McLeroy Loses Texas Board of Education Election

Awww...I feel so...bad. For. Him.

Oh...nope, that was just gas. Now I just feel relieved. Go Texas!

Bravo, Texas. Welcome back a little closer to reality.

Happy day indeed.

See also a recent comment here.

washingtonmonthly.com: I don’t care what the educational political lobby and their allies on the left say,” he declared at one point. “Evolution is hooey.” This bled into a rant about American history. “The secular humanists may argue that we are a secular nation,” McLeroy said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. “But we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”

Aagcobb said: It gives me great pleasure to write that Don McLeroy lost in the Texas GOP primary for his state board of education seat! Hopefully that will help prevent the dumbing down of biology textbooks nationally to meet Texas creationist standards.

raven said: I don’t care what the educational political lobby and their allies on the left say,” he declared at one point. “Evolution is hooey.” ...

As a registered Republican and a former evolutionary biologist, I am especially ecstatic hearing the good news about McLeroy's defeat. Not only was McLeroy interested in teaching creationism in Texas schools, he was also actively involved in trying to have the state's history curricula revised to show that ours was founded as a "Christian nation" (There is an interesting, if flawed, article which discusses McLeroy at some length, written by author Russell Shorto that was published in The New York Times Magazine several Sundays ago.).

Dunbar is gone too. She was the “I don’t believe in public education” member of the school board.

As I commented on the Curmudgeon's blog, let's not be too quick to celebrate. McLeroy may no longer be controlling the board, but if anything he'll have even more time on his hands to spread anti-science propaganda. And there is no shortage of activist groups willing to give him a forum. Probably not the DI, though. I think they wish he would shut up, as he undermines their "ID is not creationism" strategy better than any "Darwinist."

Cynthia Dunbar also sent out a flyer claiming that, “the teaching of evolution leads to cannibalism.”

— raven

In an upset, long-time Republican board member Geraldine Miller of Dallas lost to Dallas high school educator George Clayton. Miller outspent Clayton in the race and had been favored to win another term.

You're welcome! Love being the bearer of good news! I have noticed time and again in Kansas, Dover, Pa. and even now in Texas when creationism is clearly on the table as a prominent issue, voters have rejected it, which gives me cause to hope.

Frank J said:

Cynthia Dunbar also sent out a flyer claiming that, “the teaching of evolution leads to cannibalism.”

— raven

Either she stole that idea from the inimitable David Klinghoffer, or he's getting some serious competition. It's almost sad that that's the kind of insanity that one must resort to when one hasn't a prayer at an alternate theory, and knows it.

Frank J said: As I commented on the Curmudgeon's blog, let's not be too quick to celebrate. McLeroy may no longer be controlling the board, but if anything he'll have even more time on his hands to spread anti-science propaganda. And there is no shortage of activist groups willing to give him a forum. Probably not the DI, though. I think they wish he would shut up, as he undermines their "ID is not creationism" strategy better than any "Darwinist."

Matt Young said: My apologies, but I almost overlooked this paragraph

In an upset, long-time Republican board member Geraldine Miller of Dallas lost to Dallas high school educator George Clayton. Miller outspent Clayton in the race and had been favored to win another term.

in the Dallas Morning News article. If I learn anything more about this race, I will pass it on. In the meantime, please feel free to comment on it.

I was taught in school that the founding fathers did not want the religious wars which had wracked Europe and England. So they were firm that no religion should be favored by the state.

Fundamentalist schools often teach that myth that American was founded to be a "Christian nation." Pat Buchanan, a Catholic, actually said that once on the radio. (Later denied he said it, but he did). This is part of the push back after Jesus's prayer was removed from public school. (As a little kid who had to say it every day, many of the words and thoughts made no sense.)

One of George Washington's generals wrote a book retained in the family until my grandparents time. The general wrote a letter to George Washington complaining there was no religious test for President. "Why," he said, "a Hindu, or Moslem, or even a Unitarian, can become President." George wrote back a curt response: "That is what we said, and that is our intent."

veritas36 said: I was taught in school that the founding fathers did not want the religious wars which had wracked Europe and England. So they were firm that no religion should be favored by the state. Fundamentalist schools often teach that myth that American was founded to be a "Christian nation." Pat Buchanan, a Catholic, actually said that once on the radio. (Later denied he said it, but he did). This is part of the push back after Jesus's prayer was removed from public school. (As a little kid who had to say it every day, many of the words and thoughts made no sense.) One of George Washington's generals wrote a book retained in the family until my grandparents time. The general wrote a letter to George Washington complaining there was no religious test for President. "Why," he said, "a Hindu, or Moslem, or even a Unitarian, can become President." George wrote back a curt response: "That is what we said, and that is our intent."

veritas36 said: One of George Washington's generals wrote a book retained in the family until my grandparents time. The general wrote a letter to George Washington complaining there was no religious test for President. "Why," he said, "a Hindu, or Moslem, or even a Unitarian, can become President." George wrote back a curt response: "That is what we said, and that is our intent."

“Why,” he said, “a Hindu, or Moslem, or even a Unitarian, can become President.” George wrote back a curt response: “That is what we said, and that is our intent.”

google search: Religious Affiliation of U.S. Presidents * ReligionJul 7, 2006 ... Yet there have been 4 Unitarian presidents. ... religious group is Catholicism, which has had only one U.S. president (John F. Kennedy), ... www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html - Cached - Similar The religion of John Adams, second U.S. President John Adams, the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity... and became a Unitarian. It was during Adams' presidency that the Senate ratified the Treaty of ...

raven said: google search: Religious Affiliation of U.S. Presidents

Raven wrote:

"Cynthia Dunbar also sent out a flyer claiming that, “the teaching of evolution leads to cannibalism.” She quotes Jeffrey Dahmer as a moral authority."

Really? I guess she doesn't like the competition. Seems to me that "..take, eat, this is my body broken for you..." is a lot stronger incentive to cannibalism than natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Naturally, the Proud Proponents of Panda would be happy about Don McElroy's defeat. What else would anyone expect?

However, my understanding is that the current excellent Texas Science Standards will stay in place for 10 years after they were passed under McElroy's leadership.

If that's true, then things are okay. What matters now is what non-Darwinists choose to do with the time that's been given to them.

You can plant a lot of seeds in 10 years (or even one year) if you're properly motivated, and the current Texas and Louisiana science standards will help greatly during planting season.

If Non-Darwinists use all their opportunities well under the current science standards, McElroy will go out a winner despite the recent political outcome.

Footnote: Please forgive the spelling typo, it's "Don McLeroy."

FL said: You can plant a lot of seeds in 10 years (or even one year)

If Non-Darwinists use all their opportunities well under the current science standards, McElroy will go out a winner despite the recent political outcome.

FL said: You can plant a lot of seeds in 10 years (or even one year) if you're properly motivated, and the current Texas and Louisiana science standards will help greatly during planting season.

Fat Load is right - It's kind of like the way Bush stacked the Supreme Court with corporatist jesus fascist scumbags, so he can continue to be the worst president ever for maybe three decades after leaving office. And that is why I am convinced the human race will go extinct within a few thousand years... The reasonable are headed off by the insane at every pass. We're outnumbered.
-

veritas36 said: ... The general wrote a letter to George Washington complaining there was no religious test for President. "Why," he said, "a Hindu, or Moslem, or even a Unitarian, can become President." George wrote back a curt response: "That is what we said, and that is our intent."

Please do not feed the Shelton troll or the FL troll. Further unproductive comments such as those by Mr. Shelton will be sent to the bathroom wall.

Pierce R. Butler said:

veritas36 said: ... The general wrote a letter to George Washington complaining there was no religious test for President. "Why," he said, "a Hindu, or Moslem, or even a Unitarian, can become President." George wrote back a curt response: "That is what we said, and that is our intent."

Like eric said, this needs support. Google couldn't find anything close.

John Kwok said: If this is true - and, I might add, share your skepticism - I wonder whether it might have been one of Washington's most important generals, since that I know of were as religiously intolerant as the letter writer apparently was:

I'm a troll? Maybe that post was a bit over-the-top and off topic. But I don't see how is was fishing for controversy, which last I checked, was the definition of trolldom. I was accused of being a birther on Pharyngula for calling the POTUS "Barry," and I caucused for the guy. How do I manage to misrepresent my intent everywhere I go?
Fuckit. I'll try to remember not to bother posting on Panda's Thumb again

As usual, FL, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Science teachers won't teach creationism even if it's in the state standards. This was the case in Dover, Pa. in which science teachers held to their code of ethics and refused to introduce ID in the science classroom. The Dover administration did that, got sued, lost and the district was out a million dollars in court costs.

It doesn't matter if the SBOE, or the state legislature or the Disco Tute "lawyers" declare creationism Okie-Dokie to be taught as science. It's unconstitutional. Period.

Any school that tries that will be taken to federal court, sued, lose and be stuck with court costs and a Fine Reputation to be Darned Proud of.

I have no intention of getting into an argument about who is and is not a troll, but see here for what seems to me an accurate definition of a troll.

As far as I am concerned, people are welcome to post comments as long as the comments are on-topic and not abusive. Mr. Shelton's comment was, at a minimum, abusive, and I thought it had "the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response."

Damn! That google is fast! Now there is
a citation for the exact phrase "That is what we said, and that is our intent".

Is the printing technology going to defang the fundies in Texas? I have routinely seen ads specific to my local market inserted into a nationally circulated mags like the Time and Newsweek. It is not all that difficult to come up with a text book that could be customized and localized to specific states. Long ago when printing typesetting was all laborious all states had to put up with Texan school books because the book publishers were targeting Texas mainly. Now the technology is so advanced the marginal cost of taking out the ambiguous language inserted to satisfy the wingnuts in Texas would not be all that high. Just 20 years ago it would have been prohibitive.

If enough of the science supporters from outside Texas demand additions/removals from the Texas standard text book pretty soon the publishers will respond. If we restrict the crap they add to textbooks to Texas alone, that would be a good first step.

If universities outside Texas start adding a two week "remedial biology" course requirement to all Texas school grads for undergrad admission, it would prod some of the apathetic public who does care what these wingnuts are doing into some action.

Well, this happens AND I find my Elvis oven mitt. What a splendid evening!

CS Shelton said: Fat Load is right - It's kind of like the way Bush stacked the Supreme Court with corporatist jesus fascist scumbags, so he can continue to be the worst president ever for maybe three decades after leaving office. And that is why I am convinced the human race will go extinct within a few thousand years... The reasonable are headed off by the insane at every pass. We're outnumbered. -

Moses said:

CS Shelton said: Fat Load is right - It's kind of like the way Bush stacked the Supreme Court with corporatist jesus fascist scumbags, so he can continue to be the worst president ever for maybe three decades after leaving office. And that is why I am convinced the human race will go extinct within a few thousand years... The reasonable are headed off by the insane at every pass. We're outnumbered. -

Yeah... Pretty much...

Don't feel too sorry for Donny, NCSE has awarded him a consolation prize: http://ncse.com/news/2010/03/announcing-first-annual-upchucky-award-005358

dpr

Ravilyn, when I click on your link I get a recursive link to PT, not any primary source. Were you making a tongue-in-cheek comment or did I miss something? (Um, if the former, very good :)

***

Doc Bill said: Science teachers won’t teach creationism even if it’s in the state standards.

Just to pile on with this comment, FL forgets that policy does not trump the Constitution, and right now constitutional precedent says creationism is illegal. Which means that even if standards DID support creationism and teachers DID follow those standards, any student taking the school/district/State to court would still likely win.

This is the same reason the creationist "victory" in Louisiana is phyrric. It only provides cover until some teacher teaches something blatantly unconstitutional, then it gets shut down.

Look FL, here's the bottom line: teaching religion is unconstitutional regardless of whether its done under "equal time," "intelligent design," "strengths and weaknesses," or "alternative resources." You won't make the act more constitutional by passing legislation. If you can change the opinion of the Supreme Court then frankly none of these shenanigans are necessary - you could pass a blatantly creationist curriculum. But until you can change SCOTUS opinion, none of these shenanigans are going to work. They're going to stay on the books only as long as people don't teach creationism. The moment they do, it'll be shut down.

eric said: Ravilyn, when I click on your link I get a recursive link to PT, not any primary source. Were you making a tongue-in-cheek comment

eric said: But until you can change SCOTUS opinion, none of these shenanigans are going to work.

W. H. Heydt said:

John Kwok said: If this is true - and, I might add, share your skepticism - I wonder whether it might have been one of Washington's most important generals, since that I know of were as religiously intolerant as the letter writer apparently was:

That doesn't parse as anything that makes sense...care to rephrase it?

Wow, McLeroy wins the first NCSE UpChucky award for most noisome creationist!

AND, he beat out both Ray Comfort and our favorite attack gerbil Casey Luskin.

That's truly OUTSTANDING, Don! You really are "special" and I mean that most disrespectfully.

Doc Bill said: Wow, McLeroy wins the first NCSE UpChucky award for most noisome creationist! AND, he beat out both Ray Comfort and our favorite attack gerbil Casey Luskin. That's truly OUTSTANDING, Don! You really are "special" and I mean that most disrespectfully.

