's blog entries demonstrates: 24. Ichthyic Says: March 11th, 2010 at 11:35 am this blog has become a haven for clueless gits. It should be cordoned off with big, orange, traffic cones and tape that says: *DANGER* EXTREME STUPIDITY AND HYPERBOLE AHEAD, HARD HATS AND PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR BEYOND THIS POINT* because seriously? the stupid here… IT BURNS. BTW this was before I stopped by that thread and wrote this in reply to some breathtakingly inane comments from your Pharyngulite pal Penfold: 35. John Kwok Says: March 11th, 2010 at 12:31 pm @ Penfold - Your comment is replete with self-serving, sanctimonious nonsense. Under no circumstances should anyone tolerate any silly comments in defense of rape or other acts of violence as those that have been posted over at Pharyngula. PZ Myers needs to do a better job of weeding out such comments, and if he can’t – or doesn’t wish to – maybe he doesn’t deserve to maintain Pharyngula at Science Blogs. Am seriously thinking of filing a complaint with SEED Media over the comments listed at that Pharyngula thread and would strongly encourage others to do the same. Respectfully yours, John Kwok P. S. I am writing this not to show any support for Chris or Sheril or to use it as an opportunity to “get back” at PZ for his own ridiculous behavior toward me. Nothing remotely resembling Pharyngula’s typically absurd commentary have I seen elsewhere either here or or at other Discover Magazine or SEED ScienceBlogs’s web blogs. PZ should have stepped in and established a policy whereby such rhetorical language shouldn’t be tolerated a LONG, LONG TIME ago. The mere fact that he’s now visiting Australia isn’t a valid excuse IMHO. For those who are interested, please look at Sheril's thread here, in which she condemned a threat that was made against her, Chris Mooney and their online supporters at ichthyic's favorite Science Blogs blog: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science If you do read that thread, please make special note of comment # 218 from Disturbed and Disgusted.

like i keep saying John...

your OCD is in overdrive.

suggest you seek treatment.

seriously.

you're dragging this place down, too.

I understand the mind-shattering nature of what Evolution insinuates to the faithful. Fundamentalism is not compatible with observation. In particular, since it is what we are talking about here, the Bible-as-fact theory of Life Origin makes no predictions for the future. It can't be tested. However, modern evolution theory makes very clear predictions about what we should expect to see in the fossil record, and what we should expect to see from new creatures in the future.

The finest example being bacteria that has grown to be immune to various medicines.

The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming as to be incontrovertible. To deny it is on par with denying that volcanoes produce new landmass on islands. Or that the Moon has historically been hit by large rocks from space. It is laughable and infantile to suggest it.

None of this means that the idea of a creator is infantile. Just that the belief that the Bible is completely factual and has not undergone changes and exaggerations over the years.

It is the job of the scientific community to step up and apply pressure to schools to teach proper scientific method. Not simply to drill students on the findings of science, but to have them perform experiments themselves. Ones they have devised as well as scripted ones the teachers have planned. Only this way can they discover on their own how the world really works.

We can no longer afford to let the ignorant remain so, because they more-and-more have access to mass media and the internet. They have a voice, even when they have nothing to back that voice up. We legitimize them by arguing with them. We are continually our own worst enemy.

Ichthyic said: like i keep saying John... your OCD is in overdrive. suggest you seek treatment. seriously. you're dragging this place down, too.

DampeS8N said: I understand the mind-shattering nature of what Evolution insinuates to the faithful. Fundamentalism is not compatible with observation. In particular, since it is what we are talking about here, the Bible-as-fact theory of Life Origin makes no predictions for the future. It can't be tested. However, modern evolution theory makes very clear predictions about what we should expect to see in the fossil record, and what we should expect to see from new creatures in the future. The finest example being bacteria that has grown to be immune to various medicines. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming as to be incontrovertible. To deny it is on par with denying that volcanoes produce new landmass on islands. Or that the Moon has historically been hit by large rocks from space. It is laughable and infantile to suggest it. None of this means that the idea of a creator is infantile. Just that the belief that the Bible is completely factual and has not undergone changes and exaggerations over the years. It is the job of the scientific community to step up and apply pressure to schools to teach proper scientific method. Not simply to drill students on the findings of science, but to have them perform experiments themselves. Ones they have devised as well as scripted ones the teachers have planned. Only this way can they discover on their own how the world really works. We can no longer afford to let the ignorant remain so, because they more-and-more have access to mass media and the internet. They have a voice, even when they have nothing to back that voice up. We legitimize them by arguing with them. We are continually our own worst enemy.

"Right. Just what Connecticut needs: A school bus driver leaning on science teachers about evolution in aid of the Abrahamic religions."

His job has nothing to do with his ideas. I am not a Science teacher and I believe in Evolution, many bus drivers may or may not believe in Evolution. Their jobs are not to be made fun of but feel free to mock their idiotic ideas. We who believe in rationality do not need to denigrate an occupation whose only job is to drive our children back and forth between home and school.

Yeah from Canada.
Anothewr voice in the rising aggression against error and censorship.
in fact its not about balance but the present(though wrong) laws are good enough to force either total silence on origin issues or bring equal time.
just demand that the separation concept be applied equally.
if you can't teach God/Genesis in origin issues then you can't teach against them.
That's the law if the law is being used to censor the good guys.

To interpret the latest Byergram:

"Censor", in the Byerverse, means "prevent Byers from forcing the Byercreed on everyone".

"Good guys" means "theocrats".

"Balance" means "the practice of forcing everything into the Byermold."

"Separation" means "impose ignorance by not teaching anything."

"Silence" means "stop teaching facts".

"Error" means "any fact Byers doesn't like".

"Rising" means "diminishing".

"Aggression", on the other hand, actually does mean "aggression". In fact, it means insane, raging, screaming, red-in-the-face bellicosity.

"Origin issue" means "any past event denied by the Byermind".

"teaching against Genesis" means "teaching any interpretation of Genesis except the bizarre mixture of literalism, casual miracles and special pleading that constitutes Byerism".

"God" means "Robert Byers in a robe with a halo".

Now read on...

His job has nothing to do with his ideas. I am not a Science teacher and I believe in Evolution, many bus drivers may or may not believe in Evolution.

— John Hayden

Robert Byers said: if you can't teach God/Genesis in origin issues then you can't teach against them. That's the law if the law is being used to censor the good guys.

We who believe in rationality do not need to denigrate an occupation whose only job is to drive our children back and forth between home and school.

We need a federal law that any school that teaches "alternate theories to evolution" should be de-funded and forced to fire their entire staff and disband their board immediately. I would rather my kids stay at home, then be force fed bullshit!

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: if you can't teach God/Genesis in origin issues then you can't teach against them. That's the law if the law is being used to censor the good guys.

What law is that, Robert? Give us a literature citation, Robert. What jurisdiction? Provide direct quotes and URLs. Or are you making stuff up again? Remember, your delusions don't count as reality.

Robert Byers said: Yeah from Canada. Anothewr voice in the rising aggression against error and censorship. in fact its not about balance but the present(though wrong) laws are good enough to force either total silence on origin issues or bring equal time. just demand that the separation concept be applied equally. if you can't teach God/Genesis in origin issues then you can't teach against them. That's the law if the law is being used to censor the good guys.

John Kwok said: Don't you have a sense of humor, Pierce? As far as I know she is the first House Speaker with her own "private" jet at Federal Government expense. No other speaker - Democratic or Republican - has had that privilege:

Don’t tell me too that I am guily of some rightwing bias for reporting something which is now in the news.

Pierce R. Butler said: Fact fail, Kwok. And you almost had something right there...

John Kwok said: Don't you have a sense of humor, Pierce? As far as I know she is the first House Speaker with her own "private" jet at Federal Government expense. No other speaker - Democratic or Republican - has had that privilege:

Try reading the link, particularly the part about previous Speaker D. Hastert's jet. I find that rather droll, so please count your record here as a double fact fail. You did get it right, approximately, that "several state Attorneys General [say they] will be filing Federal law suits" against the insurance reform bill. Please note that this is more empty Rethuglican grandstanding - the legal issues involved were settled quite thoroughly by 1865.

Don’t tell me too that I am guily of some rightwing bias for reporting something which is now in the news.

Oh no, that's only part of why you're guilTy of such bias. The rest seems due to the intellectual and moral deficiencies that make you susceptible to such cherrypicked journalism.

Man, I love reading these threads until someone manages to provoke the Kwokster into multiple and verbose ego-stroking tirades. C'mon, do you guys do that on purpose just to watch the inevitable bluster? John, do you have any sense of how off-putting your pomposity and arrogance is to the casual reader? Despite your laudable anti-ID stance, I find your posts, especially when you're arguing with other PTers, to be just as tedious, and often more insane, than the bulk of the postings from the likes of FL and Beyers. After about your third post on any given thread, the rest of your posts aren't worth reading. I've come to wish I'd never read the phrase "mendacious intellectual pornography". It now seems like so much projection.

Uh, there is a clause in the Constitution that states that congress does, in fact, have the authority to regulate interstate commerce. There's also a 1942 court ruling that has interpreted it to pretty much mean that if you breath and some of the air molecules cross state lines, you are affecting interstate trade. Wickard v Filburn. The court ruled that by not taking part in interstate trade, you are still affecting it because you aren't buying the goods that others have produced and not putting money into their pockets. If states take this to court based on the requirement that everybody has to have health insurance, the SCOTUS can fall back onto Wickard v Filburn and the states (or citizens) that file suit will most likely lose. Unless the SCOTUS overturns that decision. Which I don't see happening. I might change my mind on that last bit if the courts overturn the Slaughterhouse cases.

You don't have to like it, but that is how it is. If you want to change it, you had better start rallying the states to pass a constitutional amendment clarifying the scope of the commerce clause.

5. Genesis has nothing to say about evolution, common descent, variations in populations, natural selection, species, genes, taxonomy, biogeography, paleontology, or the majority of life on earth (microbes). Genesis neither affirms nor denies anything about any of these, for the concepts didn't exist in the cultures of the Ancient Near East.

Jesse said: Uh, there is a clause in the Constitution that states that congress does, in fact, have the authority to regulate interstate commerce. There's also a 1942 court ruling that has interpreted it to pretty much mean that if you breath and some of the air molecules cross state lines, you are affecting interstate trade. Wickard v Filburn. The court ruled that by not taking part in interstate trade, you are still affecting it because you aren't buying the goods that others have produced and not putting money into their pockets. If states take this to court based on the requirement that everybody has to have health insurance, the SCOTUS can fall back onto Wickard v Filburn and the states (or citizens) that file suit will most likely lose. Unless the SCOTUS overturns that decision. Which I don't see happening. I might change my mind on that last bit if the courts overturn the Slaughterhouse cases. You don't have to like it, but that is how it is. If you want to change it, you had better start rallying the states to pass a constitutional amendment clarifying the scope of the commerce clause.

John Kwok said: According to other posters, the Huffington Post seems to have had its share of anti-vaccine denialists. It is not a website I read regularly, but I'll point that one out as an example:

Sylvilagus said:

John Kwok said: Have seen a lot of nonsense from the left with regards to science denialism, of which the most notable example may be the anti-vaccination movement:

Can you provide any evidence that the anti-vaccination movement is "leftist"? As a life-long socialist I have never known any serious leftie to espouse such a view. In my experience it comes from new agers with vaguely libertarian views. Most often from chiropracters and other alt med quacks who tend to be anti-tax small business owners, often "tolerant" of diversity and thus vaguely cultural liberals but usually solidly libertarian conservative on policy like health care, taxes etc.

I applaud Mr. Harris for his convictions [by not caving to pressure from notorious evolution enforcement groups like the NCSE] and for standing up for those students [and parents of students] who hold to a thestic worldview. A great majority of Americans believe in a Creator God, but no mention is allowed of a creator is allowed in public school science classrooms. [As a point of irony, a Creator is acknowledged in the Constitution and on national monuments - and you can mention a Creator and discuss the issue in a Russian science classroom, but WE are supposed to be the ones who value religious freedom and it is prohibited!] By teaching evolution and teaching it the way that atheist Eugenie Scott enforces - as a process in which no Creator is ever required - we are indoctrinating our children in practical atheism. How does this respect the religious freedom of Bible-believing Christians who send their kids to taxpayer-funded government schools? This is beside the point that there IS scientific dissent over darwinism, even if staunch evolution enforcers like Eugenie Scott say otherwise. Rev Tony Breeden CreationLetter.com

Jesse said:

Sylvilagus said:

John Kwok said: Have seen a lot of nonsense from the left with regards to science denialism, of which the most notable example may be the anti-vaccination movement:

Can you provide any evidence that the anti-vaccination movement is "leftist"? As a life-long socialist I have never known any serious leftie to espouse such a view. In my experience it comes from new agers with vaguely libertarian views. Most often from chiropracters and other alt med quacks who tend to be anti-tax small business owners, often "tolerant" of diversity and thus vaguely cultural liberals but usually solidly libertarian conservative on policy like health care, taxes etc.

I think that in today's political climate, you had better define liberal. We've twisted labels like liberal and conservative so far around that they are somewhat ambiguous. I can't give you any solid data, only anecdotal evidence, but I do know some people that you might consider liberal who are anti vaccine. One is a girl my sister grew up with. I'm pretty sure that if you asked her about anything that is wrong with this country, she'd blame it on Bush. Literally. Yeah, he sucked, but other people have screwed up to. I know another girl who is convinced that her brother has autism because he was vaccinated. I'm pretty sure she belongs to PETA. If not, it's not because she doesn't share their dislike of eating meat and wearing leather. Then I know an old hippie who thinks that they are just a scam for corporations to make money. That's not in any way, shape or form a representative sample and it's just my personal experience. I suspect that there are some religious reasons that some conservative wingnuts could find for being anti vaccination. It really wouldn't surprise to see this be a truly non-partisan case of denialism.

Read Wickard v Filburn. It would be open and shut, unless the SCOTUS is considering overturning the 1942 SCOTUS. It just wouldn't be open and shut the way you think. The commerce clause has been very broadly interpreted for the past 70 years.

Here is how it is interpreted:

If you buy goods, you are affecting interstate trade. If you don't buy goods, you are affecting interstate trade. If you do something that has a tangential effect on commerce, the commerce clause applies. If you do something that could, hypothetically, have a very small effect on interstate trade, the commerce clause applies. If something could hypothetically cross state lines, the commerce clause applies.

Sylvilagus said:

John Kwok said: According to other posters, the Huffington Post seems to have had its share of anti-vaccine denialists. It is not a website I read regularly, but I'll point that one out as an example:

Sylvilagus said:

John Kwok said: Have seen a lot of nonsense from the left with regards to science denialism, of which the most notable example may be the anti-vaccination movement:

Can you provide any evidence that the anti-vaccination movement is "leftist"? As a life-long socialist I have never known any serious leftie to espouse such a view. In my experience it comes from new agers with vaguely libertarian views. Most often from chiropracters and other alt med quacks who tend to be anti-tax small business owners, often "tolerant" of diversity and thus vaguely cultural liberals but usually solidly libertarian conservative on policy like health care, taxes etc.

John - let's be specific. You cited the anti-vaccination "movement" as an example of science denialism on the Left. Not some "posters" on one site. The anti-vaccine "movement" if there is one, traces as far as I know back to chiropractic attempts to differentiate from mainstream medicine in the 50's and 60's, plus right-wing anti-fluoridation-type concerns over individual liberty. I'm not saying that there aren't deniers who identify themselves as "leftist" but to describe the "movement" as leftist is just name-calling and not supported in reality.

Jesse said: Read Wickard v Filburn. It would be open and shut, unless the SCOTUS is considering overturning the 1942 SCOTUS. It just wouldn't be open and shut the way you think. The commerce clause has been very broadly interpreted for the past 70 years. Here is how it is interpreted: If you buy goods, you are affecting interstate trade. If you don't buy goods, you are affecting interstate trade. If you do something that has a tangential effect on commerce, the commerce clause applies. If you do something that could, hypothetically, have a very small effect on interstate trade, the commerce clause applies. If something could hypothetically cross state lines, the commerce clause applies.

So how is "government coercion" to buy health insurance different from government coercion to "buy" retirement insurance (Social Security) through taxes, crime and fire insurance (taxes for police and fire depts.), attack by foreigners insurance (military budget), or, uh, HEALTH INSURANCE (Medicare, Medicaid, VA hospitals, tax-supported emergancy rooms, etc.). Seems to me like the federal ability to make individuals pay for insurance against misfortunes that may never befall them individually is well established. What would be the fallout from overturning that concept?

