The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Michael Zimmerman has newish blog on Huffington Post

Posted 15 April 2010 by Matt Young

Michael Zimmerman of Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Weekend fame tells us that his recent article The Nonscience of the Scientific Arguments against Evolution received the seventh-highest number of comments in the history of the Huffington Post. I was frankly very pleased to hear that his contributions are catching on so fast. Richard B. Hoppe commented on an earlier article here. Mr. Zimmerman's latest article is called The Danger of Ignoring Creationism. For those who don't already know, he explains, among other things, why the Discovery Institute is little more than a shill for the billionaire Howard Ahmanson, whom Mr. Zimmerman quotes as saying, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives." Creationism correlates with HIV denial, global-warming denial, and probably many other denials, not to mention Holocaust denial. It is thus easy to argue with Mr. Zimmerman's contention that creationism is essentially a religious war, not a controversy between science and religion. Why can't it be both? Picky, picky! The article is very well worth reading, and if you don't characterize it as scary or weird, you must not have paid enough attention. I receive Mr. Zimmerman's e-mails every week or so, and I look forward to a continuous stream of equally enlightening articles.

83 Comments

Lion IRC · 15 April 2010

I agree - why CANT it be both.
Evolution, such as it is currently understood, is "fully compatible" with my religious world view.
Lion (IRC)

Mike Elzinga · 15 April 2010

It is thus easy to argue with Mr. Zimmerman’s contention that creationism is essentially a religious war, not a controversy between science and religion. Why can’t it be both?

There has been a significant increase in the claim that making any compromise with “millions of years”, or secular science, or any tolerance of liberalism, is the reason that “Christianity” is becoming more and more ineffective against all the evils in the world. One of the primary sources of this seems to be coming from Ken Ham and his “State of the Nation” addresses as well as his “Answers Academy” indoctrinations. These indoctrinations are now taking place around the country (we had one locally fairly recently). Ham is particularly concerned at the acceptance of other religions and non-religions in our society. He seems to make it clear that it is Obama’s fault along with “Humanists” and the teaching of evolution. No doubt there are people with power and influence (e.g., the executives at Fox Noise) who are seeing an opportunity in stoking this to disrupt democratic processes and push a sectarian theocracy agenda. Zimmerman seems to be correct in noting that this is as much a war against other churches and other religions as it is against science and secular society. Some of the media are also giving these extremist views more credibility than they deserve to be given

Stanton · 15 April 2010

Lion IRC said: I agree - why CANT it be both. Evolution, such as it is currently understood, is "fully compatible" with my religious world view. Lion (IRC)
Aren't you the same guy who said that scientists can't be trusted because they were evil and godless, and that genome sequencing is evil because scientists developed it with the expressed intent to discriminate against people with genetic disorders?

DavidK · 15 April 2010

Speaking of the Dishonesty Institute and Casey Luskin, they're at it again at the Jet Propulsion Lab in California:

Discrimination Lawsuit Filed against NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab for Harassing and Demoting Supporter of Intelligent Design

They think they've found another martyr for their religious cause, oops, I mean "science" cause, ID is science, isn't it? Who said no?

DavidK · 15 April 2010

Sorry, here's the link at the dishonesty institute's site:
http://www.discovery.org/a/14501

James F · 15 April 2010

Stanton said:
Lion IRC said: I agree - why CANT it be both. Evolution, such as it is currently understood, is "fully compatible" with my religious world view. Lion (IRC)
Aren't you the same guy who said that scientists can't be trusted because they were evil and godless, and that genome sequencing is evil because scientists developed it with the expressed intent to discriminate against people with genetic disorders?
Good on him if he's found some enlightenment.

James F · 15 April 2010

DavidK said: Sorry, here's the link at the dishonesty institute's site: http://www.discovery.org/a/14501
It really is impossible to keep the crazies out 100% of the time, isn't it? Kurt Wise (although he at least admits he's in full denial of the evidence), Jonathan Wells, Marcus Ross. A friend of a friend got a PhD from Harvard's Division of Medical Sciences and went right to work for the Institute for Creation Research. Madness.