Doc Bill said: Wow, McLeroy wins the first NCSE UpChucky award for most noisome creationist! AND, he beat out both Ray Comfort and our favorite attack gerbil Casey Luskin. That's truly OUTSTANDING, Don! You really are "special" and I mean that most disrespectfully.

Science teachers won’t teach creationism even if it’s in the state standards.

FL said: That's why you've probably noticed that your little panda pals in the ACLU are helpless, hapless, hopeless, and hog-tied on this one. Totally unable to attack the Texas and Louisiana science standards in a court of law. Perfectly delicious, is it not? Anyway, take a look at those science standards when you get a chance. Such standards, are how you defeat dutiful darwin devotees these days.

Yeah, I don't remember where in the Gospels that Jesus taught that you should be a smug, smarmy asshole.

FL, could you point that one out to me please?

Is it before or after Luke 6:27-36?

You know the part I'm talking about, right?

Of course, George W. Bush really did make two supreme court appointments, both of whom can very reasonably be described as having a tendency to favor large corporations (at a minimum, this view is common), and both of whom make ostentatious reference to religious morality.

Because SCOTUS appointments last a lifetime, this situation may serve as an analogy to other situations in which an individual is removed from office, but leaves behind some sort of permanent legacy which is perceived by opponents to be harmful.

Oh, please, please FL, do your very best to convince your fellow-loons down in Texas that they can teach nonscience in a science class without ending up in a court of law. The NCSE needs the money.

And with a bit of luck, this time anyone who lies his ass off on the stand will end up in jail.

FL said: You may want to actually check out the Texas and Louisiana science standards for yourself, Doc Bill. They don't call for teaching creationism. At all.

raven said:

washingtonmonthly.com: McLeroy said: “I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism"

Given that the largest and fastest-growing nation in the world today is communist, it's premature to grant that "credit" to Mr. Reagan.

raven said: When the fundies aren't rewriting history and destroying science, they are rewriting the bible. The fundie translation, the New International Version deliberately mistranslates some passages to make the inerrant book seem less wacko.

Otto J. Mäkelä said:

raven said: When the fundies aren't rewriting history and destroying science, they are rewriting the bible. The fundie translation, the New International Version deliberately mistranslates some passages to make the inerrant book seem less wacko.

What I find even weirder is that there are people who don't consider current translations "conservative" enough, but are in the process of creating their own "Conservative Bible".

Yea! While I was disappointed with how Kristin Maguire was dismissed from their schoolboard -- remember the scandal over postings protected by free speech -- I think she should have been fired over her actions as a board member/president. I completely salute the voters of Texas for firing little donnie. He can go back to being a dentist. I wonder if he only treats people of his particular religious ilk? Is his dentistry practice as medevil as the rest of his thinking? Certainly bears thinking about for any prospective patients.

Dale Husband said:

FL said: You may want to actually check out the Texas and Louisiana science standards for yourself, Doc Bill. They don't call for teaching creationism. At all.

Of course not. AFAIK, no civilized society allows fraud to remain legal for long.

FL said:

Science teachers won’t teach creationism even if it’s in the state standards.

You may want to actually check out the Texas and Louisiana science standards for yourself, Doc Bill. They don't call for teaching creationism. At all. That's why you've probably noticed that your little panda pals in the ACLU are helpless, hapless, hopeless, and hog-tied on this one. Totally unable to attack the Texas and Louisiana science standards in a court of law. Perfectly delicious, is it not? Anyway, take a look at those science standards when you get a chance. Such standards, are how you defeat dutiful darwin devotees these days.

eric said: ... *** Doc Bill said: Science teachers won’t teach creationism even if it’s in the state standards. Just to pile on with this comment, FL forgets that policy does not trump the Constitution, and right now constitutional precedent says creationism is illegal. Which means that even if standards DID support creationism and teachers DID follow those standards, any student taking the school/district/State to court would still likely win. This is the same reason the creationist "victory" in Louisiana is phyrric. It only provides cover until some teacher teaches something blatantly unconstitutional, then it gets shut down. Look FL, here's the bottom line: teaching religion is unconstitutional regardless of whether its done under "equal time," "intelligent design," "strengths and weaknesses," or "alternative resources." You won't make the act more constitutional by passing legislation. If you can change the opinion of the Supreme Court then frankly none of these shenanigans are necessary - you could pass a blatantly creationist curriculum. But until you can change SCOTUS opinion, none of these shenanigans are going to work. They're going to stay on the books only as long as people don't teach creationism. The moment they do, it'll be shut down.

You may want to actually check out the Texas and Louisiana science standards for yourself, Doc Bill. They don’t call for teaching creationism. At all. That’s why you’ve probably noticed that your little panda pals in the ACLU are helpless, hapless, hopeless, and hog-tied on this one. Totally unable to attack the Texas and Louisiana science standards in a court of law. Perfectly delicious, is it not? Anyway, take a look at those science standards when you get a chance. Such standards, are how you defeat dutiful darwin devotees these days.

they WANT to get sued, they know that the only way to change the law is to LOSE a lawsuit that they can appeal all the way up to the SCOTUS

As a Canadian, just one comment, I have always found it very very bizarre that all these sort of positions (school boards, judges etc) are all based on Republican/Democratic parties. Where does this stem from in American history? I'm just curious.

FL said: You may want to actually check out the Texas and Louisiana science standards for yourself, Doc Bill. They don't call for teaching creationism. At all.

FL said:

Science teachers won’t teach creationism even if it’s in the state standards.

You may want to actually check out the Texas and Louisiana science standards for yourself, Doc Bill. They don't call for teaching creationism. At all. That's why you've probably noticed that your little panda pals in the ACLU are helpless, hapless, hopeless, and hog-tied on this one. Totally unable to attack the Texas and Louisiana science standards in a court of law. Perfectly delicious, is it not? Anyway, take a look at those science standards when you get a chance. Such standards, are how you defeat dutiful darwin devotees these days.

Daoud M'Bo said: As a Canadian, just one comment, I have always found it very very bizarre that all these sort of positions (school boards, judges etc) are all based on Republican/Democratic parties. Where does this stem from in American history? I'm just curious.

stevaroni said:

Daoud M'Bo said: As a Canadian, just one comment, I have always found it very very bizarre that all these sort of positions (school boards, judges etc) are all based on Republican/Democratic parties. Where does this stem from in American history? I'm just curious.

Well, constitutionally, it doesn't. The constitution makes no mention of needing to be in a political party for any elected office. In a practical sense, though, it's impossible and impractical to mount a campaign for an office of any size without the logistical support of an established party.

FL, why does your cult hate America so much?

There it is again; FL’s “Christian” taunting.

(Wheels) Happy day indeed. (Robin) Go Texas! (Fnxtr) Bravo Texas. Welocme back a little closer to reality.

stevaroni said:

FL said: You may want to actually check out the Texas and Louisiana science standards for yourself, Doc Bill. They don't call for teaching creationism. At all.

Eh. Neither did Dover's standards. They still lost. To the tune of $ 1.1 million. Now, it probably would be legal to simply not teach biology at all, but that's going to prove mighty unpopular when kids start getting rejected from real colleges, where things like facts are taken seriously, by the boxful.

Are you guys shy about expressing your delight wrt this defeat? Not if we look at this thread.

— FL

veritas36 said: "Why," he said, "a Hindu, or Moslem, or even a Unitarian, can become President." George (Washington) wrote back a curt response: "That is what we said, and that is our intent."

My dear delusional FL -

May I understand that you don't dispute my interpretation of the events? Other states have tried to pass similar Dishonesty Institute-crafted "Academic Freedom" bills but Louisiana is the only one so far to have succeeded. Surely if the Dishonesty Institute's version of "Academic Freedom" was, to use your words, demonstrative of the "ACLU’s clear inability to fight back", then we should have seen widespread passage of these laws by now. That we haven't shouldn't lead you to conclude that the ACLU is incapable of fighting back.

Sooner or later one of your fellow IDiots will ignore what transpired during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial and opt for a repeat. When that happens, I have no doubt that both NCSE and ACLU will be ready.

Until then, I trust you'll continue enjoying your membership in the Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective.

Peace and long life (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

FL said:

FL, why does your cult hate America so much?

...tell me this: What, specifically, would you consider to be "un-American" about either the Texas or Louisiana science standards?

The current Texas and Louisiana science standards are grounded in science and rationality, NOT in Christianity or other religions.

You honestly don't get a Dover on this one, do you?

Paul Burnett said:

veritas36 said: "Why," he said, "a Hindu, or Moslem, or even a Unitarian, can become President." George (Washington) wrote back a curt response: "That is what we said, and that is our intent."

Jumping into this sub-thread a bit late, but here's a much better-documented statement by President John Tyler, July 10, 1843: "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent - that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. ... The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. ... The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid..." (Whole quote at http://www.adherents.com/people/pt/John_Tyler.html among others.)

FL said: Thursday morning notes: Blah, blah, blah ...

Anyone notice how FL still refuses to explain how the children of Texas and Louisiana have benefited by having those states' respective educational systems ruined?

I can not see why FL insists on praising them even when those states produce among the lowest test scores in the nation. Oh, wait, no, FL is just spreading more propaganda for Jesus, as usual.

My response is on the Bathroom Wall where it should be.

My response is on the Bathroom Wall.

No, really, it is. :-) sorry. doppelpost.

harold said:

they WANT to get sued, they know that the only way to change the law is to LOSE a lawsuit that they can appeal all the way up to the SCOTUS

Where they will lose 5-4, even if Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts all vote with them.

JASONMITCHELL said:

harold said:

they WANT to get sued, they know that the only way to change the law is to LOSE a lawsuit that they can appeal all the way up to the SCOTUS

Where they will lose 5-4, even if Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts all vote with them.

I didn't say it was a rational strategy....

FL said: The current Texas and Louisiana science standards are grounded in science and rationality, NOT in Christianity or other religions. The ACLU's clear inability to fight back stems from that reality.

John Kwok said: It might be more decisive than that, especially when it was a conservative Republican Federal judge, John Jones, who rendered a ruling that was highly critical not only of the Dover Area School District board's espousal of Intelligent Design creationism, but flatly rejected any and all claims that it could be viewed as science. Of the four that you mentioned, the only one whom I think be most sympathetic to the Dishonesty Instiute and its sycophants, would be Justice Scalia:

JASONMITCHELL said:

harold said:

they WANT to get sued, they know that the only way to change the law is to LOSE a lawsuit that they can appeal all the way up to the SCOTUS

Where they will lose 5-4, even if Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts all vote with them.

I didn't say it was a rational strategy....

Stanton said: Anyone notice how FL still refuses to explain how the children of Texas and Louisiana have benefited by having those states' respective educational systems ruined? I can not see why FL insists on praising them even when those states produce among the lowest test scores in the nation. Oh, wait, no, FL is just spreading more propaganda for Jesus, as usual.

As a Texas biology teacher for 30 years I can tell you that if I am forced to teach "the controversy" I will and the creos won't like it. I will be more than happy to point out that ID doesn't do any science we can actually evaluate. I'm afraid my ID lessons will be over in 20 minutes (if that) They don't do science, they have no testable hypothesises, they have no evidence and they have no mechanism beyond the creator did it. There lesson over. Now let's study evolution and spend time on the evidence , mechanism and how the theory explains things. ID is bogus nonsense & nonscience. So much for the Standards".

Daoud M'Bo said: As a Canadian, just one comment, I have always found it very very bizarre that all these sort of positions (school boards, judges etc) are all based on Republican/Democratic parties. Where does this stem from in American history? I'm just curious.

Mary said: As a Texas biology teacher for 30 years I can tell you that if I am forced to teach "the controversy" I will and the creos won't like it. I will be more than happy to point out that ID doesn't do any science we can actually evaluate. I'm afraid my ID lessons will be over in 20 minutes (if that) They don't do science, they have no testable hypothesises, they have no evidence and they have no mechanism beyond the creator did it. There lesson over. Now let's study evolution and spend time on the evidence , mechanism and how the theory explains things. ID is bogus nonsense & nonscience. So much for the Standards".

DistendedPendulusFrenulum said: I dunno, but I was once exhorted to not allow any liberals be elected to county clerk positions in Shelby County. Now suppose one were a competent clerk-would conservative, liberal, atheist, Brahmin, or any other tendency really be a deal breaker?

Mary said: As a Texas biology teacher for 30 years I can tell you that if I am forced to teach "the controversy" I will and the creos won't like it. I will be more than happy to point out that ID doesn't do any science we can actually evaluate. I'm afraid my ID lessons will be over in 20 minutes (if that) They don't do science, they have no testable hypothesises, they have no evidence and they have no mechanism beyond the creator did it. There lesson over. Now let's study evolution and spend time on the evidence , mechanism and how the theory explains things. ID is bogus nonsense & nonscience. So much for the Standards".

FL said: Thursday morning notes: 1. The America-Hating Cult Blues

FL, why does your cult hate America so much?