John Kwok said: One of the most prominent members of the anti-vaccination movement is actress Jenny McCarthy, whose political views are liberal. While I am not disputing your facts regarding the movement's history, it should be noted that its most active proponents do tend to have liberal views now:

Sylvilagus said:

John Kwok said: According to other posters, the Huffington Post seems to have had its share of anti-vaccine denialists. It is not a website I read regularly, but I'll point that one out as an example:

Sylvilagus said:

John Kwok said: Have seen a lot of nonsense from the left with regards to science denialism, of which the most notable example may be the anti-vaccination movement:

Can you provide any evidence that the anti-vaccination movement is "leftist"? As a life-long socialist I have never known any serious leftie to espouse such a view. In my experience it comes from new agers with vaguely libertarian views. Most often from chiropracters and other alt med quacks who tend to be anti-tax small business owners, often "tolerant" of diversity and thus vaguely cultural liberals but usually solidly libertarian conservative on policy like health care, taxes etc.

John - let's be specific. You cited the anti-vaccination "movement" as an example of science denialism on the Left. Not some "posters" on one site. The anti-vaccine "movement" if there is one, traces as far as I know back to chiropractic attempts to differentiate from mainstream medicine in the 50's and 60's, plus right-wing anti-fluoridation-type concerns over individual liberty. I'm not saying that there aren't deniers who identify themselves as "leftist" but to describe the "movement" as leftist is just name-calling and not supported in reality.

Kwok has already admitted that he knows nothing of Constitutional law, now he is proving it by parroting the Republican posturing by a few publicity-hungry AG's. Maybe he can drag this thread out to 15 or 20 pages the way he did when he claimed Obama couldn't be president because he wasn't born in the US.

Just Bob said: So how is "government coercion" to buy health insurance different from government coercion to "buy" retirement insurance (Social Security) through taxes, crime and fire insurance (taxes for police and fire depts.), attack by foreigners insurance (military budget), or, uh, HEALTH INSURANCE (Medicare, Medicaid, VA hospitals, tax-supported emergancy rooms, etc.). Seems to me like the federal ability to make individuals pay for insurance against misfortunes that may never befall them individually is well established. What would be the fallout from overturning that concept?

tomh said: Kwok has already admitted that he knows nothing of Constitutional law, now he is proving it by parroting the Republican posturing by a few publicity-hungry AG's. Maybe he can drag this thread out to 15 or 20 pages the way he did when he claimed Obama couldn't be president because he wasn't born in the US.

Jesse said:

tomh said: Kwok has already admitted that he knows nothing of Constitutional law, now he is proving it by parroting the Republican posturing by a few publicity-hungry AG's. Maybe he can drag this thread out to 15 or 20 pages the way he did when he claimed Obama couldn't be president because he wasn't born in the US.

Aside from not having looked at Wickard v Filburn, he also fails to realize that there can be a difference between whether or not the government *should* do something and whether or not the government *can* do something.

tomh said: Kwok has already admitted that he knows nothing of Constitutional law, now he is proving it by parroting the Republican posturing by a few publicity-hungry AG's. Maybe he can drag this thread out to 15 or 20 pages the way he did when he claimed Obama couldn't be president because he wasn't born in the US.

Sylvilagus said:

John Kwok said: One of the most prominent members of the anti-vaccination movement is actress Jenny McCarthy, whose political views are liberal. While I am not disputing your facts regarding the movement's history, it should be noted that its most active proponents do tend to have liberal views now:

Sylvilagus said:

John Kwok said: According to other posters, the Huffington Post seems to have had its share of anti-vaccine denialists. It is not a website I read regularly, but I'll point that one out as an example:

Sylvilagus said:

John Kwok said: Have seen a lot of nonsense from the left with regards to science denialism, of which the most notable example may be the anti-vaccination movement:

Can you provide any evidence that the anti-vaccination movement is "leftist"? As a life-long socialist I have never known any serious leftie to espouse such a view. In my experience it comes from new agers with vaguely libertarian views. Most often from chiropracters and other alt med quacks who tend to be anti-tax small business owners, often "tolerant" of diversity and thus vaguely cultural liberals but usually solidly libertarian conservative on policy like health care, taxes etc.

John - let's be specific. You cited the anti-vaccination "movement" as an example of science denialism on the Left. Not some "posters" on one site. The anti-vaccine "movement" if there is one, traces as far as I know back to chiropractic attempts to differentiate from mainstream medicine in the 50's and 60's, plus right-wing anti-fluoridation-type concerns over individual liberty. I'm not saying that there aren't deniers who identify themselves as "leftist" but to describe the "movement" as leftist is just name-calling and not supported in reality.

Surely you don't see Jenny McCarthy as part of the Left???? Perhaps we mean something different by the term. For me, the Left means anti-capitalist, e.g. socialism or perhaps social democratic. Jenny McCarthy might have "liberal" views... (who cares) but she certainly has no articulated left-wing perspective. As a leftist, I find it laughable that you think of her as Left. If I made a claim that the Moon-Landing Skeptics movement came from the Right, would you accept as evidence the fact that a major blogger on the subject has conservative views? Wouldn't you see that as tarring the Right unfairly unless I could link right-wing ideas, articulated positions, and important groups on the Right with the "movement"?? Plus, how do you go from one "liberal" example to "it's most active proponents tend to have liberal views"? What's the evidence for this more general claim?

So how is “government coercion” to buy health insurance different from government coercion to “buy” retirement insurance (Social Security) through taxes, crime and fire insurance (taxes for police and fire depts.), attack by foreigners insurance (military budget), or, uh, HEALTH INSURANCE (Medicare, Medicaid, VA hospitals, tax-supported emergency rooms, etc.).

John Kwok said: It's not just "publicity-hungry AGs" who are challenging the ObamaCare bill.

tomh said:

John Kwok said: It's not just "publicity-hungry AGs" who are challenging the ObamaCare bill.

Yes, it is. In addition to the precedents mentioned above, the supremacy clause of the Constitution will have these suits tossed out at the lowest level. There is no reason to file these suits other than to garner publicity. They're on a par with the birther suits that were filed and rejected.

midwifetoad said:

So how is “government coercion” to buy health insurance different from government coercion to “buy” retirement insurance (Social Security) through taxes, crime and fire insurance (taxes for police and fire depts.), attack by foreigners insurance (military budget), or, uh, HEALTH INSURANCE (Medicare, Medicaid, VA hospitals, tax-supported emergency rooms, etc.).

I think mandatory health insurance supported by taxes would be constitutional, if not politically feasible. I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome of mandatory purchase of private insurance. I'm also curious where the money will come from, considering that many people with high nominal incomes are already maxed out with debt payments. One could easily say TS, you shouldn't be over your head in debt, but that doesn't answer the question.

John Kwok said: I strongly beg to differ. One of the suits is a joint suit followed by the attorney generals of eleven states, including CO, ND, SD, SC, WA and PA. Virginia should have filed its own suit independently of the other states as of Noon today at the Federal District Court in Richmond, VA. I wouldn't place any money that this is as ludicrous a right-wing conspiracy as the Birther issue was (Maybe you forgot that I admitted that I made a mistake about it, and realize that he was born in the United States. But you're too delusional to realize this.):

tomh said:

John Kwok said: It's not just "publicity-hungry AGs" who are challenging the ObamaCare bill.

Yes, it is. In addition to the precedents mentioned above, the supremacy clause of the Constitution will have these suits tossed out at the lowest level. There is no reason to file these suits other than to garner publicity. They're on a par with the birther suits that were filed and rejected.

John Kwok said: I strongly beg to differ. One of the suits is a joint suit followed by the attorney generals of eleven states, including CO, ND, SD, SC, WA and PA. Virginia should have filed its own suit independently of the other states as of Noon today at the Federal District Court in Richmond, VA. I wouldn't place any money that this is as ludicrous a right-wing conspiracy as the Birther issue was (Maybe you forgot that I admitted that I made a mistake about it, and realize that he was born in the United States. But you're too delusional to realize this.):

tomh said:

John Kwok said: It's not just "publicity-hungry AGs" who are challenging the ObamaCare bill.

Yes, it is. In addition to the precedents mentioned above, the supremacy clause of the Constitution will have these suits tossed out at the lowest level. There is no reason to file these suits other than to garner publicity. They're on a par with the birther suits that were filed and rejected.

It would be constitutional for the reasons you state, as the result of transforming a private health insurance industry into one controlled by the Federal Government:

John Kwok said: Typo. Second sentence (see below) should read as follows: "One of the suits is a joint suit filed by the attorney generals [sic] of eleven states, including CO, ND, SD, SC, WA and PA."

tomh said:

John Kwok said: Typo. Second sentence (see below) should read as follows: "One of the suits is a joint suit filed by the attorney generals [sic] of eleven states, including CO, ND, SD, SC, WA and PA."

What part of publicity-hungry attorneys general don't you understand? There are eleven right there.

Rilke's granddaughter said: What does it matter whether the suit is joint or not? The suits have no chance, and the AGs should know that. Unless they're just lunatic ideologues like the moron in Virginia.

John Kwok said: I strongly beg to differ. One of the suits is a joint suit followed by the attorney generals of eleven states, including CO, ND, SD, SC, WA and PA. Virginia should have filed its own suit independently of the other states as of Noon today at the Federal District Court in Richmond, VA. I wouldn't place any money that this is as ludicrous a right-wing conspiracy as the Birther issue was (Maybe you forgot that I admitted that I made a mistake about it, and realize that he was born in the United States. But you're too delusional to realize this.):

tomh said:

John Kwok said: It's not just "publicity-hungry AGs" who are challenging the ObamaCare bill.

Yes, it is. In addition to the precedents mentioned above, the supremacy clause of the Constitution will have these suits tossed out at the lowest level. There is no reason to file these suits other than to garner publicity. They're on a par with the birther suits that were filed and rejected.

midwifetoad said:

It would be constitutional for the reasons you state, as the result of transforming a private health insurance industry into one controlled by the Federal Government:

We already have precedents for mandatory health and retirement insurance supported by taxes. These supplement rather than replace private insurance and savings. Doing the same for universal health care would be an obvious extension, but apparently it is politically impossible. I have real doubts over whether the government can force people to buy insurance. As I say, I wouldn't bet on the outcome of the lawsuits. What I will bet on is a white mutiny, in which people simply ignore the mandate. The $750 penalty is significantly less than six or ten thousand for a qualifying policy. The next few years will be interesting. No doubt about that.

John Kwok said: Some private insurers apparently fear that this would mean the downfall of their industry and its takeover by the Federal Government.

John Kwok said: I suppose you're right since your expertise includes Constitutional law. Am I right? I wonder:

Rilke's granddaughter said: What does it matter whether the suit is joint or not? The suits have no chance, and the AGs should know that. Unless they're just lunatic ideologues like the moron in Virginia.

John Kwok said: I strongly beg to differ. One of the suits is a joint suit followed by the attorney generals of eleven states, including CO, ND, SD, SC, WA and PA. Virginia should have filed its own suit independently of the other states as of Noon today at the Federal District Court in Richmond, VA. I wouldn't place any money that this is as ludicrous a right-wing conspiracy as the Birther issue was (Maybe you forgot that I admitted that I made a mistake about it, and realize that he was born in the United States. But you're too delusional to realize this.):

tomh said:

John Kwok said: It's not just "publicity-hungry AGs" who are challenging the ObamaCare bill.

Yes, it is. In addition to the precedents mentioned above, the supremacy clause of the Constitution will have these suits tossed out at the lowest level. There is no reason to file these suits other than to garner publicity. They're on a par with the birther suits that were filed and rejected.

I honestly don't know, though I am certain that this isn't a delusional act by these attorneys general, especially when they are from states such as WA and PA, for example.

Jesse said: Read Wickard v Filburn. It would be open and shut, unless the SCOTUS is considering overturning the 1942 SCOTUS.

John Kwok said: So you are saying then that the other twenty two states which are objecting to various provisions are "publicity hungry" too?

midwifetoad said: I have real doubts over whether the government can force people to buy insurance.

I have no doubt that congress has the power to tax. I assume they could levy a $750 tax and provide for a $750 rebate for those who buy insurance.

For people who don't have insurance because they don't have an unused thousand dollars a month lying around, this is merely an additional $750 tax, with no benefits.

I have to back off a bit on the $750 tax. Apparently it doesn't go into effect until 2014.

Leaving me to wonder why people who aren't buying insurance now would suddenly buy it.

It's pretty obvious that the details are dribbling out, and specific criticisms are premature.

Frank J said: 1. Many religious people take Genesis' origins stories as allegorical to begin with, so explaining evolution to them will not make Genesis any "weaker" in their minds.

More importantly than that clause IMHO is the fact that is a law which coerces someone to buy health insurance whether they want to or not.

bullshit.

funny, nobody ever thought all the states that require you to buy automobile insurance were violating the federal constitution?

Wonder why that is, John?

I wonder if you've even bothered to think about it before.

I'm guessing not. You merely follow whatever the current rethuglican talking points are.

your contributions to scientific discussion simply don't balance out against the mountain of irrationality you tend to spew so commonly, whether it is irrational rethuglican talking points, or irrational hatred towards those that disagree with you.

maybe one day, you will hear what we are saying to you, and learn to either tone it down ten notches or so, or get a professional to help you.

either way, you've become deleterious to most discussion, wherever I have seen you go over the last few years.

I don't understand, unless it is just pure denial, how you cannot see you have a problem.

tomh said:

midwifetoad said: I have real doubts over whether the government can force people to buy insurance.

The mandate to buy health insurance is structured as a tax - if you don't buy insurance you are assessed a tax for failing to pay the premiums. Since Congress clearly has the power to pass such a tax, under its powers to tax and spend for the general welfare, this is an easy case. All the Republican bluster that Congress can't force people to buy health insurance is just that - bluster.

CLAVDIVS said:

tomh said:

midwifetoad said: I have real doubts over whether the government can force people to buy insurance.

The mandate to buy health insurance is structured as a tax - if you don't buy insurance you are assessed a tax for failing to pay the premiums. Since Congress clearly has the power to pass such a tax, under its powers to tax and spend for the general welfare, this is an easy case. All the Republican bluster that Congress can't force people to buy health insurance is just that - bluster.

That's how we do it in Australia. Nobody is forced to have health insurance. Everyone pays a 1.5% "Medicare Levy" on top of their regular income tax (with exemptions for low-income earners). If you are a high-income earner (AUD$70,000+ or about US$64,000+) and you don't have your own health insurance, then you pay an additional 1% "Medicare Levy Surcharge". Everyone is treated completely free at all public hospitals, regardless of whether you have insurance. If you do have health insurance, you can get treated at a private hospital and enjoy shorter waiting lists, but there is always some "co-pay" (we call it "excess" in the Land of Aus). However, the standard of care is pretty much the same whether public or private.

I agree. I simply don't understand what Americans have against paying taxes to fund a universal health system, where the government - in effect the sole or very much the major customer - can negotiate fees, rates, charges, etc, from a position of strength. Surely the free market has even more overall power under such a regime - if health care providers can't make a profit that attracts investment, they'll get out of the business, and the government will have to increase its payments.

From what I understand, a great deal of the enormous on-costs in hospitals are caused by administration of the various insurance company requirements, with overlapping inspectorates, haggling, argument, rule brokerage and edge cases. This is just wastage.

I don't understand the attitude, that is, unless what we have here is a prima facie fixed and rooted objection to paying any tax at all, for any purpose whatsoever. For what more constructive, more civilised purpose can there be than this?

What astonishes me most of all - I mean no reflection on any poster here - is that the most intransigent opposition seems to be coming from the fundamentalist Christian groups.

"Christians"? I don't think so.

I don't go along with some of the things Jesus of Nazareth (is alleged to have) said. But caring for the sick and the poor is one of the things he demanded of his followers. "Inasmuch as ye have done it to the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

I don't know how these folks sleep at night, knowing that.

There are some other issues. One current political buzzword is "accountability." The problem is that in politics, accountability has a different meaning than other venues. In politics, accountability means paperwork, and lots of it. With or without legislation, there has been politics in our health care system. It's just that the politics isn't always born of the elected official type, though a good amount of that type has been pervasive in our health care system for a minimum of 33 years.

The last figure that I saw on across the board administrative costs for the US health care system was 30%. I'm skeptical because it was claiming that other countries had administrative costs on the order of 1%-5%, which is damn near impossible to get down to unless you don't keep any records beyond invoices and receipts. So do we go by that 30% or not? I dunno. Since I don't have a better figure, it's all that I can go on when I say that dropping the administrative costs by 50% would still leave us paying far more per capita than any other developed nation.