DavidK · 15 April 2010

I'm just seeing more & more of this pathetic case (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/discrimination_lawsuit_filed_a.html):

"Coppedge is suing JPL and Caltech for religious discrimination, harassment and retaliation; violation of his free speech rights; and wrongful demotion. Coppedge is represented by Los Angeles First Amendment attorney William J. Becker, Jr., of The Becker Law Firm."

“Intelligent design is not religion, and nothing in the DVDs that Coppedge shared deals with religion,” noted Luskin. “Even so, it’s unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on what they deem is religion.”

The case is the latest in a string of free-speech controversies surrounding allegations of public and private institutions punishing scientists and other experts for holding controversial views on evolution.

“Anyone who thinks that today’s culture of science allows an open discussion of evolution is sorely mistaken,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture. “When it comes to intelligent design, private and government-run agencies are suppressing free speech.”

A couple of points. Now how can Coppedge sue for religious discrimination if ID is not religion according to Luskin?

Second, West talks about open discussion, but as pointed out elsewhere on PT and by Zimmerman's articles, the DI NEVER, NEVER allows open discussion regarding their dishonesty institute's blog.

Torbach · 15 April 2010

DavidK said: “Intelligent design is not religion” “Coppedge is suing JPL and Caltech for religious discrimination” how can Coppedge sue for religious discrimination if ID is not religion according to Luskin?
The capacity for that paradox to experience legal representation perturbs my calm demeanor.

Torbach · 15 April 2010

bah, i meant to continue... if anything should have a Don't ask Don't tell policy it is the choice one makes as they openly cuddle and sooth themselves at the work place with flamboyant super-natural narcissism.

Lion IRC · 16 April 2010

Stanton said:
Lion IRC said: I agree - why CANT it be both. Evolution, such as it is currently understood, is "fully compatible" with my religious world view. Lion (IRC)
Aren't you the same guy who said that..blah blah blah... ---> insert strawman here <---
Nope. Lion (IRC) PS - Tempting to resort to bad memory ad homs but two wrongs dont make a right.

Hrafn · 16 April 2010

As well as Zimmermann's posts, Huffington Post has also recently put up this piece of mangled pseudoscientific garbage, Evolution Presupposes Design, So Why the Controversy?, by Ervin László. Catchphrase:
Design is a necessary assumption, because chance doesn't explain the facts.

Robert Byers · 16 April 2010

Yet no danger to ignoring this Zimmerman guy.
Accusations like this do not hurt creationism (s) but make our point about the incompetence of the opposition to take on our well studied and punchy intellectual arguments.
Surely this is desperation or someone trying to ride the wave of a rising creationist intellectual movement.
If opposition to ideas that attack Christian doctrines or God doctrines is to be wary of then how much more can we say evolution and company are attacking Christianity/God and truly make this a great issue of our times?!
This guy makes the case that creationism is a rising and important threat to existing concepts in the present establishment. A revolution here is surely taking place and its a exciting time to fight for its victory and for other results from the victory.
A victory being something like equal place. I don't mean yet the total destrction of evolutionism etc. Not yet.
So tell this dude to preach on the danger posed. To error, injustice and bad guys everywhere it is a danger.
The more publicity the better.

Dave Luckett · 16 April 2010

Keep on yammering about "well studied and punchy intellectual arguments", Byers, especially while demonstrating that you are incapable of writing a coherent English sentence. No doubt you convince yourself, considering that you don't handle reality well. But in fact, you only reveal yourself for what you are.

Frank J · 16 April 2010

Second, West talks about open discussion, but as pointed out elsewhere on PT and by Zimmerman’s articles, the DI NEVER, NEVER allows open discussion regarding their dishonesty institute’s blog.

— DavidK
West is exploiting a situation that has driven me up the wall for years. Every "kind" of pseudoscience makes baseless charges of "censorship," because they have no science of their own and know it. It's all they can do to get the attention of those who don't have the time or interest to see what they are really doing. But the reaction of their critics is what annoys me the most. Usually it's merely "we're not censoring anything." But it needs to be "we're not censoring anything, but you are."