You surely got a way with words, Phantom. But tell me this: What, specifically, would you consider to be "un-American" about either the Texas or Louisiana science standards?

FL said: T But tell me this: What, specifically, would you consider to be "un-American" about either the Texas or Louisiana science standards?

Mary said: As a Texas biology teacher for 30 years I can tell you that if I am forced to teach "the controversy" I will and the creos won't like it. I will be more than happy to point out that ID doesn't do any science we can actually evaluate. I'm afraid my ID lessons will be over in 20 minutes (if that) They don't do science, they have no testable hypothesises, they have no evidence and they have no mechanism beyond the creator did it. There lesson over. Now let's study evolution and spend time on the evidence , mechanism and how the theory explains things. ID is bogus nonsense & nonscience. So much for the Standards".

Off Topic but nevertheless scary: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?hpw
The war on Science has spread...

Funnymentalist Loser is crowing about the McLeroy TEKS (the Texas course standards), but these standards are so neutral that McLeroy has to be on the board to interpret the standards to his liking in order to undermine good science with unwarranted doubts. With McLeroy losing the election, I would hope the textbook publishers don't veer from good science due to any creationist pressure. More hard work needs to be done to increase the rationality quotient on the board. In District 5, Ken Mercer needs to be booted, but it will take an unprecedented amount of work since the district has run about 60/40 for the Republicans in the past. Rebecca Bell-Metereau is the Democratic Party nominee, and she appears to be eminently qualified. She needs a lot of help to win.

It looks to me as if Mercer wins, there will be a struggle for power in the biblical literalist zealots' camp between Mercer and David Bradley for a couple years. However, Bradley may go the way of Rick Agosto after his involvement in questionable deals concerning the school book fund were brought under scrutiny.

No matter how the elections turn out, the BLZ bubbas will try to undermine good textbooks by putting them on the unapproved list if they don't fit their ideological litmus tests. Bradley, McLeroy, and gang tried to do it in 2003 but lost. I hope they lose again.

In the end, these battles are won or lost on the frontlines. I'm glad we have teachers like Mary out there doing what is right.

Hey FL, why aren't you advocating standards that require teaching the scientific theory of Intelligent Design? And, by the way, what is that theory? I've been searching the internet for ten years and haven't found a thing, maybe you could point me toward the testable ID hypotheses you think kids should learn about, and the research that has been done, or even proposed, to support them. Maybe my Google is broken or something.

John Kwok said: Of the four that you mentioned, the only one whom I think be most sympathetic to the Dishonesty Instiute and its sycophants, would be Justice Scalia:

Paul Burnett said: Statement by President John Tyler, July 10, 1843: "... and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him..."

John Kwok said: You have to remind me of my least favorite fellow Brunonian (He's in good company though with the likes of Bobby Jindal and Chuck "Watergate Plumber who found GOD" Colson.):

Frank J said:

Cynthia Dunbar also sent out a flyer claiming that, “the teaching of evolution leads to cannibalism.”

— raven

Either she stole that idea from the inimitable David Klinghoffer, or he's getting some serious competition. It's almost sad that that's the kind of insanity that one must resort to when one hasn't a prayer at an alternate theory, and knows it.

SLC said:

John Kwok said: You have to remind me of my least favorite fellow Brunonian (He's in good company though with the likes of Bobby Jindal and Chuck "Watergate Plumber who found GOD" Colson.):

Frank J said:

Cynthia Dunbar also sent out a flyer claiming that, “the teaching of evolution leads to cannibalism.”

— raven

Either she stole that idea from the inimitable David Klinghoffer, or he's getting some serious competition. It's almost sad that that's the kind of insanity that one must resort to when one hasn't a prayer at an alternate theory, and knows it.

I wonder how Mr. Klinghoffer, who purports to be Jewish, justifies belonging to the same organization as Holocaust revisionists Martin Cothren and John West.

Vince said: Off Topic but nevertheless scary: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?hpw The war on Science has spread...

ben said: Hey FL, why aren't you advocating standards that require teaching the scientific theory of Intelligent Design? And, by the way, what is that theory? I've been searching the internet for ten years and haven't found a thing, maybe you could point me toward the testable ID hypotheses you think kids should learn about, and the research that has been done, or even proposed, to support them. Maybe my Google is broken or something.

I am Canadian. i only know a few points about Texas.
I understand creationism has been very successful there in becoming a general political issue that hopefully will become a plank in the conservative platforms.
Wins and losses in these things just justify it is up to the people to decide these things.
Creationism will do fine in this regard.
If the vote had gone the other way it would not end the matter to creationist gain. So a loss won't either. This is a growing public issue and Texas is to be applauded for making it a big national deal. Creationist school folks are becoming famous for these fights. perhaps one can see a future leadership and general culture being created to bring finally freedom of speech and freedom of thought and so defence against attacks on Biblical Christiantity.

Yet the sum of it all is still this.
If Christian doctrines are being attacked by state schools in science class or anywhere then either a rebuttal and constant defence must be allowed or there must be a mutual censorship of origin subjects etc where conflict with religion takes place.
This is the law.
No interference state/Church with each other. That means no interference of each oother with each other.
Right now a illegal situation exists where the state is imposing on religious faith by attacking presumptions in doctrines YET deny equal rebuttal.
All this in the name of separation.!!

In fact a very Protestant British people in the 1700's NEVER put in the constitution anything to justify any laws about school subjects.
god and genesis never were prohibited by any law.
Its an absurdity.
The state is not everything the state pays for.
Anyways right now the separation law invoked is not being applied it claims for its justification but only in one direction.
School fights like this will lead to a greater struggle in the higher courts and politics in time to come.

Freedom to seek truth and proclaim it will prevail in our time.

Look, Canute! The waves are receding, because you say so!

I'm sorry, god and genesis has been prohibited by a law?

Why wasn't I notified?

Why don’t you ask FL why he hasn’t recently trotted out his “three plank” explanation on how Intelligent Design is somehow not religious?

FL said:

Why don’t you ask FL why he hasn’t recently trotted out his “three plank” explanation on how Intelligent Design is somehow not religious?

Odd that you would ask such a thing, Stanton: 1. First, it's off-topic. (But off-topicality has never been a problem for you guys, has it?) 2. Second, the explanation has been given before in this forum (and will doubtless be given again.) Sheesh, you could google it yourself in 20.5 seconds, it's not difficult. You in particular, didn't (and still don't) have a refutation for it. But don't worry, you're not alone. FL

Well, all evidence I’ve seen points to the conclusion the ID is religious. Unless I am mistaken, that’s what ID gurus Behe and Dembski believe: God is the Designer. ID is Paleyism repackaged, the purpose of ID is to restore faith in the Bible.

— Rolf Aalberg

ravilyn.sanders said:

Paul Burnett said: Statement by President John Tyler, July 10, 1843: "... and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him..."

Thank you, very interesting. Will add John Tyler right next to the Treaty of Tripoli in the ammunition belt.

Robert Byers said: I am Canadian. i only know a few points about Texas. I understand creationism has been very successful there ... Its an absurdity. ... Freedom to seek truth and proclaim it will prevail...

FL said:

Why don’t you ask FL why he hasn’t recently trotted out his “three plank” explanation on how Intelligent Design is somehow not religious?

Odd that you would ask such a thing, Stanton: 1. First, it's off-topic. (But off-topicality has never been a problem for you guys, has it?) 2. Second, the explanation has been given before in this forum (and will doubtless be given again.) Sheesh, you could google it yourself in 20.5 seconds, it's not difficult. You in particular, didn't (and still don't) have a refutation for it. But don't worry, you're not alone. FL

FL said:

Why don’t you ask FL why he hasn’t recently trotted out his “three plank” explanation on how Intelligent Design is somehow not religious?

Odd that you would ask such a thing, Stanton: 1. First, it's off-topic. (But off-topicality has never been a problem for you guys, has it?)

2. Second, the explanation has been given before in this forum (and will doubtless be given again.) Sheesh, you could google it yourself in 20.5 seconds, it's not difficult.

You in particular, didn't (and still don't) have a refutation for it. But don't worry, you're not alone.

Frank J said: Ironically, when IDers state that their "theory" does not necessarily invoke God as the designer, I suspect that that's the one thing that they are truly honest about.

eric said:

Frank J said: Ironically, when IDers state that their "theory" does not necessarily invoke God as the designer, I suspect that that's the one thing that they are truly honest about.

I disagree. Design proponents argue that some structures are "too complex to have evolved." Natural designers have to come from somewhere. So if natural designers are too complex to have evolved, its gotta be God. And if they aren't too complex to have evolved, ID is merely proposing evolved aliens. So what does this mean for "honest" design proponents who don't believe design requires God? It means they either (a) intentionally don't think through the consequences of their own idea - they intentionally keep themselves ignorant in order to maintain an 'unstable' viewpoint. Or (b) they are not really honest. I guess there is also a third option, though I think this is unlikely (particularly in the leadership); they could be truly so stupid that they don't understand why saying a natural designer did it is just adding another row of turtles.

Dan said:

FL said:

Why don’t you ask FL why he hasn’t recently trotted out his “three plank” explanation on how Intelligent Design is somehow not religious?

Odd that you would ask such a thing, Stanton: 1. First, it's off-topic. (But off-topicality has never been a problem for you guys, has it?) 2. Second, the explanation has been given before in this forum (and will doubtless be given again.) Sheesh, you could google it yourself in 20.5 seconds, it's not difficult. You in particular, didn't (and still don't) have a refutation for it. But don't worry, you're not alone. FL

In fact, FL's "three plank" absurdity has been refuted often, but FL doesn't understand the refutations.

Eric -

I think there is a fourth option, although it is closely related to "a" and "b".

This is all opinion, but it is a body of opinion which sure helps me to predict their behavior.

1. They start by choosing a "side" in American social and political issues, due to their intense emotional biases. The underlying issue is emotional bias. That is true from "if we com from munkeys wy is their still munkeys" right up through Berlinski. Conceiving creationism as an intellectual mistake is a non-starter.

2. They embrace everyone "on the same side" as an ally. It is interesting to note that there is a gestalt emotional quality to this - they recognize kindred souls quickly.

3. They have unassailable defense mechanisms - they will always find a way to discredit anything that comes from "the other side". They will distort what others say with straw men (no matter how many times these are corrected), make false claims of equivalence, make false or paranoid (and ultimately irrelevant) exaggerated claims about the motivations of others, censor opposing arguments from their view, anything you can think of. They will use arguments that have been devastated in one forum in another forum. There is almost no logical penetration of the defenses. Whatever the emotional biases that underlie their issues are, they are intense and near unassailable.

4. They care only about "victories" for their side and "defeats" for the other side. They most certainly do not think in terms of skepticism and asking the other guy to make his case with evidence and logic. The other guy's case is wrong by definition. The implications of considering his case - whatever they are, and in my view, "religion" as we tend to understand it ultimately has little to do with this - are literally unbearable. What matters is defeating the other guy, hurting him, imposing your will on him, forcing him to "admit" that you were right or defeating and marginalizing him.

5. I do think that most of them like to think about a god who is a narcissistic projection of themselves, but it is a "religion" which makes very demands and gives them free rein to do pretty much anything they like, while condemning "the other". The function of their god is to confirm their status as the deserving elite and eliminate the opposition. I don't think terms like "sincere" or "hypocrisy" apply here. On one hand, they make certain stereotyped claims about "faith" that are transparently little more than code to demonstrate their membership in the group. On the other hand, I think the feeling of being a special, deserving elite, with a permissive/competitive parent-like god who favors them and despises "the opposition" in the background, is quite sincere.

I tend to use the word "authoritarian" to describe this behavior pattern. While it is true that the strategy is authoritarian in goals, there are other elements as well.

I invite you to examine the behavior of the creationist who is active on this thread and see if you think the characterization is apt.

Again, these are my opinions, based on a fair number of anecdotal interactions, not on scientific study. I find them helpful for predicting behavior and share them. No strong claims of perfect veracity are implied.

John Kwok -

Without implying support for any political policies of any middle eastern/Mediterranean countries (and keeping my wording vague to prevent the arrival of off-topic trolls), I think it is fair to say that AY certainly exhibited traits that overlap.

harold,

Yours are some excellent deductions, though I still personally prefer eric's choice b). They are excellent merely because they are a fine set of diagnoses to account for the crypto-Fascist orientation of not only the Dishonesty Institute, but other creationist advocacy organizations like Answers in Genesis.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Slightly off-topic, but important.

We're nearly at the bottom of page 4 and I've nearly forgotten where John Kwok went to High School.

Could he remind me please?

Robert Byers said: If Christian doctrines are being attacked by state schools in science class or anywhere then either a rebuttal and constant defence must be allowed or there must be a mutual censorship of origin subjects etc where conflict with religion takes place. This is the law.

Robert Byers said: I am Canadian. ... If Christian doctrines are being attacked by state schools in science class or anywhere then either a rebuttal and constant defence must be allowed or there must be a mutual censorship of origin subjects etc where conflict with religion takes place. This is the law.

Queen to bishop six, check.