On top of all that, if you look at the actual bill, deciphering it is like going through 250k lines of Fortran-77 that has a goto statement every 5th or 6th line. It's ~1k pages long and references itself all over the place, not to mention the occasional reference to other US code. Understanding it in its entirety will require somebody somebody like Rainman. It's just asking to be misinterpreted and abused. It also places some of the responsibility on the states for implementing it, and we've seen how well that works with unwieldy bills with NCLB. What I'm saying here is that congress is incompetent. Instead of letting their values set the goals, they let their values set the means.

I'm OK with some form of government health care as long as a few conditions are met:

A) Costs are reasonable.
B) Any permanent funds created for the system are absolutely never touched by congress.
C) The bill does not kill our medical research industry. It's one of the last bastions of scientific research that the US still has a strong hold on.
D) If we pay for the development costs of said research, we get to see the benefits of it immediately. We pay for it now, but don't see prompt benefits of it. Unless you are rich. Or it is related to ED. Other countries see the benefits and don't pay for it.
E) It doesn't have any effect on any of the privileges and immunities provided by the constitution. Not even in a "narrowly defined scope."

Oh, and F) The people being treated under the system can understand what their rights are with regards to it.

James F said:

Frank J said: 1. Many religious people take Genesis' origins stories as allegorical to begin with, so explaining evolution to them will not make Genesis any "weaker" in their minds.

1A. It is impossible to reconcile the timelines of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, so the literalists aren't really literalists; Henry Morris and his heirs make up their own hodgepodge version of the two chapters.

One feature of mandatory car insurance is that you don't have to buy a care, if your car is more expensive you pay more, if you're a bad driver you pay more, if you want lots of liability you pay more. You want low deductibles, you pay more.

In other words there are incentives for individuals to manage their costs to the system through voluntary changes in behavior.

Health insurance, like auto insurance, has at least two kinds of claims: those that are the result of random bad luck, and those that are the result of voluntary behavior.

A system that has no incentives for individuals to manage their own costs will run away like a steam engine with no governor.

Either that, or there will be a million pages of fine print that no one can read or understand.

Dave Luckett said: From what I understand, a great deal of the enormous on-costs in hospitals are caused by administration of the various insurance company requirements, with overlapping inspectorates, haggling, argument, rule brokerage and edge cases. This is just wastage.

John Kwok -

As I said, you have to face reality to do any good.

There is no active movement in the US to make vaccines illegal. Nor is, as you have been repeatedly told, vaccine denial specific to "liberals" or the "left". Furthermore, there are many, many liberals who strongly denounce vaccine denial. I am one of them.

Meanwhile, there are strong, active movements dedicated to replacing biology with sectarian dogma in public schools, and dedicated to grounding public policy in denial of human contribution to climate change.

These movements are overwhelmingly associated with the political right. A few rare examples of super-conservative Democrats or vaguely leftist loons who may also be a part of one or the other of these movements do not change that.

Furthermore, there is an extreme gutlessness on the part of the right with regard to standing up for science. Whereas liberals who stand up strong and loud against vaccine denialism and other pseudoscience are common, there are very few strong defenders of biology or climate science on the right.

Other than John Derbyshire, who is an eccentric Englishman with no definitive ties to either US political party, and who has a very narrow audience and is largely unknown to the public at large, one is hard-pressed to come up with ANY example of a Republican or conservative who stands up and speaks strongly in favor of accurate science. Please don't say "George Will". I said "strongly".

You are one of the rare exceptions.

HOWEVER, your efforts to create false equivalence in order to make the (currently) false argument that "liberals do it too" massively undermine you.

This has nothing to do with Pelosi or airplanes. Why can't you just admit that the Republican party is suffering from the unhealthy influence of organized, politically active science deniers?

No-one is telling you who to vote for, nor, if you will read what I said carefully, am I - or to my observation anyone else here - praising the Democrats. But facts are facts.

Paul Burnett -

Off topic but absolutely correct.

We already have an efficient universal health insurance system in this country. It covers the most elderly and the sickest. It is called Medicare. The incremental cost of expanding it to younger, healthier people would be fairly low.

Inefficient private insurers cherry pick the healthiest patients to begin with, by mainly insuring those healthy enough to be employed. They focus on denying claims and limiting coverage (such that even those with the best insurance may go bankrupt if they require enough medical care to max out their insurance coverage, which is not uncommon).

Of course, making an entire major industry, even a parasitic and inefficient one, go bankrupt over night, is hard to do. My personal suggestion is that everyone be enrolled in Medicare on a voluntary basis, and that the insurance companies be bought by the government. I'd love to see a situation in which they were merely knocked out, but the resistance to that would be too great.

The vast majority of Americans want affordable universal access to health care of at least the same quality as the health care the insured can now receive. That goal is highly achievable.

"Reforms" which are based on paying doctors less, restricting testing or treatment, or making it hard for patients to see physicians, are actually just health insurance industry shell game goals. The goal of the industry is to charge the same or greater premiums, but elevate profits by "reforming" away their obligation to actually provide what the premiums are paid for. Reducing what insurance companies pay out to health care providers will not reduce "health care costs" for Americans, unless the unlikely occurs and the savings are passed along as lowered premiums.

Yet for reasons of post-civil rights ideology and plutocratic corruption, the only kind of "health care reform" that is ever discussed is the idea of forcing Americans to pay more for less.

Michael Shermer describes himself as a conservative or libertarian. He also admits being rare in his combination of opinions.

The whole purpose for giving the federal government authority over interstate trade was to prevent states from engaging in trade wars with each other.

Jesse said: ... the same voting public that elected Bush ;)

Let's drop this "bus driver" elitism crap. The man's day job has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with the fact that he is wrong about evolution. We would not be one whit happier about this if he had a PhD in biology, would we? So why snark at his honest employment? Is there no shot too low to take, as long as it wounds, or as long as we would like to think it wounds?

Classist sneering only helps the opposition.

This is all deja vu, the religious righteous keep spinning it, changing little along the way. If you recall, Louisiana passed the "Balanced Treatment Act of 1982." It stated:

"Public schools in [the] state shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science. Balanced treatment of these two models shall be given in the classroom lectures taken as a whole for each course, in textbook materials taken as a whole for each course, in library materials taken as a whole for the sciences and taken as a whole for the humanities, and in other educational programs in public schools, to the extent that such lecures, textbooks, library materials, or educational programs deal in any way with the subject of the origin of man, life, the earth, or the universe. When creation or evolution is taught, each shall be taught as a theory, rather than as a proven fact.

In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this nonsense, There were two dissenting justices, Rhenquist and Scalia (naturally).

Interestingly, though, that LA was going to put it on the line that the bible was just another theory like any other theory.

deja vu isn't what it used to be.

So why snark at his honest employment?

you are reading snark where we are saying "no background to be critical"

look up Dunning Kruger, and realize that's what we think is going on here.

We would not be one whit happier about this if he had a PhD in biology, would we?

actually, much less *happy*, since supposedly someone with that educational background should know better.

which is why EVERYONE hates Jonathan Wells

clearer?

Larry Gilman said: Let's drop this "bus driver" elitism crap. The man's day job has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with the fact that he is wrong about evolution. We would not be one whit happier about this if he had a PhD in biology, would we? So why snark at his honest employment? Is there no shot too low to take, as long as it wounds, or as long as we would like to think it wounds? Classist sneering only helps the opposition.

Larry Gilman said: Let's drop this "bus driver" elitism crap. The man's day job has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with the fact that he is wrong about evolution. We would not be one whit happier about this if he had a PhD in biology, would we? So why snark at his honest employment? Is there no shot too low to take, as long as it wounds, or as long as we would like to think it wounds? Classist sneering only helps the opposition.

Methinks that people are missing why his being a bus driver comes into play. I believe that the content taught in schools should be consistent with the consensus of mainstream experts in the field. He's clearly not drawing from mainstream experts and he clearly doesn't have the training that one would expect a mainstream expert to have. Bringing up the fact that he's a bus driver is not the same as saying that he's a worthless scumbag. It's also not saying that he's a mainstream expert in biology.

Of course, you will always find some people fall outside of expectations, Wells is one example of somebody who does have the training one would expect of a mainstream expert. I'm sure we could find somebody on PT who at least knows a person who does not have that training, but should be considered an expert. But, if I see a bus driver who isn't some retiree or a college student studying the material, I would bet cold, hard cash that they don't have the knowledge or understanding of an expert. Even experts can be wrong, which is why it should be consensus, which implies verification.

Why is Kwok allowed to drag this OT without being sent to the BW?

I mean, he usually can maintain the semblance of sanity when limited to the Creationist debate, but he's absolutely bonkers - and an incredible, stuffy bore when given free reign.
Cut him off, or you'll see demands for a camera AND an apology.

Jesse said: But, if I see a bus driver who isn’t some retiree or a college student studying the material, I would bet cold, hard cash that they don’t have the knowledge or understanding of an expert.

Ichthyic said: More importantly than that clause IMHO is the fact that is a law which coerces someone to buy health insurance whether they want to or not. bullshit. funny, nobody ever thought all the states that require you to buy automobile insurance were violating the federal constitution?

harold said: John Kwok - As I said, you have to face reality to do any good. There is no active movement in the US to make vaccines illegal. Nor is, as you have been repeatedly told, vaccine denial specific to "liberals" or the "left". Furthermore, there are many, many liberals who strongly denounce vaccine denial. I am one of them. Meanwhile, there are strong, active movements dedicated to replacing biology with sectarian dogma in public schools, and dedicated to grounding public policy in denial of human contribution to climate change. These movements are overwhelmingly associated with the political right. A few rare examples of super-conservative Democrats or vaguely leftist loons who may also be a part of one or the other of these movements do not change that. Furthermore, there is an extreme gutlessness on the part of the right with regard to standing up for science. Whereas liberals who stand up strong and loud against vaccine denialism and other pseudoscience are common, there are very few strong defenders of biology or climate science on the right. Other than John Derbyshire, who is an eccentric Englishman with no definitive ties to either US political party, and who has a very narrow audience and is largely unknown to the public at large, one is hard-pressed to come up with ANY example of a Republican or conservative who stands up and speaks strongly in favor of accurate science. Please don't say "George Will". I said "strongly". You are one of the rare exceptions. HOWEVER, your efforts to create false equivalence in order to make the (currently) false argument that "liberals do it too" massively undermine you. This has nothing to do with Pelosi or airplanes. Why can't you just admit that the Republican party is suffering from the unhealthy influence of organized, politically active science deniers? No-one is telling you who to vote for, nor, if you will read what I said carefully, am I - or to my observation anyone else here - praising the Democrats. But facts are facts.

Here's the latest from CBS News polling data:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001117-503544.html

Approximately 62% of those surveyed want the Republicans to continue challenging all or parts of the ObamaCare bill.

Methinks that people are missing why his being a bus driver comes into play. I believe that the content taught in schools should be consistent with the consensus of mainstream experts in the field. He’s clearly not drawing from mainstream experts and he clearly doesn’t have the training that one would expect a mainstream expert to have.

— Jesse

Frank J said:

Methinks that people are missing why his being a bus driver comes into play. I believe that the content taught in schools should be consistent with the consensus of mainstream experts in the field. He’s clearly not drawing from mainstream experts and he clearly doesn’t have the training that one would expect a mainstream expert to have.

— Jesse

And the same goes for a dentist like Don McLeroy. He may have more total education than the average biologist, and possibly as much education in biology as the average bachelor's level biologist. But he's not qualified to pretend that he has a better "theory" than those who have done the actual work. In fact I suspect that McLeroy knows more about biology than he lets on, because he is committed to misrepresenting it.

Frank J said: And the same goes for a dentist like Don McLeroy. He may have more total education than the average biologist, and possibly as much education in biology as the average bachelor's level biologist. But he's not qualified to pretend that he has a better "theory" than those who have done the actual work. In fact I suspect that McLeroy knows more about biology than he lets on, because he is committed to misrepresenting it.

Mike Elzinga said: Just looking at the talking points among the YECs at Answers in Genesis gives some idea of how they think. It’s all a recipe for justifying sectarian dogma first and then bending everything else to fit. ...Ken Ham and Jason Lisle just assert crap as it comes into their heads; and they don’t even care if it is inconsistent with anything else they say about others.

Mike Elzinga said: They constantly criticize the “assumptions” they accuse everyone else of making about how to look at the universe. Yet they never apply that criticism to themselves when they assume the starting point must be the literal interpretation of their holy book.

Yeah, one would expect that conclusions based on evidence would converge toward each other as more evidence comes in. And, that's what the scientific consensus does over time (as well as over space and energy and biology).

Frank J said:

Methinks that people are missing why his being a bus driver comes into play. I believe that the content taught in schools should be consistent with the consensus of mainstream experts in the field. He’s clearly not drawing from mainstream experts and he clearly doesn’t have the training that one would expect a mainstream expert to have.

— Jesse

And the same goes for a dentist like Don McLeroy. He may have more total education than the average biologist, and possibly as much education in biology as the average bachelor's level biologist. But he's not qualified to pretend that he has a better "theory" than those who have done the actual work. In fact I suspect that McLeroy knows more about biology than he lets on, because he is committed to misrepresenting it.

It is obvious to any observer that there are many different conflicting interpretations all claiming to be the only correct interpretation.

— TomS

Frank J said:

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: if you can't teach God/Genesis in origin issues then you can't teach against them. That's the law if the law is being used to censor the good guys.

What law is that, Robert? Give us a literature citation, Robert. What jurisdiction? Provide direct quotes and URLs. Or are you making stuff up again? Remember, your delusions don't count as reality.

Again I apologize for "feeding" but a little "feeding" is beneficial if it alerts readers to how unreasonable these people can be. Byers is well aware that the same laws that prevent teaching "God/Genesis in origin issues" (I guess he means public school science class) also prevent teaching specifically that those claims are falsified. He, and most reactionary science-deniers, will object that teaching evolution is the same as stating that Genesis claims are falsified. But as you know that is nonsense for several reasons, including: 1. Many religious people take Genesis' origins stories as allegorical to begin with, so explaining evolution to them will not make Genesis any "weaker" in their minds. 2. Even many who take Genesis' origins stories literally, do so "on faith" and admit that the evidence will not support it (I knew someone like that), so explaining evolution to them will not make Genesis any "weaker" in their minds. 3. Many activists-in-training will actually welcome learning evolution because it will give them more facts to take out of context and promote unreasonable doubt. Jonathan Wells essentially admitted to getting a PhD in biology specifically for that purpose. 4. Even if teaching evolution generates some doubt of a "literal Genesis," teaching Genesis itself is probably a much more effective way to do that. Its multiple "literal" interpretations can't all be true at the same time, and all literal interpretations are rejected by some literalists. There's not only the Gen I / Gen II discrepancy, but a hopeless deadlock on what is the correct interpretation of the ages of life, Earth and Universe. Note the irony that, while Byers objects to "Darwinists" not allowing teaching "God/Genesis in origin issues" he conveniently omits that the DI, and even some of their "YEC" fans like FL, do not want it either. Why would they when merely misrepresenting evolution is far more effective? Why risk exposing students to the extraordinary and mutually contradictory claims in a document that their own religious leaders likely take as allegorical?

Jesse said:

Robert Byers said: Yeah from Canada. Anothewr voice in the rising aggression against error and censorship. in fact its not about balance but the present(though wrong) laws are good enough to force either total silence on origin issues or bring equal time. just demand that the separation concept be applied equally. if you can't teach God/Genesis in origin issues then you can't teach against them. That's the law if the law is being used to censor the good guys.

You're wrong. The SCOTUS says so. Why? Because evolution is not religion and that means that religion does not get any special treatment when it comes to dictating what is taught.

The bonehead Byers thinks that "origins", whatever he means by that asinine expression, can't be attested by evidence. It's an idea that he's picked up from that dropkick Phil Johnson. In Johnson, it was part of the encrusted insulation that he carefully formed around his mind, but in Byers, it is more like a magic formula that he invokes whenever he doesn't want to know something - which is mostly.

In this latest Byergram, we see also the other essential characteristic of Byerism: the attempt to conceal illogic by expressing it in gibberish.

Robert Byers said: If what is taught in science class is about origins and its in opposition to Genesis and God/Genesis is banned from same class then YES this is teaching and officially (as a state) teaching they are false.

Robert Byers said: Yes the legal banning of God/Genesis in state schools is a state opinion on their accuracy for origin conclusions. This is about law.

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: If what is taught in science class is about origins and its in opposition to Genesis and God/Genesis is banned from same class then YES this is teaching and officially (as a state) teaching they are false.

And this is why teaching the "controversy" in public school science classes in the USA is a bad idea. Just teach the science.