Robin · 16 April 2010

"Coppedge is suing JPL and Caltech for religious discrimination, harassment and retaliation; violation of his free speech rights; and wrongful demotion. Coppedge is represented by Los Angeles First Amendment attorney William J. Becker, Jr., of The Becker Law Firm." “Intelligent design is not religion, and nothing in the DVDs that Coppedge shared deals with religion,” noted Luskin. “Even so, it’s unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on what they deem is religion.”
Isn't there an old joke about paradoxical denials that starts with, "But Your Honor..."? Seems Luskin is presenting his own version here.

raven · 16 April 2010

Mr. Zimmerman’s latest article is called The Danger of Ignoring Creationism. For those who don’t already know, he explains, among other things, why the Discovery Institute is little more than a shill for the billionaire Howard Ahmanson, whom Mr. Zimmerman quotes as saying, “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.”
Ahmanson is a Xian Dominionist and a follower of Rushdooney. Biblical law has dozens of capital offenses including adultery, violating Sunday, disobedient children, being gay, heresy, and wearing mixed fabrics. It is estimated that instituting biblical law in the USA would result in 1% of the population killing the other 99%, 297 million people sent to hell. I can't see that as being either popular or moral but genocide has never appealed to me. He also funds Exodus International, a US group whose last achievement was to almost push through a law in Uganda enabling genocide of anyone who is gay. These are not nice people. They hate the USA, secular democracy, the Enlightenment, western civilization, and of course, other xians and other religions. PS There is little evidence that biblical law ever de facto existed in the ancient world outside of what was written in the bible. The ancient Jewish society was never known to be any more bloodthirsty than any neighboring society. And the Rabbis have interpreted the laws in such a way that they are virtually unenforceable.

raven · 16 April 2010

Discrimination Lawsuit Filed against NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab for Harassing and Demoting Supporter of Intelligent Design They think they’ve found another martyr for their religious cause, oops, I mean “science” cause, ID is science, isn’t it? Who said no?
Religious Connections: Fired for acknowledging evolutionary ...Apr 12, 2010 ... Fired for acknowledging evolutionary science: Bruce Waltke ... Though he accepts a theistic version of evolution (acknowledging the reality ...
I'm sure that the Disreputable Institute ignored that Bruce Waltke, a noted theologian was fired by The Reformed Theological Seminary a few days ago. His crime was claiming that evolution and xianity are compatible.

Rolf Aalberg · 16 April 2010

James F said:
DavidK said: Sorry, here's the link at the dishonesty institute's site: http://www.discovery.org/a/14501
It really is impossible to keep the crazies out 100% of the time, isn't it? Kurt Wise (although he at least admits he's in full denial of the evidence), Jonathan Wells, Marcus Ross. A friend of a friend got a PhD from Harvard's Division of Medical Sciences and went right to work for the Institute for Creation Research. Madness.
Madness, or an easy and well paid job?

James F · 16 April 2010

Rolf Aalberg said:
James F said:
DavidK said: Sorry, here's the link at the dishonesty institute's site: http://www.discovery.org/a/14501
It really is impossible to keep the crazies out 100% of the time, isn't it? Kurt Wise (although he at least admits he's in full denial of the evidence), Jonathan Wells, Marcus Ross. A friend of a friend got a PhD from Harvard's Division of Medical Sciences and went right to work for the Institute for Creation Research. Madness.
Madness, or an easy and well paid job?
From what I can tell via our mutual friend, he's a true believer - there's not even the sense of disgracing his degree for a job.

Paul Burnett · 16 April 2010

Robert Byers said: Accusations like this do not hurt creationism (s) but make our point about the incompetence of the opposition to take on our well studied and punchy intellectual arguments.
"Punchy" is a good term for the anti-intellectual arguments attempting to support creationism. Glad to hear you use it. And "well studied" apologetics for religion have not won a single court case for the creationists yet. Are you even aware of the 2005 Dover case? How well did the creationists' "intellectual arguments" succeed with the US Supreme Court in the Aguillard case?
...a rising creationist intellectual movement.
Great Ghu - led by whom? Ken Ham? Kent Hovind? Casey Luskin?

Wheels · 17 April 2010

Hrafn said: As well as Zimmermann's posts, Huffington Post has also recently put up this piece of mangled pseudoscientific garbage, Evolution Presupposes Design, So Why the Controversy?, by Ervin László. Catchphrase:
Design is a necessary assumption, because chance doesn't explain the facts.
Urgh, the A-Field guy; and he quotes Hoyle's junkyard analogy too. Also, is HuffPo still put out those blog posts by David Kirby, trying to claim vaccines might have caused autism? Stuff like this is why I keep away from HuffPo. Good on them for having Zimmerman to challenge the anti-evolutionists, anyway.