(ruffles feathers, craps on K7, knocks over pawns)

Design proponents argue that some structures are “too complex to have evolved.” Natural designers have to come from somewhere. So if natural designers are too complex to have evolved, its gotta be God. And if they aren’t too complex to have evolved, ID is merely proposing evolved aliens.

— eric

Dan said:

ravilyn.sanders said:

Paul Burnett said: Statement by President John Tyler, July 10, 1843: "... and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him..."

Thank you, very interesting. Will add John Tyler right next to the Treaty of Tripoli in the ammunition belt.

Can also add the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence: "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". Not "of Nature and of the Christian God", not "of Nature and of Jesus".

Amadan said: Slightly off-topic, but important. We're nearly at the bottom of page 4 and I've nearly forgotten where John Kwok went to High School. Could he remind me please?

Frank,

Thanks for that link to the Reason article from 1997 regarding the ample disdain that neoconservatives like Kristol and Bork, among others, had - and I believe still do (in Bork's case) - toward evolutionary theory. I wasn't aware of it beforehand and it's an article I'll refer to again.

Sincerely,

John

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Dan said:

ravilyn.sanders said:

Paul Burnett said: Statement by President John Tyler, July 10, 1843: "... and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him..."

Thank you, very interesting. Will add John Tyler right next to the Treaty of Tripoli in the ammunition belt.

Can also add the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence: "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". Not "of Nature and of the Christian God", not "of Nature and of Jesus".

I'm a big fan of comparing the preamble of the Constitution to the letter of Paul to the Romans: "We the People ... ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States" vs. "the powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. 13:1) Compare also the Declaration of Independence to Romans: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government" vs. "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation" (Rom. 13:2).

John there's a message on the Bathroom Wall for you.

fnxtr said: John there's a message on the Bathroom Wall for you.

fnxtr said: John there's a message on the Bathroom Wall for you.

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

fnxtr said: John there's a message on the Bathroom Wall for you.

I really think it's compulsive: no matter how many times it's explained that he's damaging his credibility by his odd repetitions and obsession with name-dropping, he doesn't stop. I don't think he can. Get help, John.

John Kwok said: Frank, Thanks for that link to the Reason article from 1997 regarding the ample disdain that neoconservatives like Kristol and Bork, among others, had - and I believe still do (in Bork's case) - toward evolutionary theory. I wasn't aware of it beforehand and it's an article I'll refer to again. Sincerely, John

raven said: In another 100 years, jesus and his gang will end up wandering through the chosen land now known as the American south and central regions. Sending scientists, gays, Democrats, liberals, pointy headed intellectuals, Buddhists, Unitarians, and other assorted riff raff to hell early with his trusty Colt .45 Soulmaker and his horse Angel's Vengeance. This is xian Presuppositionalism at its finest. Decide what you want reality to be and then working backwards, lie a lot.

All the other doomsayers are just pretenders.

— Ron Okimoto

For some DI folk at least, their words and actions suggest that, if anything, they are trying to hide the “masses” from the truth of evolution.

harold,

No disagreement with you there, but Amadan and the other militant atheist trolls who posted about it missed my point:

Dembski tells me he knows scores of Texas high school principals who want Intelligent Design taught in lieu of evolution in their school science classrooms. I shoot back by recounting that I heard the principal of New York City's premier elite public high school devoted to the sciences and mathematics (whose alumni include four Nobel Prize laureates) tell an alumni audience during the Fall of 2005 (while the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial is in progress) that Intelligent Design won't be taught there since it's not science. When I ask Dembski how many of those principals teach a rigorous introductory course in physics to a class of entering freshmen, Dembski doesn't answer. He can't since none of these principals are capable of teaching high school physics, period.

I couldn't care less if the high school was named the PZ Myers High School of Science, Mathematics and Atheism or the Christopher Hitchens High School of Atheistic Thought, Science, Mathematics and Journalism. I made a most valid point, and Amadan and his fellow intellectually-challenged militant atheist trolls should have recognized that.

Sincerely,

John

P. S. Sometimes humor is more effective to be sure, but I wanted to point out to Amadan et al. that they are merely echoing the likes of Byers and FL among others.

Frank,

Unfortunately you have some "Darwinists" who are convinced that religion is the source of all evil and therefore must be rooted out entirely, and it seems that such individuals are more likely to have a "one size fits all" philosophy with regards to dealing with all creationists, especially when there has been excellent recent work from the likes of philosopher Robert Pennock ("Tower of Babel") and historian Ronald Numbers ("The Creationists") which strongly suggest that we need to understand that the overall creationist movement is not one mere monolithic entity, but instead composed of different - often at times conflicting - segments. But sadly, these are the same people who would be eager to lump someone like Kenneth R. Miller, for example, as a "creationist", simply because some of his religious views may echo some of those within in the creationist community (And if Ken Miller is really a creationist, then I wonder why he would declare that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should terminate their memberships in such faiths.).

I have found similar muddled-headed thinking from many of the same usual suspects with regards to - though I will not tar all of them with the same "brush" that they seem all too content to throw at those whom they are accusing of being involved with - "accomodationism", and believe we have wasted too much invaluable time - and made ourselves foolish in the eyes of others, especially those in the creationist camp - for attacking people and organizations for being "accomodating" to religious faith. If nothing else, I fear that these very suspects have given creationists additional rhetorical ammunition to prove to their "masses" that "Darwinism" = "Atheism" = acceptance of the fact of biological evolution means that you must reject your religious faith and moral values.

Sincerely yours,

John

P. S. While I concur with your astute observation that the Bailey article uncannily predicted virtually all of the "Wedge Document", I think we can go further back in time and find that document in a most advanced "embryonic" state within the pages of Philip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial".

Unfortunately you have some “Darwinists” who are convinced that religion is the source of all evil and therefore must be rooted out entirely, and it seems that such individuals are more likely to have a “one size fits all” philosophy with regards to dealing with all creationists...

— John Kwok

Frank J said:

Unfortunately you have some “Darwinists” who are convinced that religion is the source of all evil and therefore must be rooted out entirely, and it seems that such individuals are more likely to have a “one size fits all” philosophy with regards to dealing with all creationists...

— John Kwok

Another irony is that probably no one wants to see organized religion go away more than I do. But that won't happen regardless of what we "Darwinists" do. If anything, I think that obsessing over religion instead of how the activists misrepresent science only helps the activists win over nonscientists. As I keep saying, it's the courts' job to focus on the religious aspect, and so far they do it quite well. Our job ought to be to focus on the antics of the activists - how they avoid doing science, misrepresent the science we have, and cover up their own hopeless internal disagreements. As you are painfully aware, and as Ken Miller noted in "Only a Theory," the activists have succeeded in dividing us, and uniting themselves, even though their internal disagreements on the only testable claims are magnitudes greater than ours. It's long overdue for us to turn the tables on them. By no means do I think we should all become "accommodationists" or "kowtow" to religion (as someone accused me of advocating recently after hastily reading a comment that said nothing of the sort). But there's a time and place to have our internal philosophical debates. The activists "drew first blood" by pretending to have a scientific theory, so we need to hold their feet to the fire and force them to provide, and test, details of their "theory." Of course they won't; at best some of the old-style activists might trot out some vague YEC or OEC scenario, but mostly they will weasel away, and sling mud at "Darwinists" as they do.

Dear John,

A bit touchy about the high school thing, are we?

How many times, whether on this forum or others, have you taken the trouble to inform the world of where you went to high school? Would the number be under or over 50? Perhaps interested reader could find their favourite mention and we'll compile an omnibus edition. Wouldn't that be nice?

Contrast that, if you will, with the number of times that, say, Bill Dembski or PZ Myers have spouted about where they went to high school. Why, in your opinion, do they bring up that subject so seldom (if at all)? Like you, they are deeply engaged in the evolution wars, but they manage to do so without harking back to their respective alma maters.

Perhaps this indicates that one can discuss these topics without making oneself look like an insecure dick by grasping at prestige by association. Perhaps.

Love,

Amadan
(Attended Kindergarten with Ross, who liked the taste of earwax)

Again, I am in complete agreement, Frank, except in supporting wholeheartedly any desire to see organized religion disappear completely...

— John Kwok

Amadan said: Dear John, A bit touchy about the high school thing, are we? How many times, whether on this forum or others, have you taken the trouble to inform the world of where you went to high school? Would the number be under or over 50? Perhaps interested reader could find their favourite mention and we'll compile an omnibus edition. Wouldn't that be nice? Contrast that, if you will, with the number of times that, say, Bill Dembski or PZ Myers have spouted about where they went to high school. Why, in your opinion, do they bring up that subject so seldom (if at all)? Like you, they are deeply engaged in the evolution wars, but they manage to do so without harking back to their respective alma maters. Perhaps this indicates that one can discuss these topics without making oneself look like an insecure dick by grasping at prestige by association. Perhaps. Love, Amadan (Attended Kindergarten with Ross, who liked the taste of earwax)

Frank J said:

Again, I am in complete agreement, Frank, except in supporting wholeheartedly any desire to see organized religion disappear completely...

— John Kwok

While "no organized religion" would be ideal, including how it would give atheists nothing to complain about (or force them to complain about something else), I'd be content if organized religion remained, and members were all like Miller or Collins. I'll check out Pigliucci's article, though he and I surely have some healtly disagreements.

Frank J said: While "no organized religion" would be ideal, including how it would give atheists nothing to complain about (or force them to complain about something else), I'd be content if organized religion remained, and members were all like Miller or Collins. I'll check out Pigliucci's article, though he and I surely have some healtly disagreements.

John,

My sincere apologies for upsetting you about the question of where you went to high school.

Please feel free to mention it as often as you like, and I promise not to make mean remarks.

As a matter of interest, where did you go to high school? Did anyone else go there who we might have heard of?

Perhaps you've mentioned it already. I just can't quite recall.

Amadan

Amadan said: John, My sincere apologies for upsetting you about the question of where you went to high school. Please feel free to mention it as often as you like, and I promise not to make mean remarks. As a matter of interest, where did you go to high school? Did anyone else go there who we might have heard of? Perhaps you've mentioned it already. I just can't quite recall. Amadan

I’m not sure if I share your enthusiasm with respect to Collins, since the organization he created, BioLogos, seems sympathetic to the Dishonesty Institute, only because BioLogos - and have heard it directly from both Falk and Giberson - regards those in the Dishonesty Institute as fellow “brothers in Christ”:

— Jogn Kwok

All this cheering, and back slapping is premature. Far-right Governor Perry easily beat his primary challenger, Hutchison. He appointed McLeroy to Chairman in the first place.

Incumbent Bob Craig, R-Lubbock, opposed by the religious right, defeated their candidate Randy Rives: 75,951 votes (64.28%) to 42,195 (35.71%)

Religious extremist Cynthia Dunbar recruited Brian Russell to carry on the creationist cause. He lost in a three way race to Marsha Farney. Farney is a middle school counselor, PhD in education from U of Texas and not apparently a creationist. But, since neither won over 50% of the vote, creationist Russell, and Marsha Farney will go to a run-off election. The primary numbers were close.

Incumbent Ken Mercer, faced Tim Tuggey. Radical-right creationist Mercer won easily, the most clear win for the religious extremists.

Incumbent Bob Craig, R-Lubbock, opposed by the religious right, defeated their candidate Randy Rives: 75,951 votes (64.28%) to 42,195 (35.71%)

Religious extremist Cynthia Dunbar recruited Brian Russell to carry on the creationist cause. He lost in a three way race to Marsha Farney. Farney is a middle school counselor, PhD U of Texas and not apparently a creationist.

Incumbent Ken Mercer, faced Tim Tuggey. Radical-right creationist Mercer won easily, the only clear win for the religious extremists.

Incumbent Geraldine "Tincy" Miller, lost to George Clayton in a surprise result. Both call themselves conservative Republicans but Miller was not a safe vote for the radical religious right. Clayton is the Academic Coordinator for North Dallas High School. He seemed to be similar to Miller- more pro-teacher in fact. Clayton made the interesting statement in his campaign that the schools should not be run for the profit of "test writers."

However, George Clayton, in spite of opposing the "stranglehold that standardized testing has on education in Texas," was a stealth creationist all along. He won with nearly no budget, and I suspect that fundamentalist churches were the conduit for his victory.

Clayton: "So, here is my perspective. I have absolutely no objection to creationism, Intelligent Design, and evolution being covered in public schools so long as they are covered simultaneously -- in a parallel lesson. All must be discussed objectively, without bias or prejudice. Evolution is yet still a "theory." Intelligent Design is a philosophical explanation that acknowledges an intelligence greater than which no other exists or can be imagined and, of course, Creationism is faith in the Genesis accounts of the universe."

Amadan said: John, My sincere apologies for upsetting you about the question of where you went to high school. Please feel free to mention it as often as you like, and I promise not to make mean remarks. As a matter of interest, where did you go to high school? Did anyone else go there who we might have heard of? Perhaps you've mentioned it already. I just can't quite recall. Amadan

And once again, John K utterly misses the point. Simply amazing.