Frank J said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: If what is taught in science class is about origins and its in opposition to Genesis and God/Genesis is banned from same class then YES this is teaching and officially (as a state) teaching they are false.

And this is why teaching the "controversy" in public school science classes in the USA is a bad idea. Just teach the science.

I considered "feeding" Robert, but then I realized that he did not address my specific points, or the one you added. But merely repeated his basesless assertion. Including the false pretense that "Genesis" is a single origins account instead of several that contradict each other. If teaching evolution teaches opposition to Genesis, so would teaching one of the mutually contradictory "literal" interpretations of Genesis, or all of them. So what Robert wants is not only illegal and immoral, but technically impossible!

Robert Byers said: Simple equation. If subjects are taught in "science" class about origins and God/Genesis is banned then its a state opinion that same is false. so a state opinion on religion. Which is illegal by the law they use to ban the bible. teaching evolution also does this since to teach creationist criticisms/ideas is illegal because its religious then teaching opposite is teaching/stating religious presumptions are false. creationism will come back to the classroom.

In any event, we do not rest our decision upon the asserted vagueness of the statute. On either interpretation of its language, Arkansas' statute cannot stand. It is of no moment whether the law is deemed to prohibit mention of Darwin's theory, or to forbid any or all of the infinite varieties of communication embraced within the term 'teaching.' Under either interpretation, the law must be stricken because of its conflict with the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group.

The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. [p597] The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose. The judgment of the Court of Appeals therefore is Affirmed.

Jesse said:

Frank J said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: If what is taught in science class is about origins and its in opposition to Genesis and God/Genesis is banned from same class then YES this is teaching and officially (as a state) teaching they are false.

And this is why teaching the "controversy" in public school science classes in the USA is a bad idea. Just teach the science.

I considered "feeding" Robert, but then I realized that he did not address my specific points, or the one you added. But merely repeated his basesless assertion. Including the false pretense that "Genesis" is a single origins account instead of several that contradict each other. If teaching evolution teaches opposition to Genesis, so would teaching one of the mutually contradictory "literal" interpretations of Genesis, or all of them. So what Robert wants is not only illegal and immoral, but technically impossible!

Oh hell, you only need to read the first 2 pages of the Bible to find contradictions in any creation "model" that these guys like. First 2 pages! You hear that Robert? 2 pages and the Bible has already disagreed with itself on creation.

Oh hell, you only need to read the first 2 pages of the Bible to find contradictions in any creation “model” that these guys like. First 2 pages! You hear that Robert? 2 pages and the Bible has already disagreed with itself on creation.

FL said:

Oh hell, you only need to read the first 2 pages of the Bible to find contradictions in any creation “model” that these guys like. First 2 pages! You hear that Robert? 2 pages and the Bible has already disagreed with itself on creation.

Goodness gracious, we gittin' all kinda excited around here, ain't we boys? All that non-stop hatred against God and God's Word must take up a lotta energy!! FL

Fuckwit Liar said:

Oh hell, you only need to read the first 2 pages of the Bible to find contradictions in any creation “model” that these guys like. First 2 pages! You hear that Robert? 2 pages and the Bible has already disagreed with itself on creation.

Goodness gracious, we gittin' all kinda excited around here, ain't we boys? All that non-stop hatred against God and God's Word must take up a lotta energy!! FL

Fundamentalist Loser said: Goodness gracious, we gittin' all kinda excited around here, ain't we boys?

Jesse said:

FL said:

Oh hell, you only need to read the first 2 pages of the Bible to find contradictions in any creation “model” that these guys like. First 2 pages! You hear that Robert? 2 pages and the Bible has already disagreed with itself on creation.

Goodness gracious, we gittin' all kinda excited around here, ain't we boys? All that non-stop hatred against God and God's Word must take up a lotta energy!! FL

Excited? What I say is true. The bible disagrees with the bible.

There, Booby. I saved you the trouble of typing that out yourself. You don’t have to thank me.

FL said: Goodness gracious, we gittin' all kinda excited around here, ain't we boys? All that non-stop hatred against God and God's Word must take up a lotta energy!! FL

FL said:

Oh hell, you only need to read the first 2 pages of the Bible to find contradictions in any creation “model” that these guys like. First 2 pages! You hear that Robert? 2 pages and the Bible has already disagreed with itself on creation.

Goodness gracious, we gittin' all kinda excited around here, ain't we boys? All that non-stop hatred against God and God's Word must take up a lotta energy!! FL

FL said:

Oh hell, you only need to read the first 2 pages of the Bible to find contradictions in any creation “model” that these guys like. First 2 pages! You hear that Robert? 2 pages and the Bible has already disagreed with itself on creation.

Goodness gracious, we gittin' all kinda excited around here, ain't we boys? All that non-stop hatred against God and God's Word must take up a lotta energy!! FL

Frank J said:

FL said:

Oh hell, you only need to read the first 2 pages of the Bible to find contradictions in any creation “model” that these guys like. First 2 pages! You hear that Robert? 2 pages and the Bible has already disagreed with itself on creation.

Goodness gracious, we gittin' all kinda excited around here, ain't we boys? All that non-stop hatred against God and God's Word must take up a lotta energy!! FL

Nice try, but I do not hate God. And the atheists who think He does not exist can't possibly hate Him. It is precisely because I love God that I get annoyed how some of His children misrepresent science to others, and sometimes themselves, in a pathetic attempt to "save the world." My "excitement" turns into "train wreck" amusement, however, when I see the comical confusion of approaches to the Bible among evolution deniers alone. Not only is there the hopeless disagreement on "what happened when," you have one faction asserting that the Bible must be used as a source of "evidence," another faction asserting that it is not a source of "evidence" but independently confirmed by other (cherry picked, of course) evidence, and a third faction (Behe et al) asserting that it is not to be taken literally anyway. It's also funny when they use the word "evidences."

FL said: Goodness gracious, we gittin' all kinda excited around here, ain't we boys? All that non-stop hatred against God and God's Word must take up a lotta energy!! FL

Jesse said: It is a statement of weak faith that he cannot accept the world as it is and still believe in God. Fundamentalists like him are like addicts. Just about every waking moment is about getting a new God fix while not caring about the consequences.

Robin said:

FL said: Goodness gracious, we gittin' all kinda excited around here, ain't we boys? All that non-stop hatred against God and God's Word must take up a lotta energy!! FL

Oh please, FL, stop being such a disingenuous pinhead. Nobody has said anything even remotely hateful against your god or your god's word. We've merely pointed out how ignorant some supposed "Christian" followers are (like you and Robert) and how absurd their understanding of the bible is (like yours and Roberts). If there is any hatred being demonstrated, it is only towards your ignorance.

Robert Byers said: Simple equation. If subjects are taught in "science" class about origins and God/Genesis is banned then its a state opinion that same is false. so a state opinion on religion. Which is illegal by the law they use to ban the bible. teaching evolution also does this since to teach creationist criticisms/ideas is illegal because its religious then teaching opposite is teaching/stating religious presumptions are false. creationism will come back to the classroom.

If creationists want to give equal balance to all arguments, then are they suggesting that we teach about all theories/myths about creation? If they really wanted to "teach the controversy" then shouldn't they support teaching Vedic, Finnish, American Indian, Mayan, Norse, Celtic, Huron, Apache, and all of the thousands of myths about creation? Why do they only argue that the Genesis account be included in a science classroom? You want it to be fair don't you? So if we should teach the Genesis account, then shouldn't we also teach all the other religions' accounts?

Amy C. said: If creationists want to give equal balance to all arguments, then are they suggesting that we teach about all theories/myths about creation? If they really wanted to "teach the controversy" then shouldn't they support teaching Vedic, Finnish, American Indian, Mayan, Norse, Celtic, Huron, Apache, and all of the thousands of myths about creation? Why do they only argue that the Genesis account be included in a science classroom? You want it to be fair don't you? So if we should teach the Genesis account, then shouldn't we also teach all the other religions' accounts?

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: Simple equation. If subjects are taught in "science" class about origins and God/Genesis is banned then its a state opinion that same is false. so a state opinion on religion. Which is illegal by the law they use to ban the bible. teaching evolution also does this since to teach creationist criticisms/ideas is illegal because its religious then teaching opposite is teaching/stating religious presumptions are false. creationism will come back to the classroom.

Incorrect Robert as I and others have proven repeatedly. Your particular beliefs about Genesis are nonsense - the majority of Christianity says so. As such, teaching evolution - that happens to contradict your faulty understanding of the bible - is not a religious position against your beliefs. As such there is no violation of the separation of church and state. The State is perfectly ok presenting a factual scientific theory that does not conflict with what actual Christianity teaches. That it conflicts with your particular absurd beliefs about the bible and the Genesis story is your problem (well...a problem for creationists in general) as a theological issue. Take it up with the majority of Christians. It isn't something the law, the States, or even science can do anything about.

Stanton said:

FL said:

Oh hell, you only need to read the first 2 pages of the Bible to find contradictions in any creation “model” that these guys like. First 2 pages! You hear that Robert? 2 pages and the Bible has already disagreed with itself on creation.

Goodness gracious, we gittin' all kinda excited around here, ain't we boys? All that non-stop hatred against God and God's Word must take up a lotta energy!! FL

Why do you think that this anger you see directed at internet trolls who are disrupting the flows of conversations with demands for literal interpretations of the English translation of the Bible, even if it means destroying the Bible's meaning with contradictory nonsense, as well as other exegesis nonsense, as "hatred against God and God's word"?

Amy C. said: It actually doesn't matter how the majority of Christians interpret Genesis, either way it's a religion and it should have no place in a science class (especially a science class that is publicly funded and would be attended by culturally/religiously diverse children). If Christians don't want their children taught about evolution then they should home school and/or send them to a private school. The ones who cannot afford that can always take the responsible way and raise their own children. Children should not be learning their morals and beliefs from school. They should learn those things from their parents/community. Why do parents want public schools teaching their children about religion? I certainly don't want that for my children.

Jesse said:

Amy C. said: If creationists want to give equal balance to all arguments, then are they suggesting that we teach about all theories/myths about creation? If they really wanted to "teach the controversy" then shouldn't they support teaching Vedic, Finnish, American Indian, Mayan, Norse, Celtic, Huron, Apache, and all of the thousands of myths about creation? Why do they only argue that the Genesis account be included in a science classroom? You want it to be fair don't you? So if we should teach the Genesis account, then shouldn't we also teach all the other religions' accounts?

Don't expect an answer on that one from most creationists. Instead, if something is coming down the legislative pipeline that you cannot kill, simply make sure that gets tacked onto it. The power of Christ will compel the creationist's heads to spin in the face of learning some other religious views.

Jesse said:

Amy C. said: If creationists want to give equal balance to all arguments, then are they suggesting that we teach about all theories/myths about creation? If they really wanted to "teach the controversy" then shouldn't they support teaching Vedic, Finnish, American Indian, Mayan, Norse, Celtic, Huron, Apache, and all of the thousands of myths about creation? Why do they only argue that the Genesis account be included in a science classroom? You want it to be fair don't you? So if we should teach the Genesis account, then shouldn't we also teach all the other religions' accounts?

Don't expect an answer on that one from most creationists. Instead, if something is coming down the legislative pipeline that you cannot kill, simply make sure that gets tacked onto it. The power of Christ will compel the creationist's heads to spin in the face of learning some other religious views.

Jesse said:

Amy C. said: It actually doesn't matter how the majority of Christians interpret Genesis, either way it's a religion and it should have no place in a science class (especially a science class that is publicly funded and would be attended by culturally/religiously diverse children). If Christians don't want their children taught about evolution then they should home school and/or send them to a private school. The ones who cannot afford that can always take the responsible way and raise their own children. Children should not be learning their morals and beliefs from school. They should learn those things from their parents/community. Why do parents want public schools teaching their children about religion? I certainly don't want that for my children.

They don't understand that some teachers would follow the standards to a T, and they'd do so very, very objectively. Creationists wouldn't like that one bit.

TomS said:

Jesse said:

Amy C. said: If creationists want to give equal balance to all arguments, then are they suggesting that we teach about all theories/myths about creation? If they really wanted to "teach the controversy" then shouldn't they support teaching Vedic, Finnish, American Indian, Mayan, Norse, Celtic, Huron, Apache, and all of the thousands of myths about creation? Why do they only argue that the Genesis account be included in a science classroom? You want it to be fair don't you? So if we should teach the Genesis account, then shouldn't we also teach all the other religions' accounts?

Don't expect an answer on that one from most creationists. Instead, if something is coming down the legislative pipeline that you cannot kill, simply make sure that gets tacked onto it. The power of Christ will compel the creationist's heads to spin in the face of learning some other religious views.

I have heard of a response to that which goes something like this: "All of those (Vedic, etc.) are just the same anti-Christian beliefs based on denial of the Bible." I suppose that science, in that view, would count as the same as the Vedas in being nothing more than Bible-denial.

Amy C. said: Those arguments don't make any sense. I specifically left out the "Abrahamic" religions in an effort to show that not all religions are tied somehow to the Christian Bible. All of the religions listed above grew and evolved independently of the Bible. The people who followed these religions had no knowledge of the Bible at the time, so how could it be a case of denying the Bible? You cannot label a person's beliefs anti-Christian if they have never even heard of Christianity.

This is exactly why I say the whole “creationist”/”ID” movement is disingenuous. They don’t really want all sides taught–they want their side taught.

— Amy C.

Frank J said: In fact they would object as much, if not more, to having all of "their side" taught as they do to having none of it taught. By "all of it" I mean the mutually contradictory versions all claimed to be "the" literal interpretation of Genesis. The last thing they want is for students to be aware of the hopeless disagreements among "literal" interpretations, not to mention how none of them hold up the evidence.

Y’know, FL, for someone who pretends to be a Christian you certainly are mean-spirited...

TomS said:

Jesse said:

Amy C. said: If creationists want to give equal balance to all arguments, then are they suggesting that we teach about all theories/myths about creation? If they really wanted to "teach the controversy" then shouldn't they support teaching Vedic, Finnish, American Indian, Mayan, Norse, Celtic, Huron, Apache, and all of the thousands of myths about creation? Why do they only argue that the Genesis account be included in a science classroom? You want it to be fair don't you? So if we should teach the Genesis account, then shouldn't we also teach all the other religions' accounts?

Don't expect an answer on that one from most creationists. Instead, if something is coming down the legislative pipeline that you cannot kill, simply make sure that gets tacked onto it. The power of Christ will compel the creationist's heads to spin in the face of learning some other religious views.

I have heard of a response to that which goes something like this: "All of those (Vedic, etc.) are just the same anti-Christian beliefs based on denial of the Bible." I suppose that science, in that view, would count as the same as the Vedas in being nothing more than Bible-denial.

FL said:

Y’know, FL, for someone who pretends to be a Christian you certainly are mean-spirited...

What "mean-spirited"? What "seething anger" (as you put it)? All I did was type a tiny 28-word two-liner with a cheap Cornfield County accent, merely playing off some poster who started his post with "Oh Hell" and winds up yelling "You hear me?" before his post is over. I was just trying to get into the spirit of the occasion, quite honestly. But that was sufficient to send you guys going all off, cursing and flaming and evolving into a perfect state of Hogg Wild!! Which makes me smile, of course, but it does raise an honest and interesting question: Who is actually "seething with anger" in this PT forum?? Me? Or perhaps.....YE?

And btw....if you teach the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis, you won't have to teach ANYBODY's religious creation story in science class.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

FL

Also, perhaps you could explain why politicians and bus drivers should have a greater role in determining what can and can not go into science classroom curricula than actual scientists.

And please explain why your ideal science classroom curriculum revolves around making blatant lies about science, mindless, pointless and unnecessary adulation of Jesus Christ that otherwise belongs in a church, as well as forced literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible that mainstream churches have otherwise deemed wholly unnecessary to salvation.

FL said: And btw....if you teach the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis, you won't have to teach ANYBODY's religious creation story in science class. Sounds good, doesn't it? FL

FL said:

Y’know, FL, for someone who pretends to be a Christian you certainly are mean-spirited...

What "mean-spirited"? What "seething anger" (as you put it)? All I did was type a tiny 28-word two-liner with a cheap Cornfield County accent, merely playing off some poster who started his post with "Oh Hell" and winds up yelling "You hear me?" before his post is over. I was just trying to get into the spirit of the occasion, quite honestly. But that was sufficient to send you guys going all off, cursing and flaming and evolving into a perfect state of Hogg Wild!! Which makes me smile, of course, but it does raise an honest and interesting question: Who is actually "seething with anger" in this PT forum?? Me? Or perhaps.....YE?