Rilke's granddaughter said: And once again, John K utterly misses the point. Simply amazing.

Goodness, I sure hate to interrupt all this good stuff I'm reading! But it only seems appropriate to mention that powerful vaccines against the Darwin Flu are now being developed in Kentucky and Missouri.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/proliferation_of_academic_free.html#more

Medical Science marches on, baby!!

FL

FL said: Goodness, I sure hate to interrupt all this good stuff I'm reading! But it only seems appropriate to mention that powerful vaccines against the Darwin Flu are now being developed in Kentucky and Missouri. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/proliferation_of_academic_free.html#more Medical Science marches on, baby!! FL

FL said: Goodness, I sure hate to interrupt all this good stuff I'm reading! But it only seems appropriate to mention that powerful vaccines against the Darwin Flu are now being developed in Kentucky and Missouri. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/proliferation_of_academic_free.html#more Medical Science marches on, baby!! FL

John Kwok said: Once again you demonstrate that your comments are no different than those sycophants of the Dishonesty Institute posting over at Uncommonly Dense:

Rilke's granddaughter said: And once again, John K utterly misses the point. Simply amazing.

Floyd,

Given that Christianity is compatible with evolution (you DO recall that you conceded that over at AtBC?), why is there any need to inoculate against it?

Excellent material. Thanks

Amadan said: Floyd, Given that Christianity is compatible with evolution (you DO recall that you conceded that over at AtBC?), why is there any need to inoculate against it?

FL said: Goodness, I sure hate to interrupt all this good stuff I'm reading! But it only seems appropriate to mention that powerful vaccines against the Darwin Flu are now being developed in Kentucky and Missouri. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/proliferation_of_academic_free.html#more Medical Science marches on, baby!! FL

Amadan said: Floyd, Given that Christianity is compatible with evolution (you DO recall that you conceded that over at AtBC?), why is there any need to inoculate against it?

Aagcobb said: Hate to burst (FL's) bubble, but the Kentucky bill was introduced a month ago and it hasn't even been scheduled for a committee hearing yet. It was introduced in the Democratic controlled House, which doesn't allow such nonsense out of committee.

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Once again you demonstrate that your comments are no different than those sycophants of the Dishonesty Institute posting over at Uncommonly Dense:

Rilke's granddaughter said: And once again, John K utterly misses the point. Simply amazing.

For once, John, I am forced to disagree with you. Please compare and contrast Ms Granddaughter's comments with the typed mental diarrhea cum smarmy/idiotic propaganda spewed by FL, resident fanboy of the Discovery Institute.

you DO recall that you conceded that over at AtBC?

Hate to burst (FL’s) bubble, but the Kentucky bill was introduced a month ago and it hasn’t even been scheduled for a committee hearing yet.

Here's the AtBC thread in which you concede

- that Catholics are Christian

- that Catholicism has no problem with evolution

- and the world somehow keeps on turning.

You will lie about what you said in it, but Onlookers will enjoy (in an unkind sort of way) reading through the ways you made a fool of yourself.

You're going to hell for lying, Floyd. Jesus said that's what happens.

John Kwok said: Unfortunately Stanton, she's starting to become too close to FL, especially in her shrill tone (Not only against me, for which she seems to relish so much, but even against others, including of course, the creos, elsewhere here at PT.):

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Once again you demonstrate that your comments are no different than those sycophants of the Dishonesty Institute posting over at Uncommonly Dense:

Rilke's granddaughter said: And once again, John K utterly misses the point. Simply amazing.

For once, John, I am forced to disagree with you. Please compare and contrast Ms Granddaughter's comments with the typed mental diarrhea cum smarmy/idiotic propaganda spewed by FL, resident fanboy of the Discovery Institute.

So when she tells me that I need help, maybe she ought to take ample stock of herself first.

FL said:

you DO recall that you conceded that over at AtBC?

Hey, do me a favor? Please quote that specific concession here in this forum so the readers can see it. I'm sure you can do that with no trouble. Thanks in advance!

Hate to burst (FL’s) bubble, but the Kentucky bill was introduced a month ago and it hasn’t even been scheduled for a committee hearing yet.

That's not a problem. I merely said it was being developed, not that it was completed or passed. Vaccines take time to develop, you know. FL

Rilke's Granddaughter said: It's amusing to make fun of creationists. They are generally clueless, impenetrable to sarcasm, and flagrantly ignorant. More importantly, they cannot be educated. Your odd habits of completely missing the boat, name dropping, and blackmail remind me of them. I find you funny. Sorry, John.

John Kwok said: Unfortunately Stanton, she's starting to become too close to FL, especially in her shrill tone (Not only against me, for which she seems to relish so much, but even against others, including of course, the creos, elsewhere here at PT.):

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Once again you demonstrate that your comments are no different than those sycophants of the Dishonesty Institute posting over at Uncommonly Dense:

Rilke's granddaughter said: And once again, John K utterly misses the point. Simply amazing.

For once, John, I am forced to disagree with you. Please compare and contrast Ms Granddaughter's comments with the typed mental diarrhea cum smarmy/idiotic propaganda spewed by FL, resident fanboy of the Discovery Institute.

So when she tells me that I need help, maybe she ought to take ample stock of herself first.

John Kwok said: And I think that you, especially in light of your other shrill comments directed not only against me, but against others (including, correctly, I might add, creo trolls posting here), are sounding as delusional as our current resident troll FL:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: It's amusing to make fun of creationists. They are generally clueless, impenetrable to sarcasm, and flagrantly ignorant. More importantly, they cannot be educated. Your odd habits of completely missing the boat, name dropping, and blackmail remind me of them. I find you funny. Sorry, John.

John Kwok said: Unfortunately Stanton, she's starting to become too close to FL, especially in her shrill tone (Not only against me, for which she seems to relish so much, but even against others, including of course, the creos, elsewhere here at PT.):

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Once again you demonstrate that your comments are no different than those sycophants of the Dishonesty Institute posting over at Uncommonly Dense:

Rilke's granddaughter said: And once again, John K utterly misses the point. Simply amazing.

For once, John, I am forced to disagree with you. Please compare and contrast Ms Granddaughter's comments with the typed mental diarrhea cum smarmy/idiotic propaganda spewed by FL, resident fanboy of the Discovery Institute.

So when she tells me that I need help, maybe she ought to take ample stock of herself first.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: As I said, John. You're funny.

John Kwok said: And I think that you, especially in light of your other shrill comments directed not only against me, but against others (including, correctly, I might add, creo trolls posting here), are sounding as delusional as our current resident troll FL:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: It's amusing to make fun of creationists. They are generally clueless, impenetrable to sarcasm, and flagrantly ignorant. More importantly, they cannot be educated. Your odd habits of completely missing the boat, name dropping, and blackmail remind me of them. I find you funny. Sorry, John.

John Kwok said: Unfortunately Stanton, she's starting to become too close to FL, especially in her shrill tone (Not only against me, for which she seems to relish so much, but even against others, including of course, the creos, elsewhere here at PT.):

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Once again you demonstrate that your comments are no different than those sycophants of the Dishonesty Institute posting over at Uncommonly Dense:

Rilke's granddaughter said: And once again, John K utterly misses the point. Simply amazing.

For once, John, I am forced to disagree with you. Please compare and contrast Ms Granddaughter's comments with the typed mental diarrhea cum smarmy/idiotic propaganda spewed by FL, resident fanboy of the Discovery Institute.

So when she tells me that I need help, maybe she ought to take ample stock of herself first.

Poke, poke...

fnxtr said: Poke, poke...

John Kwok said: And you're a delusional moron:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: As I said, John. You're funny.

John Kwok said: And I think that you, especially in light of your other shrill comments directed not only against me, but against others (including, correctly, I might add, creo trolls posting here), are sounding as delusional as our current resident troll FL:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: It's amusing to make fun of creationists. They are generally clueless, impenetrable to sarcasm, and flagrantly ignorant. More importantly, they cannot be educated. Your odd habits of completely missing the boat, name dropping, and blackmail remind me of them. I find you funny. Sorry, John.

John Kwok said: Unfortunately Stanton, she's starting to become too close to FL, especially in her shrill tone (Not only against me, for which she seems to relish so much, but even against others, including of course, the creos, elsewhere here at PT.):

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Once again you demonstrate that your comments are no different than those sycophants of the Dishonesty Institute posting over at Uncommonly Dense:

Rilke's granddaughter said: And once again, John K utterly misses the point. Simply amazing.

For once, John, I am forced to disagree with you. Please compare and contrast Ms Granddaughter's comments with the typed mental diarrhea cum smarmy/idiotic propaganda spewed by FL, resident fanboy of the Discovery Institute.

So when she tells me that I need help, maybe she ought to take ample stock of herself first.

You're a delusional moron simply because you think it is funny to castigate me for whatever ill-conceived wrongs you think I may have committed, wasting space here at PT, while I am in the midst of trying to correct another delusional moron, FL. By focusing your attention on me, instead of FL, I can't see how you can be both morally and intellectually superior to a creo troll like FL, when you are merely a militant atheist troll (MEMO to Stanton: You might want to reconsider your favorable opinion of RG, simply because she thinks I am more worthy of her attention than FL is.). Have yet to read anything from you that would endorse my recent replies to FL's nonsense. Instead, all I am reading from you is more nonsense, which should indicate to any objective reader that you are probably just as obsessed about me as Captain Ahab was with Moby Dick.

Dale Husband said:

John Kwok said: And you're a delusional moron:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: As I said, John. You're funny.

John Kwok said: And I think that you, especially in light of your other shrill comments directed not only against me, but against others (including, correctly, I might add, creo trolls posting here), are sounding as delusional as our current resident troll FL:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: It's amusing to make fun of creationists. They are generally clueless, impenetrable to sarcasm, and flagrantly ignorant. More importantly, they cannot be educated. Your odd habits of completely missing the boat, name dropping, and blackmail remind me of them. I find you funny. Sorry, John.

John Kwok said: Unfortunately Stanton, she's starting to become too close to FL, especially in her shrill tone (Not only against me, for which she seems to relish so much, but even against others, including of course, the creos, elsewhere here at PT.):

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Once again you demonstrate that your comments are no different than those sycophants of the Dishonesty Institute posting over at Uncommonly Dense:

Rilke's granddaughter said: And once again, John K utterly misses the point. Simply amazing.

For once, John, I am forced to disagree with you. Please compare and contrast Ms Granddaughter's comments with the typed mental diarrhea cum smarmy/idiotic propaganda spewed by FL, resident fanboy of the Discovery Institute.

So when she tells me that I need help, maybe she ought to take ample stock of herself first.

You're a delusional moron simply because you think it is funny to castigate me for whatever ill-conceived wrongs you think I may have committed, wasting space here at PT, while I am in the midst of trying to correct another delusional moron, FL. By focusing your attention on me, instead of FL, I can't see how you can be both morally and intellectually superior to a creo troll like FL, when you are merely a militant atheist troll (MEMO to Stanton: You might want to reconsider your favorable opinion of RG, simply because she thinks I am more worthy of her attention than FL is.). Have yet to read anything from you that would endorse my recent replies to FL's nonsense. Instead, all I am reading from you is more nonsense, which should indicate to any objective reader that you are probably just as obsessed about me as Captain Ahab was with Moby Dick.

And I find both of you (John Kwok AND Rilke’s Granddaughter) annoying at times, but I still tolerate and respect both of you because of what we all have in common: Our opposition to the Creationist bigotry of IDiots like FL. So please learn from my example and KNOCK IT OFF!

Wheels said:

Robert Byers said: I am Canadian. ... If Christian doctrines are being attacked by state schools in science class or anywhere then either a rebuttal and constant defence must be allowed or there must be a mutual censorship of origin subjects etc where conflict with religion takes place. This is the law.

Perhaps your misunderstanding of the law stems from your being Canadian, though I doubt it. There is no law in the US shielding religious beliefs from observed and documented facts. Nobody is going to censor sound science just because some people disagree based only on their religious convictions (unless, of course, the "social conservatives" and religious Right have their way and get legislation passed that prevents frank discussion of sexuality, history, and biology. This call for censorship of science does not seem to come from the political Left or the less rabidly fundamentalist Right). No basic science is going to be censored, but this does not mean that religious beliefs should be preached from the teacher's blackboard alongside it. I have to wonder, would you espouse the same "teach it too, or don't teach science!" crap if the religious beliefs in question were Creation According to the Koran? The Vedas? Eddas? If we neglect these alternate religious beliefs from the lesson plan, does that also constitute censorship of Muslims, Hindus, and Norse Reconstructionists?

Robert Byers said: I always deal with this issue on law and find i never lose.

... It comes down to the law (until seen the law never existed in fact until the 1960's).

If you can't teach God/Genesis is true because it touches on religion then you can't teach its not true because it touches on religion.

I suspect my reasonings will become the future conclusions of creationist and general conservative conclusions and platforms.

Nobody teaches Genesis is true.

— stevaroni

Frank J said: The bigger picture to me is that this bearing of false witness is perfectly legal, as long as US taxpayers don't pay for it. It's bad enough when a US bleeding heart demands it, but even more pathetic when a Canadian one does so. Hmm - unless that Canadian wants the US to lag even further behind other countries in science literacy.

I think it’s very unfair to judge the attitude of an entire nation...

— Stanton

Okay, you got us. Busted. Byers is one of our moles, sent to destroy your economy (Right, like we'd survive that).

But is he a placental or a marsupial mole?

Henry J said: But is he a placental or a marsupial mole?

Robert Byers said: I always deal with this issue on law and find i never lose.

Robert Byers said: If you can't teach God/Genesis is true because it touches on religion then you can't teach its not true because it touches on religion. Thats the law of mutual separation. Keep the state out of attacking Christian etc doctrines. teaching evolution does just this.

Hey Byers,
Why couldn't God beat a mortal at wrestling, even after cheating by using magic? The plain, literal language of Genesis says it WAS God, and He COULDN'T win.

(Sorry folks, but in the past this has sent Byers scurrying for cover like a roach when the light is flipped on.)

Byers, if yor claim is that we cannot teach anything that conflicts with a religious claim, then you saying that we cannot teach ANYTHING. Everything disagrees with SOMEONE'S religious beliefs.

So - are cool with teaching absolutely nothing?

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: If you can't teach God/Genesis is true because it touches on religion then you can't teach its not true because it touches on religion. Thats the law of mutual separation. Keep the state out of attacking Christian etc doctrines. teaching evolution does just this.

Here's a big problem with your premise, Byers - your particular belief regarding the literal factuality of Genesis is not [i]a religion[/i] or even the base doctrine of [i]a religion[/i] itself. Your particular belief that the bible must be read literally is a minority theological opinion among the actual religious (Christian) community as a whole. As such, it can gain NO religious protection whatsoever. The fact is, the majority of Christian Churches do not think the bible should be read literally and thus have no such "origin" issues. Thus, from a legal standpoint, you have no standing.

Back on topic...

there was an interesting article in the Austin-American Statesman today mulling the idea that Texas might exert less influence over textbook publishing in the upcoming decade.

The short synopsis, because of slumping revenues Texas purchased no textbooks last year, and with an $11 billion educational shortfall, this year looks only slightly brighter.

Long term, Texas will likely be purchasing a smaller slice of the book market, and, coupled with the fact that publishers are not thrilled at what dumbing-down books for Texas might do to other markets, this means that Texas will likely have less clout to destroy science than it did in the heyday of the 80's and 90's.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: I always deal with this issue on law and find i never lose.

Then it should be trivial for you to point to some examples where you have won. You have the floor, Rob. Bring forth your legal CV.

... It comes down to the law (until seen the law never existed in fact until the 1960's).

So, um, you're admitting that there is half a century of settled case law on the matter.

If you can't teach God/Genesis is true because it touches on religion then you can't teach its not true because it touches on religion.

Nobody teaches Genesis is true. Nobody teaches Genesis is false. Nobody teaches jack shit about Genesis. Schools teach the objective facts about biology and geology. If little Johnny takes his geology book to church and asks his priest about why there's no objective evidence of the flood, and the church has no answer, because what they teach doesn't match reality... well... that's hardly the fault of reality, now is it?

I suspect my reasonings will become the future conclusions of creationist and general conservative conclusions and platforms.

Yeah. Because it's really likely that a Canadian reality denier is going to influence how half a century of American constitutional law is interpreted.

Okay, what the hell was that?
That was even more incoherent that usual.
Are you off your meds again, Byers?

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: If you can't teach God/Genesis is true because it touches on religion then you can't teach its not true because it touches on religion. Thats the law of mutual separation. Keep the state out of attacking Christian etc doctrines. teaching evolution does just this.

Here's a big problem with your premise, Byers - your particular belief regarding the literal factuality of Genesis is not [i]a religion[/i] or even the base doctrine of [i]a religion[/i] itself. Your particular belief that the bible must be read literally is a minority theological opinion among the actual religious (Christian) community as a whole. As such, it can gain NO religious protection whatsoever. The fact is, the majority of Christian Churches do not think the bible should be read literally and thus have no such "origin" issues. Thus, from a legal standpoint, you have no standing.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Byers, if yor claim is that we cannot teach anything that conflicts with a religious claim, then you saying that we cannot teach ANYTHING. Everything disagrees with SOMEONE'S religious beliefs. So - are cool with teaching absolutely nothing?

Robert Byers said:

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: If you can't teach God/Genesis is true because it touches on religion then you can't teach its not true because it touches on religion. Thats the law of mutual separation. Keep the state out of attacking Christian etc doctrines. teaching evolution does just this.

Here's a big problem with your premise, Byers - your particular belief regarding the literal factuality of Genesis is not a religion or even the base doctrine of a religion itself. Your particular belief that the bible must be read literally is a minority theological opinion among the actual religious (Christian) community as a whole. As such, it can gain NO religious protection whatsoever. The fact is, the majority of Christian Churches do not think the bible should be read literally and thus have no such "origin" issues. Thus, from a legal standpoint, you have no standing.

Creationist concepts are based on God/Genesis. Its the same thing. These are religious doctrines to many. They are banned because a law is invoked saying these are religious concepts and so illegal.

Given as how Robert Byers claims to be a Canadian citizen, why is he so hellbent on convincing us that US Law actually prohibits the teaching of science in science classrooms?

Even a casual glance at US laws would reveal that teaching religious propaganda and lies, in place of science, in a science classroom would be, at the very least, forbidden under any circumstance.

I guess it's because Robert Byers worships his own literal interpretation of the Bible that drives him to demonstrate his annoying idiocy like this.

Stanton said: Given as how Robert Byers claims to be a Canadian citizen, why is he so hellbent on convincing us that US Law actually prohibits the teaching of science in science classrooms? Even a casual glance at US laws would reveal that teaching religious propaganda and lies, in place of science, in a science classroom would be, at the very least, forbidden under any circumstance. I guess it's because Robert Byers worships his own literal interpretation of the Bible that drives him to demonstrate his annoying idiocy like this.

Robin said:

Stanton said: Given as how Robert Byers claims to be a Canadian citizen, why is he so hellbent on convincing us that US Law actually prohibits the teaching of science in science classrooms? Even a casual glance at US laws would reveal that teaching religious propaganda and lies, in place of science, in a science classroom would be, at the very least, forbidden under any circumstance. I guess it's because Robert Byers worships his own literal interpretation of the Bible that drives him to demonstrate his annoying idiocy like this.

Maybe I'm misreading Robert Byers, but I don't think he's trying to convince anyone that US law prohibits teaching science in science classrooms. Seems to me that he's been quite upfront about the fact that he feels the law is being misused to allow science classes and sciences teachers to say his religion is false, and by his logic should not be allowed to do so based on a separation of church and state. In other words, he seems to be saying that the law is allowing science classes, teachers, scientists themselves to use State funds to support alternative religious views (or perhaps anti-religious views) that conflict with Creationist religious views. It strikes me that he doesn't even understand the fundamental science issue and what can and can't be taught as science.

Cary Choung said: Cheers for the post, your website is solid! I've wanted designer shoes for so long and this totally made me want some even more!

Stanton said:

Robin said:

Stanton said: Given as how Robert Byers claims to be a Canadian citizen, why is he so hellbent on convincing us that US Law actually prohibits the teaching of science in science classrooms? Even a casual glance at US laws would reveal that teaching religious propaganda and lies, in place of science, in a science classroom would be, at the very least, forbidden under any circumstance. I guess it's because Robert Byers worships his own literal interpretation of the Bible that drives him to demonstrate his annoying idiocy like this.

Maybe I'm misreading Robert Byers, but I don't think he's trying to convince anyone that US law prohibits teaching science in science classrooms. Seems to me that he's been quite upfront about the fact that he feels the law is being misused to allow science classes and sciences teachers to say his religion is false, and by his logic should not be allowed to do so based on a separation of church and state. In other words, he seems to be saying that the law is allowing science classes, teachers, scientists themselves to use State funds to support alternative religious views (or perhaps anti-religious views) that conflict with Creationist religious views. It strikes me that he doesn't even understand the fundamental science issue and what can and can't be taught as science.

Well, I do remember how he droned on and on and on about how the 1st Amendment prohibited teaching of anything that opposed religious beliefs, while also claiming that Creationism wasn't religious because Genesis was literally true.

Robin said:

Robert Byers said:

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: If you can't teach God/Genesis is true because it touches on religion then you can't teach its not true because it touches on religion. Thats the law of mutual separation. Keep the state out of attacking Christian etc doctrines. teaching evolution does just this.

Here's a big problem with your premise, Byers - your particular belief regarding the literal factuality of Genesis is not a religion or even the base doctrine of a religion itself. Your particular belief that the bible must be read literally is a minority theological opinion among the actual religious (Christian) community as a whole. As such, it can gain NO religious protection whatsoever. The fact is, the majority of Christian Churches do not think the bible should be read literally and thus have no such "origin" issues. Thus, from a legal standpoint, you have no standing.

Creationist concepts are based on God/Genesis. Its the same thing. These are religious doctrines to many. They are banned because a law is invoked saying these are religious concepts and so illegal.

Wow! You almost created a completely accurate set of thoughts and wrote them down - almost. I'm impressed. You left out a few things though, but meh...no reason to quibble. Yes, as I too stated, they are religious doctrines (go you, Byers!), however that does not make them a RELIGION unto themselves. So once again, here's the problem with your argument - anyone in any capacity can say they are absolutely false and wrong and can ban them from anywhere, even other churches, and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it. Period. You are welcome to believe them - that's up to you and other creationists, but they can't be protected by the government since they are not in and of themselves an entire religion. They aren't even a prominent piece of any given religion. That they aren't scientific certainly means that there is no reason to include them in any science class and since they are inherently religious, they can't be supported by any State institution, but the reverse - which is what you keep arguing - is not true. Anyone in any State institution CAN say they are false and stupid.

Robin said:

Stanton said: Given as how Robert Byers claims to be a Canadian citizen, why is he so hellbent on convincing us that US Law actually prohibits the teaching of science in science classrooms? Even a casual glance at US laws would reveal that teaching religious propaganda and lies, in place of science, in a science classroom would be, at the very least, forbidden under any circumstance. I guess it's because Robert Byers worships his own literal interpretation of the Bible that drives him to demonstrate his annoying idiocy like this.

Maybe I'm misreading Robert Byers, but I don't think he's trying to convince anyone that US law prohibits teaching science in science classrooms. Seems to me that he's been quite upfront about the fact that he feels the law is being misused to allow science classes and sciences teachers to say his religion is false, and by his logic should not be allowed to do so based on a separation of church and state. In other words, he seems to be saying that the law is allowing science classes, teachers, scientists themselves to use State funds to support alternative religious views (or perhaps anti-religious views) that conflict with Creationist religious views. It strikes me that he doesn't even understand the fundamental science issue and what can and can't be taught as science.

Robert Byers said:

Robin said:

Robert Byers said:

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: If you can't teach God/Genesis is true because it touches on religion then you can't teach its not true because it touches on religion. Thats the law of mutual separation. Keep the state out of attacking Christian etc doctrines. teaching evolution does just this.

Here's a big problem with your premise, Byers - your particular belief regarding the literal factuality of Genesis is not a religion or even the base doctrine of a religion itself. Your particular belief that the bible must be read literally is a minority theological opinion among the actual religious (Christian) community as a whole. As such, it can gain NO religious protection whatsoever. The fact is, the majority of Christian Churches do not think the bible should be read literally and thus have no such "origin" issues. Thus, from a legal standpoint, you have no standing.

Creationist concepts are based on God/Genesis. Its the same thing. These are religious doctrines to many. They are banned because a law is invoked saying these are religious concepts and so illegal.

Wow! You almost created a completely accurate set of thoughts and wrote them down - almost. I'm impressed. You left out a few things though, but meh...no reason to quibble. Yes, as I too stated, they are religious doctrines (go you, Byers!), however that does not make them a RELIGION unto themselves. So once again, here's the problem with your argument - anyone in any capacity can say they are absolutely false and wrong and can ban them from anywhere, even other churches, and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it. Period. You are welcome to believe them - that's up to you and other creationists, but they can't be protected by the government since they are not in and of themselves an entire religion. They aren't even a prominent piece of any given religion. That they aren't scientific certainly means that there is no reason to include them in any science class and since they are inherently religious, they can't be supported by any State institution, but the reverse - which is what you keep arguing - is not true. Anyone in any State institution CAN say they are false and stupid.

AGAIN. Creationism is banned because its claimed to be religious. So illegal as a option for origin subjects in serious classes on origins.

Creationism is actually only coincident with religious concepts as such. Its simply a claim of truth. Religious associations or not. i'm just using the legal terms.

If a law of separation is invoked to keep out creationism because it touches on religion then likewise this law means opposite teachings are a aggresion against same religion. Thats the equation.