FL said: And btw....if you teach the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis, you won't have to teach ANYBODY's religious creation story in science class. Sounds good, doesn't it? FL

FL said: And btw....if you teach the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis, you won't have to teach ANYBODY's religious creation story in science class. Sounds good, doesn't it? FL

FL said: And btw....if you teach the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis, you won't have to teach ANYBODY's religious creation story in science class. Sounds good, doesn't it? FL

fnxtr said: It's like saying English is the One True Language.

I would like FL to explain to me whether or not he supports teaching ALL of the creation myths in school.

Paul Burnett said:

fnxtr said: It's like saying English is the One True Language.

"I have read the King James Bible - everything Jesus says is in English - so we don't need to teach any furrin languages in the schools." - (attributed to FL or Byers or other members of their baramin)

Course, if they did start teaching one of the Creation myths in school, the zealots whose myth didn't get picked would be up in arms about that. Heck, they'd probably at that point be campaigning to put evolution back in, rather than one of their theological competitors.

Jesse said:

DS said: Chester said: "Evolution is basically an assumption that there is no God." RIght. And admitting that the earth is not flat is assuming that there is no god. And admitting that the earth goes around the sun is assuming that there is no god. Face it, these guys just want to be the center of the universe and they will oppose anything that they feel diminishes their specialness. They need to face up to reality and get over themselves.

I have come to the conclusion that many of them simply cannot cope with the idea that the world is not static. To them, if it ain't strapped down tight, it ain't reality. There's obviously more to it than just that, but I think that must be a part of it.

FL says: "What “mean-spirited”? What “seething anger” (as you put it)? All I did was type a tiny 28-word two-liner with a cheap Cornfield County accent, merely playing off some poster who started his post with “Oh Hell” and winds up yelling “You hear me?” before his post is over. I was just trying to get into the spirit of the occasion, quite honestly."

Quite honestly, FL, I've seen plenty of evidence that you are quite dishonest. Perhaps you're so delusional as to not actually realize that yourself.

You'll die someday, FL. I know that scares the bejeebers out of you, to the point that you've dedicated your life to worship of a myth that says it isn't so. Problem is, your faith is not strong enough that you truly believe the myth yourself. You somehow seem to think that if everyone can be indoctrinated to believe the myth, or at least is prevented from saying anything that contradicts it, that then the myth will be true. Pitiful way to waste your life, I think. If there is a God, you'll never know Him because you're too obsessed with hiding in your Bible. The Bible is just a paper and ink creation of humans, FL. It can't change reality.

Amy C said: Aren't these the same people who deny climate change whenever winter comes around? I think Colbert described it best when he called it "Peek-a-booism": the idea that whatever is happening right now is the only thing that is happening and nothing has ever changed.

Whereas: this dependence on fossil fuels contributes to global warming and unhealthy air pollution for New Mexican citizens and our students; and...

I don’t agree with the statement and I believe it is a very debatable point of data. I’m not comfortable seeking the grant if we pass something that states something I don’t believe is true. I don’t think it’s (fossil fuels contributing to global warming) an accurate statement.

Yo, Byers,

I know you always duck my questions, but let's get one more on the record, so we'll either have your definitive statement on it, or further proof that, like Matthew Harrison Brady, you don't think about things you don't think about.

A sizable fraction of good, Bible-believing, creationist Christians (YECs, like yourself) believe that the Sun orbits the Earth, and that the Moon shines with its own light rather than with reflected sunlight. They're called geocentrists. They believe those things because of very strong biblical evidence that that is how the universe is ordered, both in Genesis and later books.

The structure of the solar system, with the sun at the center, is taught beginning in very early grades. Therefore, by your reasoning, those classes are teaching that the Bible isn't true--that "origins issues" dealing with the Sun and Earth are wrong in Genesis. Therefore they're teaching that religion is wrong, which you believe to be prohibited by law.

Now, could we have a simple, clear answer? Should we continue to teach the heliocentric system in schools, even though many Christians, with biblical "evidence", are sure that it's wrong?

Why or why not? Please explain your reasoning.

Science only considers falsifiable and testable ideas.
Religions survive BECAUSE they are untestable and irrefutable.

There is thus no controversy. Religion is simply not science in the same way a muffin is not a screwdriver, they are different things.

Case f-ing closed.

Amy C. said: It actually doesn't matter how the majority of Christians interpret Genesis, either way it's a religion and it should have no place in a science class (especially a science class that is publicly funded and would be attended by culturally/religiously diverse children).

I think you all are being too hard on FL. Perhaps his 'teach ID' idea has merit. Let's explore it further.

To start with, perhaps FL would be good enough to describe what would go in the ID unit. I.e. what does the ID unit teach about the history of life on earth (and how long that history is), about the mechanisms by which species arise, etc...

Once we know the basic curriculum he suggests we teach, we can determine whether it merits inclusion. But until he describes that curriculum, we should table any suggestion to include ID as premature.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

I would like FL to explain to me whether or not he supports teaching ALL of the creation myths in school.

FL said:

I would like FL to explain to me whether or not he supports teaching ALL of the creation myths in school.

Sure. I do not support that action (if you mean teaching them within public school science classes. Some other classes would be okay.) Fortunately, that specific scenario can be avoided entirely, simply by teaching the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis in science classes. Sure, sure, you disagree with that hypothesis, you're sure it's been widely discredited by reputable scientists. That's fine (ummmmm, for the moment anyway). All I'm saying here is that, unlike YEC or OEC, you would NOT be teaching any religion's creation stories, nor any snips of any religion's sacred texts in biology class, if you taught the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis in biology class instead. Would you agree with me that far, Amy? FL

FL said:

I would like FL to explain to me whether or not he supports teaching ALL of the creation myths in school.

Sure. I do not support that action (if you mean teaching them within public school science classes. Some other classes would be okay.) Fortunately, that specific scenario can be avoided entirely, simply by teaching the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis in science classes. Sure, sure, you disagree with that hypothesis, you're sure it's been widely discredited by reputable scientists. That's fine (ummmmm, for the moment anyway). All I'm saying here is that, unlike YEC or OEC, you would NOT be teaching any religion's creation stories, nor any snips of any religion's sacred texts in biology class, if you taught the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis in biology class instead. Would you agree with me that far, Amy? FL

Fundamentalist Loser said: Fortunately, that specific scenario can be avoided entirely, simply by teaching the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis in science classes.

FL said:

I would like FL to explain to me whether or not he supports teaching ALL of the creation myths in school.

Sure. I do not support that action (if you mean teaching them within public school science classes. Some other classes would be okay.) Fortunately, that specific scenario can be avoided entirely, simply by teaching the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis in science classes. Sure, sure, you disagree with that hypothesis, you're sure it's been widely discredited by reputable scientists. That's fine (ummmmm, for the moment anyway). All I'm saying here is that, unlike YEC or OEC, you would NOT be teaching any religion's creation stories, nor any snips of any religion's sacred texts in biology class, if you taught the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis in biology class instead. Would you agree with me that far, Amy? FL

phantomreader42 said: Do(es FL) have the slightest speck of evidence to support "the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis"? Can you even articulate this supposed "hypothesis"? Or are you, as usual, just looking for an excuse to divert resources away from the teaching of actual science in order to ensure more uneducated gullible marks for your sick death cult?

marilyn said: Quite honestly, FL, I've seen plenty of evidence that you are quite dishonest. Perhaps you're so delusional as to not actually realize that yourself. You'll die someday, FL. I know that scares the bejeebers out of you, to the point that you've dedicated your life to worship of a myth that says it isn't so. Problem is, your faith is not strong enough that you truly believe the myth yourself. You somehow seem to think that if everyone can be indoctrinated to believe the myth, or at least is prevented from saying anything that contradicts it, that then the myth will be true. Pitiful way to waste your life, I think. If there is a God, you'll never know Him because you're too obsessed with hiding in your Bible. The Bible is just a paper and ink creation of humans, FL. It can't change reality.

Stanton said:

phantomreader42 said: Do(es FL) have the slightest speck of evidence to support "the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis"? Can you even articulate this supposed "hypothesis"? Or are you, as usual, just looking for an excuse to divert resources away from the teaching of actual science in order to ensure more uneducated gullible marks for your sick death cult?

He does not have a single shred of evidence to support his lies, and you know it.

FL said: And btw....if you teach the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis, you won't have to teach ANYBODY's religious creation story in science class. Sounds good, doesn't it? FL

FL:

Would you want me to teach the Dembski/Behe intelligent design "hypothesis"?

I would first make it perfectly clear that they both accept a ~4 billion year history of life, that Behe clearly accepts common descent, that Dembski claims to be "unsure" about common descent but never challenged Behe on it or ever provided a hypothesis, let alone evidence, to support an "independent origins" model that people like you desperately want. And of course students will hear the "strengths" and weaknesses of their vacuous incredulity arguments against "Darwinism."

Paul Burnett said:

Fundamentalist Loser said: Fortunately, that specific scenario can be avoided entirely, simply by teaching the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis in science classes.

But you can't do that, because a Federal judge ruled "...that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." - Judge John Jones, Harrisburg, PA, December 20, 2005. But you knew that already, didn't you, FL?

Frank J said: BTW, does anyone know if GWB, who innocently repeated the "teach the controversy" sound bite (as would most Democrats) ever criticized the decision of his appointee?

Frank J said:

FL said: And btw....if you teach the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis, you won't have to teach ANYBODY's religious creation story in science class. Sounds good, doesn't it? FL

Irony meters are exploding.

It’s ironic because FL is a lying hypocrite who’s only goals here are to spread lies, as well as derail threads with catty gossip.

— Stanton

Just Bob said: Yo, Byers, I know you always duck my questions, but let's get one more on the record, so we'll either have your definitive statement on it, or further proof that, like Matthew Harrison Brady, you don't think about things you don't think about. A sizable fraction of good, Bible-believing, creationist Christians (YECs, like yourself) believe that the Sun orbits the Earth, and that the Moon shines with its own light rather than with reflected sunlight. They're called geocentrists. They believe those things because of very strong biblical evidence that that is how the universe is ordered, both in Genesis and later books. The structure of the solar system, with the sun at the center, is taught beginning in very early grades. Therefore, by your reasoning, those classes are teaching that the Bible isn't true--that "origins issues" dealing with the Sun and Earth are wrong in Genesis. Therefore they're teaching that religion is wrong, which you believe to be prohibited by law. Now, could we have a simple, clear answer? Should we continue to teach the heliocentric system in schools, even though many Christians, with biblical "evidence", are sure that it's wrong? Why or why not? Please explain your reasoning.

Frank J said:

This is exactly why I say the whole “creationist”/”ID” movement is disingenuous. They don’t really want all sides taught–they want their side taught.

— Amy C.

In fact they would object as much, if not more, to having all of "their side" taught as they do to having none of it taught. By "all of it" I mean the mutually contradictory versions all claimed to be "the" literal interpretation of Genesis. The last thing they want is for students to be aware of the hopeless disagreements among "literal" interpretations, not to mention how none of them hold up the evidence.

Frank J said:

It’s ironic because FL is a lying hypocrite who’s only goals here are to spread lies, as well as derail threads with catty gossip.

— Stanton

While I have serious doubts that FL truly thinks that the evidence supports a young Earth, I would not say that he's lying. I think he honestly thinks that he needs to tell fairy tales to "save the world." I think the same of the activists (especially the DI "kind") but in FL's case I do think that he has honestly convinced himself of some part of those fairy tales, probably with the help of Morton's Demon.

FL said:

I would like FL to explain to me whether or not he supports teaching ALL of the creation myths in school.

Sure. I do not support that action (if you mean teaching them within public school science classes. Some other classes would be okay.) Fortunately, that specific scenario can be avoided entirely, simply by teaching the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis in science classes. Sure, sure, you disagree with that hypothesis, you're sure it's been widely discredited by reputable scientists. That's fine (ummmmm, for the moment anyway). All I'm saying here is that, unlike YEC or OEC, you would NOT be teaching any religion's creation stories, nor any snips of any religion's sacred texts in biology class, if you taught the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis in biology class instead. Would you agree with me that far, Amy? FL

But even if they were only successful in allocating time to other “theories”, that would have still been a partial success for them for they would have reduced the schools’ teaching of evolution. The Dishonesty Institute is no different.

— DavidK

it’s like forcing geography teachers to teach the “flat-earther’s” point of view.

— Amy C

How does that explain or excuse FL’s constant taunts and smarmyness?

— Stanton

FL said:

Y’know, FL, for someone who pretends to be a Christian you certainly are mean-spirited...

What "mean-spirited"? What "seething anger" (as you put it)? All I did was type a tiny 28-word two-liner with a cheap Cornfield County accent, merely playing off some poster who started his post with "Oh Hell" and winds up yelling "You hear me?" before his post is over. I was just trying to get into the spirit of the occasion, quite honestly. But that was sufficient to send you guys going all off, cursing and flaming and evolving into a perfect state of Hogg Wild!! Which makes me smile, of course, but it does raise an honest and interesting question: Who is actually "seething with anger" in this PT forum?? Me? Or perhaps.....YE?

FL said: And btw....if you teach the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis, you won't have to teach ANYBODY's religious creation story in science class. Sounds good, doesn't it? FL

Sylvilagus said:

FL said: And btw....if you teach the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis, you won't have to teach ANYBODY's religious creation story in science class. Sounds good, doesn't it? FL

Actually, their "hypothesis" has never been presented in a scientific testable form; when ever small sub-hypotheses have been couched in testable terms, they have been disproven solidly. Their "hypothesis" is not scientific; its really just their Christian belief expressed in science-sounding language, thus if we teach it, we ARE teaching someone's creation myth, just lacking much of the detail... the narrative is the same... "God did it." They admit this in religious cointexts but then deny it in scientific and legal forums.

FL said:

And btw.…if you teach the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis, you won’t have to teach ANYBODY’s religious creation story in science class.

Sounds good, doesn’t it?

FL

mmmmmm...."cDesign Proponentists"....yeah...that's not anybody's Creation Hypothesis.

Are you that intellectually dishonest???

FL said:

Oh hell, you only need to read the first 2 pages of the Bible to find contradictions in any creation “model” that these guys like. First 2 pages! You hear that Robert? 2 pages and the Bible has already disagreed with itself on creation.

Goodness gracious, we gittin' all kinda excited around here, ain't we boys? All that non-stop hatred against God and God's Word must take up a lotta energy!! FL

FL said: And btw....if you teach the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis, you won't have to teach ANYBODY's religious creation story in science class. Sounds good, doesn't it? FL

Oh hell, you only need to read the first 2 pages of the Bible to find contradictions in any creation “model” that these guys like. First 2 pages! You hear that Robert? 2 pages and the Bible has already disagreed with itself on creation.

Karen S. said:

Oh hell, you only need to read the first 2 pages of the Bible to find contradictions in any creation “model” that these guys like. First 2 pages! You hear that Robert? 2 pages and the Bible has already disagreed with itself on creation.

The solution is simple: you give equal time to both Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2. (And you could slip in a bit of science if there's time left over.)

Stanton said:

FL said:

I would like FL to explain to me whether or not he supports teaching ALL of the creation myths in school.

Sure. I do not support that action (if you mean teaching them within public school science classes. Some other classes would be okay.) Fortunately, that specific scenario can be avoided entirely, simply by teaching the Dembski/Behe intelligent design hypothesis in science classes. Sure, sure, you disagree with that hypothesis, you're sure it's been widely discredited by reputable scientists. That's fine (ummmmm, for the moment anyway). All I'm saying here is that, unlike YEC or OEC, you would NOT be teaching any religion's creation stories, nor any snips of any religion's sacred texts in biology class, if you taught the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis in biology class instead. Would you agree with me that far, Amy? FL

Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Intelligent Design was legally determined to be inherently religious in nature in the Dover Trial.

StephenInCT asked (of FL): Are you that intellectually dishonest???

What the Lakota, Cherokee, Hindu, Buddhist, Mayan, Aztec, and Kikuyu creation myths? How about that espoused by the Pastafarians? Remember all are equally credible and deserve mention too IMHO:

"Think tank"?
Casey Luskin would drown in a think tank.

woods said: "Think tank"? Casey Luskin would drown in a think tank.

Jesse said:

woods said: "Think tank"? Casey Luskin would drown in a think tank.

He already did and is now brain dead. Bet that answers a few questions for you.

Stanton said:

Jesse said:

woods said: "Think tank"? Casey Luskin would drown in a think tank.

He already did and is now brain dead. Bet that answers a few questions for you.

So he's a Jesus Zombie?

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Yes the legal banning of God/Genesis in state schools is a state opinion on their accuracy for origin conclusions. This is about law.