Robert Byers said:

Robin said:

Stanton said: Given as how Robert Byers claims to be a Canadian citizen, why is he so hellbent on convincing us that US Law actually prohibits the teaching of science in science classrooms? Even a casual glance at US laws would reveal that teaching religious propaganda and lies, in place of science, in a science classroom would be, at the very least, forbidden under any circumstance. I guess it's because Robert Byers worships his own literal interpretation of the Bible that drives him to demonstrate his annoying idiocy like this.

Maybe I'm misreading Robert Byers, but I don't think he's trying to convince anyone that US law prohibits teaching science in science classrooms. Seems to me that he's been quite upfront about the fact that he feels the law is being misused to allow science classes and sciences teachers to say his religion is false, and by his logic should not be allowed to do so based on a separation of church and state. In other words, he seems to be saying that the law is allowing science classes, teachers, scientists themselves to use State funds to support alternative religious views (or perhaps anti-religious views) that conflict with Creationist religious views. It strikes me that he doesn't even understand the fundamental science issue and what can and can't be taught as science.

Close. Not that a law is misused but its apllied only one way.

The law calls for mutual separation and so in this case on teachings and then one side is taught to be false. When rebuttal requested a law is presented about non interference. If evolution is being taught then theres interference . Simply a law is not being used equally. Its wrongly being used only against one party. This is the flaw in the law. Or rather the evidence there is no actual law in the constitution made by folks in the 1700's.

But it is not fair to use a law specifically meant to prohibit the teaching of religion masquerading as science from also prohibiting the teaching of science! Why that would mean that absolutely no one was fooled by any creationist nonsense. It's not fair I says. Why won't you be fooled?

And I don't really want the law to be applied evenly. I don't really want all religions to be taught, just the ones I claims is right. It's not fair to discriminate against all religions including mine. I wants mine to be specials. Only mine mine mine.

DS said: But it is not fair to use a law specifically meant to prohibit the teaching of religion masquerading as science from also prohibiting the teaching of science! Why that would mean that absolutely no one was fooled by any creationist nonsense. It's not fair I says. Why won't you be fooled? And I don't really want the law to be applied evenly. I don't really want all religions to be taught, just the ones I claims is right. It's not fair to discriminate against all religions including mine. I wants mine to be specials. Only mine mine mine.

DS said: But it is not fair to use a law specifically meant to prohibit the teaching of religion masquerading as science from also prohibiting the teaching of science! Why that would mean that absolutely no one was fooled by any creationist nonsense. It's not fair I says. Why won't you be fooled? And I don't really want the law to be applied evenly. I don't really want all religions to be taught, just the ones I claims is right. It's not fair to discriminate against all religions including mine. I wants mine to be specials. Only mine mine mine.

Robert Byers said: AGAIN. Creationism is banned because its claimed to be religious.

Ah, but is it his job to match your pathetic level of detail? ;)

Robert Byers said: AGAIN. Creationism is banned because its claimed to be religious. So illegal as a option for origin subjects in serious classes on origins. Creationism is actually only coincident with religious concepts as such. Its simply a claim of truth. Religious associations or not. i'm just using the legal terms. If a law of separation is invoked to keep out creationism because it touches on religion then likewise this law means opposite teachings are a aggresion against same religion. Thats the equation.

Robin said:

Robert Byers said:

Robin said:

Stanton said: Given as how Robert Byers claims to be a Canadian citizen, why is he so hellbent on convincing us that US Law actually prohibits the teaching of science in science classrooms? Even a casual glance at US laws would reveal that teaching religious propaganda and lies, in place of science, in a science classroom would be, at the very least, forbidden under any circumstance. I guess it's because Robert Byers worships his own literal interpretation of the Bible that drives him to demonstrate his annoying idiocy like this.

Maybe I'm misreading Robert Byers, but I don't think he's trying to convince anyone that US law prohibits teaching science in science classrooms. Seems to me that he's been quite upfront about the fact that he feels the law is being misused to allow science classes and sciences teachers to say his religion is false, and by his logic should not be allowed to do so based on a separation of church and state. In other words, he seems to be saying that the law is allowing science classes, teachers, scientists themselves to use State funds to support alternative religious views (or perhaps anti-religious views) that conflict with Creationist religious views. It strikes me that he doesn't even understand the fundamental science issue and what can and can't be taught as science.

Close. Not that a law is misused but its apllied only one way.

Perhaps you can explain to us how "applied only one way" doesn't equate to "misused".

The law calls for mutual separation and so in this case on teachings and then one side is taught to be false. When rebuttal requested a law is presented about non interference. If evolution is being taught then theres interference . Simply a law is not being used equally. Its wrongly being used only against one party. This is the flaw in the law. Or rather the evidence there is no actual law in the constitution made by folks in the 1700's.

And once again, your understanding of law, particularly US Constitutional Law is quite absurd. The law is being applied quite accurately. Teaching that actual scientific observations indicate that certain religious claims and beliefs are false is not itself a religous position. Therefore it is perfectly legal under the Separation Clause to allow. There is no 'opposite' appliction of the law to be applied. Your creationist position is religious; the scientific position is not. Thus, your position cannot be taught and the scientific position can. That the scientific position conflicts with your position is irrelevant. Fact will always trump (and legally so) over superstition.

Robert Byers said: We've been around the block here. The law is being applied is loud and clear . Separation of both parties from each other.

Therefore if a subject is discussed that crosses both parties then there must be mutual censorship or equal time.

What is being banned is not religion but ideas on a particular point in origins.

To ban the 'religious' idea on origins but allow a idea that teaches the religious idea is wrong is a clear breaking of the separation concept.

The concept as used is simply that religion and state should not interfere with each other. SIMPLE.

Yet in origin subjects there is a crossing of this line. It can't be helped. The state is teaching to the people the truth on origins and so to ban creationism is clearly a state opinion Genesis is false. To teach without creationism is a further statement its false.

Why is my logic wrong?

How can anyone claiming to be teaching the truth on a subject, who then bans one opinion, not be saying that opinion is false? How?

Freedom of inquiry and speech will return to American classrooms and right soon.

Robert Byers said: We've been around the block here. The law is being applied is loud and clear . Separation of both parties from each other. Therefore if a subject is discussed that crosses both parties then there must be mutual censorship or equal time.

It so happens that the pink unicorns living in the hollow moon determined so-called evolution along with all other significant events. QED anything that disputes the PULITH-M theory must not be taught. PULITH-M or nothing!

Robert Byers said: We've been around the block here. The law is being applied is loud and clear . Separation of both parties from each other. Therefore if a subject is discussed that crosses both parties then there must be mutual censorship or equal time. What is being banned is not religion but ideas on a particular point in origins. To ban the 'religious' idea on origins but allow a idea that teaches the religious idea is wrong is a clear breaking of the separation concept. The concept as used is simply that religion and state should not interfere with each other. SIMPLE. Yet in origin subjects there is a crossing of this line. It can't be helped. The state is teaching to the people the truth on origins and so to ban creationism is clearly a state opinion Genesis is false. To teach without creationism is a further statement its false. Why is my logic wrong? How can anyone claiming to be teaching the truth on a subject, who then bans one opinion, not be saying that opinion is false? How? Freedom of inquiry and speech will return to American classrooms and right soon.

Jesse, I know you didn't mean it that way, but you could be taken as implying that the PULITH-M theory is not the simple and blindingly obvious truth, but some sort of religion on a level with fundamentalism.

If Robert Byers was advocating that nothing be taught which contradicts PULITH-M, he would be correct. Or at least, that's how I read the First and Tenth Amendments.

If our children aren't taught about the pink unicorns, they're going to be at a severe disadvantage thinking the things that happen to them are by pure chance.

If they are taught that the moon is not hollow, future engineers will make possibly fatal errors if we restore the space program - provided, of course, the PULITH-Ms permit it, which I believe it can be shown scientifically that they are currently not doing.

I should add that i find it scandalous that churches are tax exempt, yet no law forces them to either preach PULITH-M alongside, e.g., Genesis, or preach neither, to keep their tax exempt status. I hope Robert Byers will join me in urging Congress to examine this oversight. I think most ethicists and ecumenical experts would accept one sermon a week on the unicorns as adequate - perhaps an off day like a Tuesday.

Marion Delgado said: Jesse, I know you didn't mean it that way, but you could be taken as implying that the PULITH-M theory is not the simple and blindingly obvious truth, but some sort of religion on a level with fundamentalism. If Robert Byers was advocating that nothing be taught which contradicts PULITH-M, he would be correct. Or at least, that's how I read the First and Tenth Amendments. If our children aren't taught about the pink unicorns, they're going to be at a severe disadvantage thinking the things that happen to them are by pure chance. If they are taught that the moon is not hollow, future engineers will make possibly fatal errors if we restore the space program - provided, of course, the PULITH-Ms permit it, which I believe it can be shown scientifically that they are currently not doing.

Wow, that's embarassing. It's such an obvious point, too.

Anyway, the comforting thing is that it's all science so far.

Good grief.

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: We've been around the block here. The law is being applied is loud and clear . Separation of both parties from each other.

No idea what you mean by this. There is no 'other party' - there is only no State support of religion. That doesn't mean that secular concepts have to be separated from your church. It doesn't mean that the State can't teach concepts that conflict with your particular beliefs. It only means that your particular religious beliefs can't be supported by the State. Period.

Therefore if a subject is discussed that crosses both parties then there must be mutual censorship or equal time.

False. See above.

What is being banned is not religion but ideas on a particular point in origins.

You earlier stated that you understood that your ideas on origins were religious and that's why they are banned. Are you now changing your statement? Here's your quote from March 10 above: "Creationist concepts are based on God/Genesis. Its the same thing. These are religious doctrines to many. They are banned because a law is invoked saying these are religious concepts and so illegal." So no - what is being banned from State support are religious claims. It makes no difference they they are about origins.

To ban the 'religious' idea on origins but allow a idea that teaches the religious idea is wrong is a clear breaking of the separation concept.

What idea that teaches a religious idea is being allowed in public schools?

The concept as used is simply that religion and state should not interfere with each other. SIMPLE.

More or less correct.

Yet in origin subjects there is a crossing of this line. It can't be helped. The state is teaching to the people the truth on origins and so to ban creationism is clearly a state opinion Genesis is false. To teach without creationism is a further statement its false.

Incorrect. The State is not teaching that Genesis is false. The State is teaching that evolution occurred - a scientific theory. Genesis does not say anything about evolution and presents nothing that conflicts with evolution. That creationists - a minority subculture within the religious institution known as Christianity - believe that the Genesis story represents a literal event that known facts conflict with is a problem for creationists. It's not the State's fault that your beliefs conflict with reality.

Why is my logic wrong?

See above. Your premises are erroneous, both about your understanding of Genesis and about what the State is teaching. Nowhere does the State say that Genesis is false; it merely presents known concepts that happen to conflict with *your* minority belief about Genesis.

How can anyone claiming to be teaching the truth on a subject, who then bans one opinion, not be saying that opinion is false? How?

Strawman by way of generalization. No one is banning an opinion. The State is banning ALL religious claims from State-funded institutions, not just your particular one. And all religious claims are banned BECAUSE of the First Amendment, not because it is necessarily false.

Freedom of inquiry and speech will return to American classrooms and right soon.

We have freedom of inquiry and speech here in the US right now. That your freedom of speech has to be balanced against all other people's rights in school, both to freedom of speech AND freedom from speech that distracts from the actually being taught does not in anyway contradict this.

In Byerbabble, the "witness" referred to is God, despite the fact that He can't be examined on this or any subject, "fact" means "a literal reading of Genesis, plus whatever other miracles I need to make it work", and "secular" means "religious", because everything in Byerland is religion. "Murky" means "I don't know what I'm talking about", and "reality" means "any daft notion that enters my head".

The last paragraph means "I am perfectly happy to make two mutually opposed statements - ie that Genesis both is and is not religion, and believe both of them at once. Why are you looking at me so strangely?"

The last sentence means "You have no hope of convincing me otherwise, because I'm a complete fruitloop."

Robert Byers said: The other party is the state teaching on origins that teaches evolution.

Yes the law (as used) means no teaching that contradicts religious doctrines.

Its not just one way as you think.

Its mutual non interference. Separation period. If the state is teaching genesis is false directly and indirectly then the state is not separate from religions.

Creationists mean that origins from God/Genesis is a true secular facts.

It being connected to religion is a coincedence.

Yet since its banned on the premise that its religious therefore i use the term of it being religious. It only means a legal term to me. Creationism is not from religious ideas but from natural history reality. Its just that we have a witness to speed up conclusions. In this area religion as a concept is murky.

If the subject is about some point in origins and the Genesis etc point is banned the surely the state is making a official statement that Genesis is false and so a comment on religion.

Otherwise everything would be on the merits.

Teaching evolution etc also is teaching religious doctrines are false. How can you get around this??

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: The other party is the state teaching on origins that teaches evolution.

False as I noted previously. Unless the other party is religous (which you've admitted it isn't) doesn't matter what the other party's take on origins is.

Yes the law (as used) means no teaching that contradicts religious doctrines.

Nope. Doesn't mean that at all as I demonstrated. Wrong again.

Its not just one way as you think.