Which law? Which state? You continue blathering on about this purported "law," but have not provided any information whatsoever about it. Name the law - name the state - or shut up. And we are keeping in mind that you and your kind want to impose your Christian version of Sharia "Law" to forbid teaching or mention of evolution. That's on record. But what anti-creationism law are you talking about? Or is this just another of your delusions?

Robert Byers said:

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Yes the legal banning of God/Genesis in state schools is a state opinion on their accuracy for origin conclusions. This is about law.

Which law? Which state? You continue blathering on about this purported "law," but have not provided any information whatsoever about it. Name the law - name the state - or shut up. And we are keeping in mind that you and your kind want to impose your Christian version of Sharia "Law" to forbid teaching or mention of evolution. That's on record. But what anti-creationism law are you talking about? Or is this just another of your delusions?

The law i refer too is simply the legal prohibition of god/Genesis being taught as a option for origins, and so in contradiction to others, in science classs etc in public schools. The state means the nation as usually used in these discussions.

Jesse said:

Robert Byers said: Simple equation. If subjects are taught in "science" class about origins and God/Genesis is banned then its a state opinion that same is false. so a state opinion on religion. Which is illegal by the law they use to ban the bible. teaching evolution also does this since to teach creationist criticisms/ideas is illegal because its religious then teaching opposite is teaching/stating religious presumptions are false. creationism will come back to the classroom.

Here is what the SCOTUS has to say about that:

In any event, we do not rest our decision upon the asserted vagueness of the statute. On either interpretation of its language, Arkansas' statute cannot stand. It is of no moment whether the law is deemed to prohibit mention of Darwin's theory, or to forbid any or all of the infinite varieties of communication embraced within the term 'teaching.' Under either interpretation, the law must be stricken because of its conflict with the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group.

Epperson v Arkansas

The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. [p597] The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose. The judgment of the Court of Appeals therefore is Affirmed.

Edwards v Aguillard P.S. Equation doesn't mean what you think it means.

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: Simple equation. If subjects are taught in "science" class about origins and God/Genesis is banned then its a state opinion that same is false. so a state opinion on religion. Which is illegal by the law they use to ban the bible. teaching evolution also does this since to teach creationist criticisms/ideas is illegal because its religious then teaching opposite is teaching/stating religious presumptions are false. creationism will come back to the classroom.

Incorrect Robert as I and others have proven repeatedly. Your particular beliefs about Genesis are nonsense - the majority of Christianity says so. As such, teaching evolution - that happens to contradict your faulty understanding of the bible - is not a religious position against your beliefs. As such there is no violation of the separation of church and state. The State is perfectly ok presenting a factual scientific theory that does not conflict with what actual Christianity teaches. That it conflicts with your particular absurd beliefs about the bible and the Genesis story is your problem (well...a problem for creationists in general) as a theological issue. Take it up with the majority of Christians. It isn't something the law, the States, or even science can do anything about.

Translation of the Byergram:

"It doesn't matter what other faiths think" means just that. Only the Byerfaith has any standing at all.

"The reasoning of the law" means "Byers' personal paranoid delusions".

"Teach against the religious doctrines" means "teach anything that might upset Byers' religious doctrines", while "religious doctrines can't be taught" means "facts may be taught".

"Trying to have your cake and eat it too" means observing that selective Biblical literality is a religious doctrine, while the Theory of Evolution is not, and that it is therefore lawful to teach the latter, but not the former. This action is known as "reasoning", a process unknown to Byers.

Robert Byers said: In either court statement they are wrong and incompetent.

Robert Byers said: it doesn't matter what other faiths think. by the reasoning of the law the many millions and more Christians faith is under attack by the state.

Robert Byers said: Equation fits the bill. In banning and teaching against Genesis/or God in a subject where Genesis/God has a position the state is making a opinion on God/Genesis as to whether its factual. The ban is a point and teaching evolution a second point. Simply the state is saying creationism is false on origins. Not just neutral. For it teaches conclusions. Also the ban itself is a state opinion that God/Genesis is false since its the state clearly saying its teaching the truth of origins in science class. Think about what they and you are saying here. Carefully.

Robert Byers said:

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Yes the legal banning of God/Genesis in state schools is a state opinion on their accuracy for origin conclusions. This is about law.

Which law? Which state? You continue blathering on about this purported "law," but have not provided any information whatsoever about it. Name the law - name the state - or shut up. And we are keeping in mind that you and your kind want to impose your Christian version of Sharia "Law" to forbid teaching or mention of evolution. That's on record. But what anti-creationism law are you talking about? Or is this just another of your delusions?

The law i refer too is simply the legal prohibition of god/Genesis being taught as a option for origins, and so in contradiction to others, in science classs etc in public schools. The state means the nation as usually used in these discussions.

Robert Byers said:

Jesse said:

Robert Byers said: Simple equation. If subjects are taught in "science" class about origins and God/Genesis is banned then its a state opinion that same is false. so a state opinion on religion. Which is illegal by the law they use to ban the bible. teaching evolution also does this since to teach creationist criticisms/ideas is illegal because its religious then teaching opposite is teaching/stating religious presumptions are false. creationism will come back to the classroom.

Here is what the SCOTUS has to say about that:

In any event, we do not rest our decision upon the asserted vagueness of the statute. On either interpretation of its language, Arkansas' statute cannot stand. It is of no moment whether the law is deemed to prohibit mention of Darwin's theory, or to forbid any or all of the infinite varieties of communication embraced within the term 'teaching.' Under either interpretation, the law must be stricken because of its conflict with the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group.

Epperson v Arkansas

The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. [p597] The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose. The judgment of the Court of Appeals therefore is Affirmed.

Edwards v Aguillard P.S. Equation doesn't mean what you think it means.

Equation fits the bill. In either court statement they are wrong and incompetent. First it is the separation concept that is actually the philosophy behind the censorship. This is, rightly, how the issue or schools/origins is presented to the public. In banning and teaching against Genesis/or God in a subject where Genesis/God has a position the state is making a opinion on God/Genesis as to whether its factual. The ban is a point and teaching evolution a second point. Simply the state is saying creationism is false on origins. Not just neutral. For it teaches conclusions. An establishment of religion or "religious purpose" is in fact taking place when a particular religion or all are being banned on a subject where conclusions are made in opposition to that religion. These small court decisions can not use the constitution, from a very Protestant Christian Yankee/southern people in the 1700's, to find a prohibition of God/Genesis in subjects that, today, directly teach against same as agents of origins. Also the ban itself is a state opinion that God/Genesis is false since its the state clearly saying its teaching the truth of origins in science class. Think about what they and you are saying here. Carefully. The state is simply not to pick sides on religion and be neutral. yet in banning genesis and teaching evolution it makes two punches that are NOT neutral. The founders did not intend that religion could be opposed by the state officially. In those days it was just contending religions and a general opposition to religion was not anticipated. Yet the principal of the establishment clause works fine for defending creationism in the schools etc. Of coarse its all not needed with the simple idea that the state is not actually everything the state pays for. Schools are not the state. Just education paid for by the state.

Hey Floyd, remind me again which of the testable predictions ID theory makes are we supposed to teach in class?

Also Bubba, the government is not encroacing upon your right to believe whatever nonsense you wish by allowing evolution to be taught in schools. Evolution says nothing about Christianity. It is you that constantly brings up religion when the rest of us are trying to hold discussions about science.

By the way, you sound mad; more than usual. Are you mad? The hopelessness of your situation getting to you?

Maybe you can curl up with Dembski and his blanket at night and keep each other company.

RDK said: Hey Floyd, remind me again which of the testable predictions ID theory makes are we supposed to teach in class?

RDK said: Also Bubba, the government is not encroacing upon your right to believe whatever nonsense you wish by allowing evolution to be taught in schools. Evolution says nothing about Christianity. It is you that constantly brings up religion when the rest of us are trying to hold discussions about science.

Robert Byers said:

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Yes the legal banning of God/Genesis in state schools is a state opinion on their accuracy for origin conclusions. This is about law.

Which law? Which state? You continue blathering on about this purported "law," but have not provided any information whatsoever about it. Name the law - name the state - or shut up.

The law i refer too is simply the legal prohibition of god/Genesis being taught as a option for origins, and so in contradiction to others, in science classs etc in public schools.

woods said: "Think tank"? Casey Luskin would drown in a think tank.

RDK said: Hey Floyd, remind me again which of the testable predictions ID theory makes are we supposed to teach in class?

Ron Okimoto said:

RDK said: Hey Floyd, remind me again which of the testable predictions ID theory makes are we supposed to teach in class?

There is an ID sucker reborn every minute?

I teach Genesis all the time. Will teach it again in a few weeks. The prohibition is on teaching Genesis in SCIENCE classes as SCIENCE. I teach Genesis in a Humanities class and comparative religion/philosophy. No ban on that.

— Silvilagus

RDK said: Hey Floyd, remind me again which of the testable predictions ID theory makes are we supposed to teach in class?

TomS said:

RDK said: Hey Floyd, remind me again which of the testable predictions ID theory makes are we supposed to teach in class?

The problem with ID is more than the lack of testable predictions. ID lacks any positive content. It was the result of a long process in creationism: removing content. Removing content either because of a conflict with constitutional law in the USA (such as references to particular sectarian interpretations of parts of the Bible) or because it was far too obviously in conflict with reality (such as the "vapor canopy" and no speciation). Creationism has always been vexed by the lack of a theory (or description), and ID carries that lack to an extreme, indeed embracing it.

Tom & Ron:

Don't forget the mutual contradictions among their positions, which adds insult to the injury that none of them holds up to the evidence. I wish I had the hard data to show it, but I'm darn sure that, even had they won the big court cases, we still would have seen the steady "evolution" of their scams toward "don't ask, don't tell what the designer did, when or how, just promote unreasonable doubt of evolution and let the audience infer the rest."

Mutual contradictions? Say it ain't sew!!11!!eleven!!

Robert Byers said: Again. it doesn't matter what other faiths think. by the reasoning of the law the many millions and more Christians faith is under attack by the state.

the state can't teach against the religious doctrines and then say its those religious doctrines themselves can't be taught because of a mutual separation concept. Your trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Byers' position is the same tired, ant-science foolishness we always see, but with one important caveat: his position - that we cannot teach anything contrary to faith - requires that we teach NOTHING at all. Every singly scientific theory, every bit of history, of theology, of literature, eve, contradicts SOME claim of faith.

Byers demands that schools- all schools - be eliminated.

Nuts.

Robert Byers said: Again. it doesn't matter what other faiths think. by the reasoning of the law the many millions and more Christians faith is under attack by the state. the state can't teach against the religious doctrines and then say its those religious doctrines themselves can't be taught because of a mutual separation concept. Your trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Note added in proof: I don't mean to equate all homeschoolers with creationists.

Well, the DI folks are at it again, this time in Kentucky, so Connecticut isn't the only place activity is taking place.

Kentucky, 2010
March 6th, 2010

One "academic freedom" bill was introduced in Kentucky in 2010.
Bill Details

Bill Number: HB 397
Title: Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act
Introduction Date: February 8, 2010
Current Status: Referred to House Education Committee

Here's the text:
http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1287

DavidK said: Well, the DI folks are at it again, this time in Kentucky, so Connecticut isn't the only place activity is taking place. Kentucky, 2010 March 6th, 2010 One "academic freedom" bill was introduced in Kentucky in 2010. Bill Details Bill Number: HB 397 Title: Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act Introduction Date: February 8, 2010 Current Status: Referred to House Education Committee Here's the text: http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1287

I wonder how Kentucky intends to decide what constitutes "other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner"? Mark my words: they're going to start sneaking in nonsense from AiG or DI but lying about the source.

It's a stealth creationist bill. Not that the KY legislature would necessarily mind if it were out in the open, but the courts would.

Frank J said: Tom & Ron: Don't forget the mutual contradictions among their positions, which adds insult to the injury that none of them holds up to the evidence. I wish I had the hard data to show it, but I'm darn sure that, even had they won the big court cases, we still would have seen the steady "evolution" of their scams toward "don't ask, don't tell what the designer did, when or how, just promote unreasonable doubt of evolution and let the audience infer the rest."

Jesse said: *sigh* When are they not at it? Why must they insist academic freedom applies to public schools?

If your faith compels you to deny science and history, there’s always home schooling and Liberty University.

— James F

If they had won those court cases we would have bigger problems in this country than the evolution of what they ended up teaching in the public schools.

— Ron Okimoto

Robert Byers said:

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: Simple equation. If subjects are taught in "science" class about origins and God/Genesis is banned then its a state opinion that same is false. so a state opinion on religion. Which is illegal by the law they use to ban the bible. teaching evolution also does this since to teach creationist criticisms/ideas is illegal because its religious then teaching opposite is teaching/stating religious presumptions are false. creationism will come back to the classroom.

Incorrect Robert as I and others have proven repeatedly. Your particular beliefs about Genesis are nonsense - the majority of Christianity says so. As such, teaching evolution - that happens to contradict your faulty understanding of the bible - is not a religious position against your beliefs. As such there is no violation of the separation of church and state. The State is perfectly ok presenting a factual scientific theory that does not conflict with what actual Christianity teaches. That it conflicts with your particular absurd beliefs about the bible and the Genesis story is your problem (well...a problem for creationists in general) as a theological issue. Take it up with the majority of Christians. It isn't something the law, the States, or even science can do anything about.

Again. it doesn't matter what other faiths think. by the reasoning of the law the many millions and more Christians faith is under attack by the state.

the state can't teach against the religious doctrines and then say its those religious doctrines themselves can't be taught because of a mutual separation concept. Your trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Sylvilagus said:

Robert Byers said: Equation fits the bill. In banning and teaching against Genesis/or God in a subject where Genesis/God has a position the state is making a opinion on God/Genesis as to whether its factual. The ban is a point and teaching evolution a second point. Simply the state is saying creationism is false on origins. Not just neutral. For it teaches conclusions. Also the ban itself is a state opinion that God/Genesis is false since its the state clearly saying its teaching the truth of origins in science class. Think about what they and you are saying here. Carefully.

Robert – Maybe YOU should "think carefully." There is no ban on teaching Genesis as “origins theory” in Public Schools. I teach Genesis all the time. Will teach it again in a few weeks. The prohibition is on teaching Genesis in SCIENCE classes as SCIENCE. I teach Genesis in a Humanities class and comparative religion/philosophy. No ban on that. Now, you claim that the prohibition on teaching Genesis in science classes is an assertion that Genesis is false, but you are mistaken. Genesis does not count as a scientific model and thus should not be taught in science class. This is not the same as saying it is not true. Kantian philosophy is not taught in science class, but it might still be true. Sexual moralities of various sorts are not taught in science class but they still might be true. You are confusing two quite different issues: whether something is “science” is not the same as whether it is “true.” The state can ban Genesis from being taught as science because no creationist has yet to present a coherent scientific model that supports it. BUT it might still be true even if not scientific (I doubt it, but it might) thus the state is not presenting any opinion on the “truth” of Genesis by banning it from being taught as “science.”

Jesse said:

Robert Byers said:

Jesse said:

Robert Byers said: Simple equation. If subjects are taught in "science" class about origins and God/Genesis is banned then its a state opinion that same is false. so a state opinion on religion. Which is illegal by the law they use to ban the bible. teaching evolution also does this since to teach creationist criticisms/ideas is illegal because its religious then teaching opposite is teaching/stating religious presumptions are false. creationism will come back to the classroom.

Here is what the SCOTUS has to say about that:

In any event, we do not rest our decision upon the asserted vagueness of the statute. On either interpretation of its language, Arkansas' statute cannot stand. It is of no moment whether the law is deemed to prohibit mention of Darwin's theory, or to forbid any or all of the infinite varieties of communication embraced within the term 'teaching.' Under either interpretation, the law must be stricken because of its conflict with the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group.

Epperson v Arkansas

The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. [p597] The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose. The judgment of the Court of Appeals therefore is Affirmed.

Edwards v Aguillard P.S. Equation doesn't mean what you think it means.

Equation fits the bill. In either court statement they are wrong and incompetent. First it is the separation concept that is actually the philosophy behind the censorship. This is, rightly, how the issue or schools/origins is presented to the public. In banning and teaching against Genesis/or God in a subject where Genesis/God has a position the state is making a opinion on God/Genesis as to whether its factual. The ban is a point and teaching evolution a second point. Simply the state is saying creationism is false on origins. Not just neutral. For it teaches conclusions. An establishment of religion or "religious purpose" is in fact taking place when a particular religion or all are being banned on a subject where conclusions are made in opposition to that religion. These small court decisions can not use the constitution, from a very Protestant Christian Yankee/southern people in the 1700's, to find a prohibition of God/Genesis in subjects that, today, directly teach against same as agents of origins. Also the ban itself is a state opinion that God/Genesis is false since its the state clearly saying its teaching the truth of origins in science class. Think about what they and you are saying here. Carefully. The state is simply not to pick sides on religion and be neutral. yet in banning genesis and teaching evolution it makes two punches that are NOT neutral. The founders did not intend that religion could be opposed by the state officially. In those days it was just contending religions and a general opposition to religion was not anticipated. Yet the principal of the establishment clause works fine for defending creationism in the schools etc. Of coarse its all not needed with the simple idea that the state is not actually everything the state pays for. Schools are not the state. Just education paid for by the state.

I'm sorry Robert, but your legal analysis sucks. Teaching evolution in science class does, in fact, serve a legitimate secular purpose. It is science and it is not at odds with all religions. Teaching evolution does not have the primary effect of advancing a particular religion or inhibiting the free exercise of religion. Teachers aren't forcing kids to accept evolution, just requiring that they understand it. Furthermore, the vast majority political activists who want evolution out of the schools want it replaced with Creationism. That would have the primary effect of advancing a religion. Teaching evolution does not lead to an excessive entanglement with religion. In other words, if you knew what the three prong Lemon test was, you'd understand why evolution is a legitimate subject to teach in public school science class. The Lemon test and the endorsement test are the standards normally used for determining if something violates the establishment or free exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment. Teaching evolution does not fail the endorsement test either because it is not a religious view. Your religious views don't get special consideration. To do so would be to let your religious views dictate how the country is going to be run. I'm sure that you'd be fine with that, but I would not be. But you go ahead and take your argument to court. You'll lose and lose hard.

Frank J said:

I teach Genesis all the time. Will teach it again in a few weeks. The prohibition is on teaching Genesis in SCIENCE classes as SCIENCE. I teach Genesis in a Humanities class and comparative religion/philosophy. No ban on that.

— Silvilagus

Do you allow students to critically analyze the mutually contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis? I mean real critical analysis; I trust you don't use ther phony "critical analysis" that anti-evolution activists "designed" specifically to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution. Or do you teach it as they do in churches, i.e. with no comment either way on whether fact or allegory, in which case much of the audience takes it as allegory anyway? Whatever your answers, these questions should point out the extreme irony. The DI plainly states not to teach Genesis, and Robert, who does demand that Genesis be taught, doesn't even acknowledge, much less criticize them. Yet whines incessantly about "Darwinists" who make the same demand. The DI even wants to teach evolution (plus misrepresentation), but we don't hear a peep from Robert about that either. Like I said way back (in this thread?) I would rather see students learn Genesis, than "learn" evolution the way the DI would teach it, i.e. strictly to promote unreasonable doubt. Robert, despite his pretense to the contrary, would undoubtedly not.

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: Again. it doesn't matter what other faiths think. by the reasoning of the law the many millions and more Christians faith is under attack by the state.

But somebody's faith is going to be "under attack" by your definition no matter what is taught, because the thousands of different faiths disagree with one another. Are we also to teach that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything with His Noodly Appendage? Do we take a vote and teach what the majority believes? Most members of Christian denominations don't adhere to a literal reading of Genesis. Augustine wrote a whole essay on it (one and a half, actually) over 17 centuries ago. To teach Genesis as science is to suggest the narrow reading of Christian fundamentalists is the correct one. In any event, the Epperson decision said "There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."

the state can't teach against the religious doctrines and then say its those religious doctrines themselves can't be taught because of a mutual separation concept. Your trying to have your cake and eat it too.

The state certainly can't teach against someone's religion without any otherwise secular purpose. For example, a public school teacher can't start handing out anti-Catholic Jack Chick tracts. But since the teaching of evolution has a secular purpose, that prohibition doesn't apply. As Epperson says, the state isn't obligated to avoid teaching something just because it happens to disagree with someone's religion.

Robin said:

Robert Byers said:

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: Simple equation. If subjects are taught in "science" class about origins and God/Genesis is banned then its a state opinion that same is false. so a state opinion on religion. Which is illegal by the law they use to ban the bible. teaching evolution also does this since to teach creationist criticisms/ideas is illegal because its religious then teaching opposite is teaching/stating religious presumptions are false. creationism will come back to the classroom.

Incorrect Robert as I and others have proven repeatedly. Your particular beliefs about Genesis are nonsense - the majority of Christianity says so. As such, teaching evolution - that happens to contradict your faulty understanding of the bible - is not a religious position against your beliefs. As such there is no violation of the separation of church and state. The State is perfectly ok presenting a factual scientific theory that does not conflict with what actual Christianity teaches. That it conflicts with your particular absurd beliefs about the bible and the Genesis story is your problem (well...a problem for creationists in general) as a theological issue. Take it up with the majority of Christians. It isn't something the law, the States, or even science can do anything about.

Again. it doesn't matter what other faiths think. by the reasoning of the law the many millions and more Christians faith is under attack by the state.

This doesn't follow from what I wrote, Robert. I didn't mention other faiths - I noted Christianity that is just one faith, by definition. Once again, that your particular understanding of the bible veers from what the body of Christianity has established is your problem, not one of multiple faiths.

the state can't teach against the religious doctrines and then say its those religious doctrines themselves can't be taught because of a mutual separation concept. Your trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Nope. You're trying to conflate your particular understanding of Genesis as the 'Christian' understanding of Genesis by insisting that it is "religious doctrine". It isn't. Your beliefs regarding Genesis being literal are not supported by the majority of Christians and thus the State is not teaching that the Christian doctrine is false by any means. It may well be teaching that your particular beliefs that deviate from Christianity doctrine are incorrect, but that's your problem.

Robert Byers said: I wouldn't there anymore then here. The small circles of origin jurisprudence just need better lawyers. You use words and concepts. Teaching evolution is illegal if it teaches the bible is wrong. Your point about legitamate secular purpose is not allowed for creationism. Creationism simply has conclusions on actual origins. Yet is banned. Just because of religious flirtation. The religious point trumps the secular point. Any point you make to say the state can't push one faith over another but can push against all or some on doctirnes fails. If you can't push one over the other it is because one is being put down. Thats the simple idea. In pushing evolution religion, as used here, for many is being pushed down. The writers of this meant no state interference and simnply didn't anticapate anti-religions teachings. Words are words. Intents are clear. if the state is involved in the issue of truth about biblical facts of nature then its breaking the law it uses to ban the bible. This is surely not separation. Its full involvenent in conclusions.

According to Robert Byers' argument, there is precious little that could be taught in school, since there are a lot of religions that have stories that affect how their followers view history, science, art, etc. It would be practically impossible to teach any sort of subject without contradicting some peoples' beliefs.
Of course, that's probably his desire: to shut down public schools and replace them with church-run schools.

The truly alarming thing is that what Byers is saying makes sense inside his head. His thinking really does appear to be that disordered.

I am of the opinion that he is actually deranged. Either that, or he's a troll on a scale to compete with IBIG. Horrifying thought! What if they're one and the same?

Robert Byers said: God /Genesis is banned because of a separation concept and the establishment clause.

Genesis is banned as true knowledge on origins and the banning itself is a statement by the state its not the truth.

If something is banned about a subject of knowledge then its a statement by the banner that the banned is not true.

Robert Byers said: Teaching evolution is illegal if it teaches the bible is wrong.

Robert Byers said:

Sylvilagus said: Robert – Maybe YOU should "think carefully." There is no ban on teaching Genesis as “origins theory” in Public Schools. I teach Genesis all the time. Will teach it again in a few weeks. The prohibition is on teaching Genesis in SCIENCE classes as SCIENCE. I teach Genesis in a Humanities class and comparative religion/philosophy. No ban on that. Now, you claim that the prohibition on teaching Genesis in science classes is an assertion that Genesis is false, but you are mistaken. Genesis does not count as a scientific model and thus should not be taught in science class. This is not the same as saying it is not true. Kantian philosophy is not taught in science class, but it might still be true. Sexual moralities of various sorts are not taught in science class but they still might be true. You are confusing two quite different issues: whether something is “science” is not the same as whether it is “true.” The state can ban Genesis from being taught as science because no creationist has yet to present a coherent scientific model that supports it. BUT it might still be true even if not scientific (I doubt it, but it might) thus the state is not presenting any opinion on the “truth” of Genesis by banning it from being taught as “science.”

No Sir. God /Genesis is banned because of a separation concept and the establishment clause. Not because its not science.

If something is banned about a subject of knowledge then its a statement by the banner that the banned is not true.

Frank J said:

I teach Genesis all the time. Will teach it again in a few weeks. The prohibition is on teaching Genesis in SCIENCE classes as SCIENCE. I teach Genesis in a Humanities class and comparative religion/philosophy. No ban on that.

— Silvilagus

Do you allow students to critically analyze the mutually contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis? I mean real critical analysis; I trust you don't use ther phony "critical analysis" that anti-evolution activists "designed" specifically to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution. Or do you teach it as they do in churches, i.e. with no comment either way on whether fact or allegory, in which case much of the audience takes it as allegory anyway?

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: God /Genesis is banned because of a separation concept and the establishment clause.

"God" is not banned - all gods are banned. Genesis is not banned - all religious texts are banned. If you teach any one of them, you would be establishing a state religion.

Dave Luckett said: The truly alarming thing is that what Byers is saying makes sense inside his head. His thinking really does appear to be that disordered. I am of the opinion that he is actually deranged.

Robert Byers said: This law must go or be found to have never existed.

Robert Byers said: This law must go or be found to have never existed.

Byers, IBIG, and FL are all batshit insane. One response to their ravings should be enough. If you feed them, they just keep coming back.

Robert Byers said:

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Yes the legal banning of God/Genesis in state schools is a state opinion on their accuracy for origin conclusions. This is about law.

Which law? Which state? You continue blathering on about this purported "law," but have not provided any information whatsoever about it. Name the law - name the state - or shut up. And we are keeping in mind that you and your kind want to impose your Christian version of Sharia "Law" to forbid teaching or mention of evolution. That's on record. But what anti-creationism law are you talking about? Or is this just another of your delusions?

The law i refer too is simply the legal prohibition of god/Genesis being taught as a option for origins, and so in contradiction to others, in science classs etc in public schools. The state means the nation as usually used in these discussions.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: God /Genesis is banned because of a separation concept and the establishment clause.

"God" is not banned - all gods are banned. Genesis is not banned - all religious texts are banned. If you teach any one of them, you would be establishing a state religion. How about this, Byers - imagine there was only two religions, and you had to give equal time to both in the interests of fairness - so let's teach Genesis and the Kama Sutra in the public schools. How would that go over with you?

Genesis is banned as true knowledge on origins and the banning itself is a statement by the state its not the truth.

Not at all. Genesis is one of many religious teachings, and no religious teaching is allowed, because that would be an establishment of religion. Truth actually has nothing to do with it.

If something is banned about a subject of knowledge then its a statement by the banner that the banned is not true.

Genesis is not about knowledge - it's about religion. Whether or not it's true is not the issue - it's banned because teaching it would be an establishment of religion. Why can't you get that distinction through your head? Here's an assignment for you, Byers - read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test and get back to us. And preferably get your meds adjusted before you read about the Lemon test - it might help you understand the concept.

Sylvilagus said:

Robert Byers said:

Sylvilagus said: Robert – Maybe YOU should "think carefully." There is no ban on teaching Genesis as “origins theory” in Public Schools. I teach Genesis all the time. Will teach it again in a few weeks. The prohibition is on teaching Genesis in SCIENCE classes as SCIENCE. I teach Genesis in a Humanities class and comparative religion/philosophy. No ban on that. Now, you claim that the prohibition on teaching Genesis in science classes is an assertion that Genesis is false, but you are mistaken. Genesis does not count as a scientific model and thus should not be taught in science class. This is not the same as saying it is not true. Kantian philosophy is not taught in science class, but it might still be true. Sexual moralities of various sorts are not taught in science class but they still might be true. You are confusing two quite different issues: whether something is “science” is not the same as whether it is “true.” The state can ban Genesis from being taught as science because no creationist has yet to present a coherent scientific model that supports it. BUT it might still be true even if not scientific (I doubt it, but it might) thus the state is not presenting any opinion on the “truth” of Genesis by banning it from being taught as “science.”

No Sir. God /Genesis is banned because of a separation concept and the establishment clause. Not because its not science.

Robert - As I said, I actually teach Genesis in public school regularly. It IS NOT BANNED. PERIOD. Genesis is only banned from classes that would teach it as "true," that usually means science class. There is no ban on teaching Genesis as religion, as myth, as literature, as an historical document. The only ban is on promoting the Genesis account as "truth" as in the case of science. What you fail to understand, is that if creationism were scientific and had a scientific basis for arguing in support of the genesis account, then teaching creationism wouldn't be religion, it would be science, and thus wouldn't be banned form those classes. The separation clause would not apply. The only time and place when it does apply in public school is when a teacher tries to claim it is true scientifically. The separation clause doesn't apply in my Humanities class. Honest.

If something is banned about a subject of knowledge then its a statement by the banner that the banned is not true.

By this logic if I don't to say I love you, this means I hate you. If I don't say that capitalism is good, this means I am a socialist. It is possible to simply NOT EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE MATTER.

Robert Byers said:

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: God /Genesis is banned because of a separation concept and the establishment clause.

"God" is not banned - all gods are banned. Genesis is not banned - all religious texts are banned. If you teach any one of them, you would be establishing a state religion. How about this, Byers - imagine there was only two religions, and you had to give equal time to both in the interests of fairness - so let's teach Genesis and the Kama Sutra in the public schools. How would that go over with you?

Genesis is banned as true knowledge on origins and the banning itself is a statement by the state its not the truth.

Not at all. Genesis is one of many religious teachings, and no religious teaching is allowed, because that would be an establishment of religion. Truth actually has nothing to do with it.

If something is banned about a subject of knowledge then its a statement by the banner that the banned is not true.

Genesis is not about knowledge - it's about religion. Whether or not it's true is not the issue - it's banned because teaching it would be an establishment of religion. Why can't you get that distinction through your head? Here's an assignment for you, Byers - read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test and get back to us. And preferably get your meds adjusted before you read about the Lemon test - it might help you understand the concept.

The issue of truth is the legal point. By banning Genesis the state is saying its not true because the subject of origins is presented as the conclusions of truth. The clause is there to prevent the state from choosing one faith over another. Meaning one faith is not to be chosen against by the state. In banning or teaching otherwise this is actually what is being done. Thats the equation.

Robert Byers said:

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: God /Genesis is banned because of a separation concept and the establishment clause.

"God" is not banned - all gods are banned. Genesis is not banned - all religious texts are banned. If you teach any one of them, you would be establishing a state religion. How about this, Byers - imagine there was only two religions, and you had to give equal time to both in the interests of fairness - so let's teach Genesis and the Kama Sutra in the public schools. How would that go over with you?

Genesis is banned as true knowledge on origins and the banning itself is a statement by the state its not the truth.

Not at all. Genesis is one of many religious teachings, and no religious teaching is allowed, because that would be an establishment of religion. Truth actually has nothing to do with it.

If something is banned about a subject of knowledge then its a statement by the banner that the banned is not true.

Genesis is not about knowledge - it's about religion. Whether or not it's true is not the issue - it's banned because teaching it would be an establishment of religion. Why can't you get that distinction through your head? Here's an assignment for you, Byers - read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test and get back to us. And preferably get your meds adjusted before you read about the Lemon test - it might help you understand the concept.

The issue of truth is the legal point. By banning Genesis the state is saying its not true because the subject of origins is presented as the conclusions of truth. The clause is there to prevent the state from choosing one faith over another. Meaning one faith is not to be chosen against by the state. In banning or teaching otherwise this is actually what is being done. Thats the equation.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Byers' position is the same tired, ant-science foolishness we always see, but with one important caveat: his position - that we cannot teach anything contrary to faith - requires that we teach NOTHING at all. Every singly scientific theory, every bit of history, of theology, of literature, eve, contradicts SOME claim of faith. Byers demands that schools- all schools - be eliminated. Nuts.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Byers, address this, please.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Byers' position is the same tired, ant-science foolishness we always see, but with one important caveat: his position - that we cannot teach anything contrary to faith - requires that we teach NOTHING at all. Every singly scientific theory, every bit of history, of theology, of literature, eve, contradicts SOME claim of faith. Byers demands that schools- all schools - be eliminated. Nuts.

amyc said: He won't address it. He never address or acknowledges anything anybody says. I've asked him questions a number of times on this and other threads, and he never answers. He only continues to say his original points. He does what all creationists do.