Doesn't have anything to do with what I think. It has to do whether what I think is founded in religion or not and whether what I think is scientifically supported or not. That which is founded in religion (such as your thinking as you've admitted) cannot be taught. Evolution otoh is not religious and thus can be taught. It also happens to be scientifically supported, thus it can be taught as science.

Its mutual non interference. Separation period. If the state is teaching genesis is false directly and indirectly then the state is not separate from religions.

False again Robert. Of course, as I demonstrated the State isn't teaching that Genesis is false, but that is irrelevant.

Creationists mean that origins from God/Genesis is a true secular facts.

You may well believe such and even insist such is true, but since you can't support such a belief with any kind of objective substantiation, such is a moot and irrelevant claim.

It being connected to religion is a coincedence.

It may well be coincidence, but since this is the only part that can actually be established by evidence, this is the only part that anyone can use to make any decisions.

Yet since its banned on the premise that its religious therefore i use the term of it being religious. It only means a legal term to me. Creationism is not from religious ideas but from natural history reality. Its just that we have a witness to speed up conclusions. In this area religion as a concept is murky.

This makes utterly no sense. See above for the actual issues.

If the subject is about some point in origins and the Genesis etc point is banned the surely the state is making a official statement that Genesis is false and so a comment on religion.

Wrong-o. See above.

Otherwise everything would be on the merits.

Everything is on merit - evolution actually has merit and creationism has none.

Teaching evolution etc also is teaching religious doctrines are false. How can you get around this??

I already demonstrated how this is valid - nobody is teaching that Genesis is false. Evolution being true only conflicts with your false reading of Genesis. Other Christians note that Genesis does not conflict at all with evolution. Thus there is no teaching that Genesis is false.

What's true, in the limited sense in which the word can be used in science, is "that which can be demonstrated from objectively observed physical evidence in nature, plus rigorous logic."

That may be taught.

Religious dogmas that cannot be so demonstrated cannot be taught.

What's so hard about this, Byers, apart from the fact that you don't like it?

Robert Byers said: Well where can we go here.

I understand it makes sense in your mind that a origin conclusion founded in religion can't be taught but one founded otherwise can even if it contradicts the former.

Yet the law, as presented, is not about religion, to use this idea, bring exclusivilly prohibitive on origins but the law is about mutual exclusivity. If the law says the state is illegal to teach religion then its illegal to teach religion, on the same subject, is false.

The state cannot be neutral on the subject of religion here if it admits banning the religious idea on a topic where whats true is the objective of the class.

In banning creationism as a option the state is making a opinion on its truthfulness.(by further teaching evolution it is more saying the bible is false as many see it)

The state is interfering with religious ideas while telling religion it can't interfere in the state on a mutual separation concept.

I don't see how anyone can get around this equation. If somethings banned then either its because its not true or regardless of its truth its banned. Either way a discussion on the topic thats allowed without the banned material and where the truth is the objective means a opinion is being made by the authority. in this case the state.

I have told Robert repeatedly, if he wants to teach religion in US public science classes he can go right ahead, He has not done so. All of his impotent whining amounts to nothing. Let him rant and rave so that others can see the absolute moral bankruptcy of his position. Fortunately, this guy is not getting anywhere near a US classroom. If he did he would wind up in court and he would lose. Until then, all he can do is spout nonsense on web sites in the vain hope that someone somewhere will be fooled.

Dave Luckett said: What's true, in the limited sense in which the word can be used in science, is "that which can be demonstrated from objectively observed physical evidence in nature, plus rigorous logic." That may be taught. Religious dogmas that cannot be so demonstrated cannot be taught. What's so hard about this, Byers, apart from the fact that you don't like it?

The law doesn't say the State is "not to be involved in religious ideas", Byers. It says that the State cannot favour one religion over another, which what is meant by the term "establishing" religion.

The objection you have to the Theory of Evolution is precisely that it isn't your religion. It isn't any religion at all. That's why it can be taught in public schools, Byers, and your religion, or any religion, can't be.

The day your religion - literal Bibliolatry - gets taught in public schools, Byers, is the day the US ceases to be a secular democracy. Americans won't let that happen. You've lost; you lost fifty years ago, and all the bluster and falsehood and self-delusion you can throw isn't going to change that.

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: Well where can we go here.

Depends on whether you have decided to pay attention or not...

I understand it makes sense in your mind that a origin conclusion founded in religion can't be taught but one founded otherwise can even if it contradicts the former.

...and sadly that would be a "no" from you on the paying attention part, Robert. Once again for complete clarity - this has nothing to do with origins. Neither the law nor the schools have said anything about origin conclusions. That concept is only an issue for you, Robert. The only issue on the table is one of two parts - that what you want to have taught in public schools is religous (and thus against the Constitution of the US and likely Canada as well) and is not science (and thus is against school curriculum). I don't really care that you feel this about origin conclusions Robert since the fact remains that your conclusions have no supporting evidence and thus are not credible. Bottom line: Your comment above is incorrect - I've never even thought about making sense of an origin conclusion founded in religion can't be taught but one founded otherwise can even if it contradicts the former because such isn't an issue to me.

Yet the law, as presented, is not about religion, to use this idea, bring exclusivilly prohibitive on origins but the law is about mutual exclusivity. If the law says the state is illegal to teach religion then its illegal to teach religion, on the same subject, is false.

The law isn't about 'origin conconclusions', Robert. That's something you don't seem to grasp at all. It is quite specifically about religion however, something else you seem to be having trouble grasping. I provided the direct quote in fact. Nothing in the law about 'mutual exclusivity', particularly wrt 'origin conclusions'. Of course this is all academic really since I've already demonstrated that this is all a moot point. The fact is, what you are claiming isn't even Christian doctrine - it's an erroneous interpretation a small minority of misguided religous fanatics have embraced. So your beliefs are not even protected as religious doctrine within the separation clause, Robert.

The state cannot be neutral on the subject of religion here if it admits banning the religious idea on a topic where whats true is the objective of the class.

It quite easily can since your beliefs are not seen as accurate by most Christians. Indeed, you could insist just as easily that your God requires you to sacrifice all first borns in your community and the State would not have to respect that 'religous' belief either.

In banning creationism as a option the state is making a opinion on its truthfulness.(by further teaching evolution it is more saying the bible is false as many see it)

Wrong again. The majority of Christians insist your beliefs are erroneous. The State merely notes that such can't be presented in a public school. That you insist evolution conflicts with your beliefs is your problem and your complaint should go to the majority representation of Christians, not the schools.

The state is interfering with religious ideas while telling religion it can't interfere in the state on a mutual separation concept.

Incorrect. See above.

I don't see how anyone can get around this equation. If somethings banned then either its because its not true or regardless of its truth its banned. Either way a discussion on the topic thats allowed without the banned material and where the truth is the objective means a opinion is being made by the authority. in this case the state.

Nope. See above.

Sorry Byers, the state is not required to avoid an idea or subject that is not a religious one because it offends a religion. Evolution is not a religious idea.

Robert Byers said: You didn't reply to my point that in banning the "religious" idea the state is making a opinion on the accuracy of that idea and so breaking the very law it invokes for censorship!!

Is there anyone on the pandas forum who can show where my math is wrong. I never lose on this point where ever I roam

Robert Byers said: You didn't reply to my point that in banning the "religious" idea the state is making a opinion on the accuracy of that idea and so breaking the very law it invokes for censorship!!

It is about origin issues.It is about the presumptions of where origin conclusions come from .

Origin ideas are the discussion. Real true things. So if one position is banned and a opposite position is taught then it must be that officially the state has made a statement on the banned position. Therefore the state has officially announced the bible is false on some doctrines.

Again I ask how can it be got around this equation.?! How can a position be banned by the state because it religous friendly and yet not be a statement by the state that the religious idea is false. So breaking the law. All this from very Protestant American folks in the 1700's. (By way of the constitution). Is there anyone on the pandas forum who can show where my math is wrong. I never lose on this point where ever I roam

Robert Byers said:

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: We've been around the block here. The law is being applied is loud and clear . Separation of both parties from each other.

No idea what you mean by this. There is no 'other party' - there is only no State support of religion. That doesn't mean that secular concepts have to be separated from your church. It doesn't mean that the State can't teach concepts that conflict with your particular beliefs. It only means that your particular religious beliefs can't be supported by the State. Period.

Therefore if a subject is discussed that crosses both parties then there must be mutual censorship or equal time.

False. See above.

What is being banned is not religion but ideas on a particular point in origins.

You earlier stated that you understood that your ideas on origins were religious and that's why they are banned. Are you now changing your statement? Here's your quote from March 10 above: "Creationist concepts are based on God/Genesis. Its the same thing. These are religious doctrines to many. They are banned because a law is invoked saying these are religious concepts and so illegal." So no - what is being banned from State support are religious claims. It makes no difference they they are about origins.

To ban the 'religious' idea on origins but allow a idea that teaches the religious idea is wrong is a clear breaking of the separation concept.

What idea that teaches a religious idea is being allowed in public schools?

The concept as used is simply that religion and state should not interfere with each other. SIMPLE.

More or less correct.

Yet in origin subjects there is a crossing of this line. It can't be helped. The state is teaching to the people the truth on origins and so to ban creationism is clearly a state opinion Genesis is false. To teach without creationism is a further statement its false.

Incorrect. The State is not teaching that Genesis is false. The State is teaching that evolution occurred - a scientific theory. Genesis does not say anything about evolution and presents nothing that conflicts with evolution. That creationists - a minority subculture within the religious institution known as Christianity - believe that the Genesis story represents a literal event that known facts conflict with is a problem for creationists. It's not the State's fault that your beliefs conflict with reality.

Why is my logic wrong?

See above. Your premises are erroneous, both about your understanding of Genesis and about what the State is teaching. Nowhere does the State say that Genesis is false; it merely presents known concepts that happen to conflict with *your* minority belief about Genesis.

How can anyone claiming to be teaching the truth on a subject, who then bans one opinion, not be saying that opinion is false? How?

Strawman by way of generalization. No one is banning an opinion. The State is banning ALL religious claims from State-funded institutions, not just your particular one. And all religious claims are banned BECAUSE of the First Amendment, not because it is necessarily false.

Freedom of inquiry and speech will return to American classrooms and right soon.

We have freedom of inquiry and speech here in the US right now. That your freedom of speech has to be balanced against all other people's rights in school, both to freedom of speech AND freedom from speech that distracts from the actually being taught does not in anyway contradict this.

The other party is the state teaching on origins that teaches evolution. Yes the law (as used) means no teaching that contradicts religious doctrines. Its not just one way as you think. Its mutual non interference. Separation period. If the state is teaching genesis is false directly and indirectly then the state is not separate from religions. Creationists mean that origins from God/Genesis is a true secular facts. It being connected to religion is a coincedence. Yet since its banned on the premise that its religious therefore i use the term of it being religious. It only means a legal term to me. Creationism is not from religious ideas but from natural history reality. Its just that we have a witness to speed up conclusions. In this area religion as a concept is murky. If the subject is about some point in origins and the Genesis etc point is banned the surely the state is making a official statement that Genesis is false and so a comment on religion. Otherwise everything would be on the merits. Teaching evolution etc also is teaching religious doctrines are false. How can you get around this??

Robert Byers the idiot remains ignorant of the fact that most of the drafters of the Constitution were agnostic, not Christians. Many of them, in fact, found Christianity repugnant, as they were keenly aware of how churches in Europe used Christianity to preach hate and ignorance, as well as how governments would use the churches in keeping the populace subdued.

When political parties start dictating what historians should put into history books regarding religion than that's when I abandon that party.

I have ready everything that Madison and Jefferson wrote regarding Separation of Church and State and it is clear to me what they meant. Some key documents include Jefferson's original draft of the "The Freedom of Religion Act" of the State of Virginia and his letter to Nehemiah Dodge of the Danbury Baptists. Now religious conservatives want to change history to break down the wall of separation to make this a Christian Nation rather than a Nation of Christians. If this country is not a Nation of Christians it is man's fault for having not done their job and not the constitution's. Jefferson made it so clear in the referenced documents that there can be no mis-interpretation of what he meant. The word creator was used many times instead of Jesus Christ after much argument and debate in these and other documents for that very reason. Jefferson stated that our civil rights have nothing to do with our religious "opinions'. Our religious beliefs are just that "opinions" to which everyone is entitled. Jefferson clearly said that we should be able to come to our own religious beliefs and opinions not through any means of coercion but through "reason" alone, just our like Creator intended. Requirements, such as allowing prayer in the classroom violates this most fundamental right of man to reach his own opinions without coercian as God intended. I don't know understand what about this that Religious Conservatives don't understand. They want to go back to the Pope and Church of England. If we believe in complete freedom then we should believe in the wall of separation.

Stanton said: Robert Byers the idiot remains ignorant of the fact that most of the drafters of the Constitution were agnostic, not Christians. Many of them, in fact, found Christianity repugnant, as they were keenly aware of how churches in Europe used Christianity to preach hate and ignorance, as well as how governments would use the churches in keeping the populace subdued.