Stanton said:

amyc said: He won't address it. He never address or acknowledges anything anybody says. I've asked him questions a number of times on this and other threads, and he never answers. He only continues to say his original points. He does what all creationists do.

I get the impression that he's actually dumber than some Creationists, what with the way he usually ignores everything beyond his own inane talking points, and the way he apparently assumes that no one remembers that he's a Young Creationist, or how he's Canadian, but somehow assumes that he knows what's best about American law or education.

Robert Byers said: In banning and teaching against Genesis/or God in a subject where Genesis/God has a position the state is making a opinion on God/Genesis as to whether its factual. ... Simply the state is saying creationism is false on origins. Not just neutral. For it teaches conclusions.

The logical error is the same in both examples: our old friend, “affirming the consequent”. The two premises are true. But the conclusion is invalid, because believing Genesis is false is not the only reason one might ban the teaching of it. It’s banned because the primary purpose in teaching it is to advance a particular religious belief and teaching it serves no valid secular purpose.

As I’ve said before, “but it might be true” doesn’t create a valid secular purpose for teaching religious beliefs as science. There are plenty of supernatural hypotheses within the thousands of religions of the world that, despite a lack of any positive evidence, can’t be proved wrong. Indeed, once you allow the supernatural, you’re free to make up any unfalsifiable baloney you want. The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually harder to disprove than Genesis.

In most of the court cases that have dealt with the issue, the judges have been careful to note that they do not pass judgment on the validity of the belief. For example, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which invalidated the teaching of Intelligent design, the judge said “we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position [emphasis mine], ID is not science.”

"Krayyyy...zeee.... over the rainbow, he is krayyyy.... zeee... bars in the window..."

I really hate to be such a protagonist here, but I look up PT for the first time in months and see tons of huge threads and all I manage to find is people arguing with Kwok about politics and FL being ignored as per usual. Not that it is a bad thing but there is no place like home.

I really hate to be such a protagonist here, but I look up PT for the first time in months and see tons of huge threads and all I manage to find is people arguing with Kwok about politics and FL being ignored as per usual. Not that it is a bad thing but there is no place like home.

and then I double post...fail

Robert Byers said: No. For tens of millions Christian doctrines on origins are being attacked by the state. You can't wiggle about lack of Christian consenses means these doctrines are not Christian. That discredit centuries of disagreement among self professed Christians since the reformation.

Right. Ignoring something equals attacking it. If you teach real science in science class, then you are automatically attacking anyone who denies reality. So what? If you teach that the earth is round you are automatically attacking those who claim that it is flat. If you teach that pi equals 3.14 then you are automatically attacking those who claim that it is three. If you claim that the earth orbits the sun you are automatically attacking those who claim that the sun orbits the earth. That is the way science works. Deal with it. Your religious beliefs are not above reality, nor should they be.

SInce I plan on ignoring Robert, I guess I will be attacking him. Here goes...

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Byers, address this, please.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Byers' position is the same tired, ant-science foolishness we always see, but with one important caveat: his position - that we cannot teach anything contrary to faith - requires that we teach NOTHING at all. Every singly scientific theory, every bit of history, of theology, of literature, eve, contradicts SOME claim of faith. Byers demands that schools- all schools - be eliminated. Nuts.

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: In banning and teaching against Genesis/or God in a subject where Genesis/God has a position the state is making a opinion on God/Genesis as to whether its factual. ... Simply the state is saying creationism is false on origins. Not just neutral. For it teaches conclusions.

I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion, but I suspect your reasoning has been something like this:

If the state believes something is false, then they will ban its children from learning it as science.

They ban children from learning Genesis as science.

Therefore, the state must believe Genesis is false.

See what’s wrong with that? I’ll give you a minute. OK. Here’s another example of the same logic :

If parents believe something is hot, then they will ban their children from touching it.

They ban children from touching knives.

Therefore, parents must believe knives are hot.

The logical error is the same in both examples: our old friend, “affirming the consequent”. The two premises are true. But the conclusion is invalid, because believing Genesis is false is not the only reason one might ban the teaching of it. It’s banned because the primary purpose in teaching it is to advance a particular religious belief and teaching it serves no valid secular purpose.

As I’ve said before, “but it might be true” doesn’t create a valid secular purpose for teaching religious beliefs as science. There are plenty of supernatural hypotheses within the thousands of religions of the world that, despite a lack of any positive evidence, can’t be proved wrong. Indeed, once you allow the supernatural, you’re free to make up any unfalsifiable baloney you want. The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually harder to disprove than Genesis.

In most of the court cases that have dealt with the issue, the judges have been careful to note that they do not pass judgment on the validity of the belief. For example, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which invalidated the teaching of Intelligent design, the judge said “we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position [emphasis mine], ID is not science.”

Robert Byers said: Your logic test thing doesn't work. Your still trying to avoid admitting that if the government banns a opinion in some subject of knowledge that it is not making a official state opinion that THAT opinion is false. Unless there is the scenario where what is true in same subject is not the object of the teaching. Yet in origin issues this is not the case. They clearly say evolution etc is true as a conclusion from human knowledge and so the banning of creationism is a clear statement that it is false. so a clear statement of religious doctrines for many. The mere banning plus the mere teaching is a two punch state opinion on religion by way of this subject. Nature and logic abhors a vacuum.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as meaning that no religious view can be taught as truth in schools ever since it was asked to rule on the question, Byers. Genesis is a religious text, and that God created life is a religious view. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is strictly logical and firmly in accord with the basic principles of the Common Law. Your "legal arguement" (sic) consists of nothing more than endless reiteration of your ignorance and prejudice.

Yes, the people can, through their representatives, change the Constitution. They can, for example, amend the the First Amendment. If they did so in due form, the Supremes would have nothing to say.

But that isn't going to happen, Byers, and I think you know it. Behind your bluster and babble I sense a terrible fear: that you've lost.

Believe it. You lost long ago, and are now left on your own in a place you don't understand. You're on your own, because everyone else has moved on, but here you are, still flailing helplessly and ineffectually at something you can't comprehend, far less defeat. You're alone and in the dark, and frightened. But, Byers, you're there because you locked yourself in and threw away the key. I'm sorry for you, but this is your own doing; and although you can't believe it, in fact the door really is open, and there is light beyond it.

Dave Luckett said: But that isn't going to happen, Byers, and I think you know it. Behind your bluster and babble I sense a terrible fear: that you've lost.

Robert Byers said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Byers, address this, please.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Byers' position is the same tired, ant-science foolishness we always see, but with one important caveat: his position - that we cannot teach anything contrary to faith - requires that we teach NOTHING at all. Every singly scientific theory, every bit of history, of theology, of literature, eve, contradicts SOME claim of faith. Byers demands that schools- all schools - be eliminated. Nuts.

Answered many times. i am making a legal arguement and not a policy one. I always said there is no laws on the teaching of origins in the constitution. Its a liberal '60's invention. So the people can, thru the legislature, decide what they want. Until then however a law is invoked for the censorship and i show how its not a real idea in the constitution and how its not being applied equally as it purports to be the agenda. I'm just dissecting to bits the reasoning behind the confidence that a separation concept or establishment concept fits the present censorship.

Censorship is preventing somebody from expressing their opinion while on their own time.

School teachers while on duty are not on their own time; they are doing a job for which they get paid.

Case closed.

American Saddlebred said: I really hate to be such a protagonist here, but I look up PT for the first time in months and see tons of huge threads and all I manage to find is people arguing with Kwok about politics and FL being ignored as per usual. Not that it is a bad thing but there is no place like home.

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: In banning and teaching against Genesis/or God in a subject where Genesis/God has a position the state is making a opinion on God/Genesis as to whether its factual. ... Simply the state is saying creationism is false on origins. Not just neutral. For it teaches conclusions.

I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion, but I suspect your reasoning has been something like this:

If the state believes something is false, then they will ban its children from learning it as science.

They ban children from learning Genesis as science.

Therefore, the state must believe Genesis is false.

See what’s wrong with that? I’ll give you a minute. OK. Here’s another example of the same logic :

If parents believe something is hot, then they will ban their children from touching it.

They ban children from touching knives.

Therefore, parents must believe knives are hot.

The logical error is the same in both examples: our old friend, “affirming the consequent”. The two premises are true. But the conclusion is invalid, because believing Genesis is false is not the only reason one might ban the teaching of it. It’s banned because the primary purpose in teaching it is to advance a particular religious belief and teaching it serves no valid secular purpose.

As I’ve said before, “but it might be true” doesn’t create a valid secular purpose for teaching religious beliefs as science. There are plenty of supernatural hypotheses within the thousands of religions of the world that, despite a lack of any positive evidence, can’t be proved wrong. Indeed, once you allow the supernatural, you’re free to make up any unfalsifiable baloney you want. The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually harder to disprove than Genesis.

In most of the court cases that have dealt with the issue, the judges have been careful to note that they do not pass judgment on the validity of the belief. For example, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which invalidated the teaching of Intelligent design, the judge said “we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position [emphasis mine], ID is not science.”

Your logic test thing doesn't work. Your still trying to avoid admitting that if the government banns a opinion in some subject of knowledge that it is not making a official state opinion that THAT opinion is false. Unless there is the scenario where what is true in same subject is not the object of the teaching. Yet in origin issues this is not the case. They clearly say evolution etc is true as a conclusion from human knowledge and so the banning of creationism is a clear statement that it is false. so a clear statement of religious doctrines for many. The mere banning plus the mere teaching is a two punch state opinion on religion by way of this subject. Nature and logic abhors a vacuum.

Robert Byers said: Your still trying to avoid admitting that if the government banns a opinion in some subject of knowledge that it is not making a official state opinion that THAT opinion is false.

amyc said:

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: In banning and teaching against Genesis/or God in a subject where Genesis/God has a position the state is making a opinion on God/Genesis as to whether its factual. ... Simply the state is saying creationism is false on origins. Not just neutral. For it teaches conclusions.

I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion, but I suspect your reasoning has been something like this:

If the state believes something is false, then they will ban its children from learning it as science.

They ban children from learning Genesis as science.

Therefore, the state must believe Genesis is false.

See what’s wrong with that? I’ll give you a minute. OK. Here’s another example of the same logic :

If parents believe something is hot, then they will ban their children from touching it.

They ban children from touching knives.

Therefore, parents must believe knives are hot.

The logical error is the same in both examples: our old friend, “affirming the consequent”. The two premises are true. But the conclusion is invalid, because believing Genesis is false is not the only reason one might ban the teaching of it. It’s banned because the primary purpose in teaching it is to advance a particular religious belief and teaching it serves no valid secular purpose.

As I’ve said before, “but it might be true” doesn’t create a valid secular purpose for teaching religious beliefs as science. There are plenty of supernatural hypotheses within the thousands of religions of the world that, despite a lack of any positive evidence, can’t be proved wrong. Indeed, once you allow the supernatural, you’re free to make up any unfalsifiable baloney you want. The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually harder to disprove than Genesis.

In most of the court cases that have dealt with the issue, the judges have been careful to note that they do not pass judgment on the validity of the belief. For example, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which invalidated the teaching of Intelligent design, the judge said “we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position [emphasis mine], ID is not science.”

Your logic test thing doesn't work. Your still trying to avoid admitting that if the government banns a opinion in some subject of knowledge that it is not making a official state opinion that THAT opinion is false. Unless there is the scenario where what is true in same subject is not the object of the teaching. Yet in origin issues this is not the case. They clearly say evolution etc is true as a conclusion from human knowledge and so the banning of creationism is a clear statement that it is false. so a clear statement of religious doctrines for many. The mere banning plus the mere teaching is a two punch state opinion on religion by way of this subject. Nature and logic abhors a vacuum.

I've read many of the court rulings, and none of them say that creationism (or genesis, or ID) is false. All the rulings say is that it is not science. Why would they want to teach something that isn't science in a science class?

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: Your still trying to avoid admitting that if the government banns a opinion in some subject of knowledge that it is not making a official state opinion that THAT opinion is false.

Of course I am, because it's logically fallacious, as my knife analogy demonstrates. Your statement would be true only if the only possible reason for banning the teaching of creationism was that it was believed to be false. I gave you two clear pieces of evidence that that's not true. The first is the actual reasons given in court cases. The second is an example of a judge's actual statement. Now if you want to argue that someone might naively infer that the ban means that the court is declaring the doctrine to be false and think his religion is being attacked, I'll grant you that. You're an example.

All right Robert, you win. The government has declared that creationist is false. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to prove that it is not false? Are you going to provide evidence? Are you going to somehow make it science? You do know that all of the evidence says that creationism is false, right? So what;s wrong with the government, which funds scientific research, saying that it is false? If it makes scientific claims that are demonstrable false, it should be called false, that's how real science works.

See the thing is that it doesn't matter whether it is true or false, if it isn't science, it doesn't belong in science class. And if it were somehow science, it would still be false, so what's the problem? You don't seem to get that. So what? You are entirely impotent to do anything about it.

Is the Mona Lisa false? Is that why it isn't discussed in science class? Is Beethoven false? Is baseball false? No, they just aren't science, so whether they are true or false is irrelevant. You don't get to teach them in science class, why would you want to?

Preach you myths in your tax free church, No one cares. If you lie to people about the facts, they will eventually figure it out.

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: Your still trying to avoid admitting that if the government banns a opinion in some subject of knowledge that it is not making a official state opinion that THAT opinion is false.

Of course I am, because it's logically fallacious, as my knife analogy demonstrates. Your statement would be true only if the only possible reason for banning the teaching of creationism was that it was believed to be false. I gave you two clear pieces of evidence that that's not true. The first is the actual reasons given in court cases. The second is an example of a judge's actual statement. Now if you want to argue that someone might naively infer that the ban means that the court is declaring the doctrine to be false and think his religion is being attacked, I'll grant you that. You're an example.

if a subject is taught by the state as a accurate conclusion of investigation and then in same subject another conclusion is banned and/or something taught opposite then it surely is a state opinion on the subject in question and state opinion on the truthfulness of creationism.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: You have made this point before: You are saying that all teaching is illegal - especially ALL and I repeat that, ALL science teaching illegal. Since all science teaching contradicts some religious tenet of somebody. You are declaring that all teaching is illegal. You're insane.

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: Your still trying to avoid admitting that if the government banns a opinion in some subject of knowledge that it is not making a official state opinion that THAT opinion is false.

Of course I am, because it's logically fallacious, as my knife analogy demonstrates. Your statement would be true only if the only possible reason for banning the teaching of creationism was that it was believed to be false. I gave you two clear pieces of evidence that that's not true. The first is the actual reasons given in court cases. The second is an example of a judge's actual statement. Now if you want to argue that someone might naively infer that the ban means that the court is declaring the doctrine to be false and think his religion is being attacked, I'll grant you that. You're an example.

if a subject is taught by the state as a accurate conclusion of investigation and then in same subject another conclusion is banned and/or something taught opposite then it surely is a state opinion on the subject in question and state opinion on the truthfulness of creationism.

Robert Byers said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: You have made this point before: You are saying that all teaching is illegal - especially ALL and I repeat that, ALL science teaching illegal. Since all science teaching contradicts some religious tenet of somebody. You are declaring that all teaching is illegal. You're insane.

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: Your still trying to avoid admitting that if the government banns a opinion in some subject of knowledge that it is not making a official state opinion that THAT opinion is false.

Of course I am, because it's logically fallacious, as my knife analogy demonstrates. Your statement would be true only if the only possible reason for banning the teaching of creationism was that it was believed to be false. I gave you two clear pieces of evidence that that's not true. The first is the actual reasons given in court cases. The second is an example of a judge's actual statement. Now if you want to argue that someone might naively infer that the ban means that the court is declaring the doctrine to be false and think his religion is being attacked, I'll grant you that. You're an example.

if a subject is taught by the state as a accurate conclusion of investigation and then in same subject another conclusion is banned and/or something taught opposite then it surely is a state opinion on the subject in question and state opinion on the truthfulness of creationism.

Nope. The law is a fraud of liberal 1960's invention that doesn't stant up to reason. The constitution made by a very Protestant Yankee/Southern people did not have put in it anything to probihit the teaching of origins from a GOd or genesis origin. Its impossible. There is no such law. Anyways if they try to say there is a line of logic forces conclusion that that to have actual separation and no state decision making on religious doctrines then all subjects that cross religious lines must be censored. its true. The answer is simply to over throw the 1960's idea that the state is everything the state pays for. Its a special case in origins where 'religion' and "science" cross lines. Anyways censorship on this is against the law as they use the law or it must be both ways. Evolution thumpers in the future will have to fight on the merits and not on judicial inventions to present as right their view.