Dave Luckett · 17 April 2010

raven said: And the Rabbis have interpreted the laws in such a way that they are virtually unenforceable.
Yes. Torah law sounds absolutely intransigent, with its "thou shalt nots" and "their blood is on their own heads", but there's an ancient and very wholesome Jewish tradition of bargaining with God. Yes, under Rabbinical law, there was such a thing as a death penalty, but the Rabbis also held that if any two were carried out in four generations, it was too many, and it was the community that was at fault.

Sojourner · 17 April 2010

Let us not forget the Jewish tradition of spilling another's blood (typically, an animal's blood) as a substitute sacrifice: that the sinner may continue to go on and worship God. You talk about cutting someone some slack, Gee Whiz . . . kill him instead of me and you and I, we'll be tight as ever, eh God? Now, that's a free pass. No eye for an eye in that one!

Sojourner · 17 April 2010

In the end, religion is a religious man's game. And I've never met a religious man yet that hasn't played the game in such a way that he doesn't end up the winner! Such a one-to-one correlation is clearly irrefutable proof of divine revelation. And anyone who doesn't agree is obviously not a religious man.

harold · 18 April 2010

Lion IRC
why CANT it be both. Evolution, such as it is currently understood, is “fully compatible” with my religious world view. Lion (IRC)
That's good to hear. I strongly support your right to live and believe as you see fit. I probably don't agree with your religion, and certainly support the right of others to dispute or even ridicule it (for the exact same reasons that I support your right to freely choose to follow it), but this is a free country (as are other countries you would most likely be posting from). I do recall your name as being associated with some weak attacks on the theory of evolution in the past. Although there could be two people with the same name, I take this in a more optimistic way. It seems likely that you were formerly under the incorrect impression that the theory of evolution had something to do with your religion. You investigated that possibility and gained enough knowledge to see otherwise. Congratulations.

Matt Young · 18 April 2010

Let us not forget the Jewish tradition of spilling another's blood (typically, an animal's blood) as a substitute sacrifice:
Can you provide documentation of that claim? I have never heard it before, and neither has a friend of mine who is a minor expert on the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, the ancient Israelites were forbidden to eat blood, so it would be bizarre if they were instructed to draw blood as a sacrifice. My first reaction was that the claim sounded as if it originated in some anti-Semitic canard, but maybe I was just reacting to the tone of the comment. At any rate, while searching around the Internet, I found this source, in which Geoff Dennis of the University of North Texas attributes the belief to "some forms of Christianity," not to Judaism. I don't really want to get into it, but Mr. Dennis discusses the verses that precede Lev. 17:11, "It is the blood, as life, that effects expiation," which is evidently the source of the belief. But according to Mr. Dennis, Jews do not interpret that verse or any other as implying blood sacrifice.

Dave Luckett · 18 April 2010

Current Jewish belief is that blood-sacrifice for expiation, as described in Leviticus, requires the ritual be carried out by a member of the Aaronic priesthood, correctly accoutred, in the Temple. Since neither the priesthood nor the Temple still exists, the whole business is not operative.

This is an example of what I mean: Torah law looks absolute. It isn't.

SWT · 18 April 2010

I'm not in my primary area of expertise here, my Old Testament mentions blood a fair number of times in, for example, Leviticus, mainly as an element for purification. This is supported by my JPS translation of Tanakh, so it's not an anti-Semitic addition. I haven't reviewed this in great detail, but I think that they used the blood of animals that were sacrificed in various rituals -- a portion of each animal was burned on the altar, and a portion went to the priests.

fnxtr · 18 April 2010

I always found it a bit odd that a supposedly transcendent (yet immanent and omnipotent) deity likes the smell of burnt flesh.

Sojourner · 18 April 2010

Can you provide documentation of that claim?
To the extent that I attributed to Judaism the religious concept of sacrificial death, I withdraw my careless remark and would ask that my comment be read as referring to "ancient religious customs" without any need to reference Judaism. Clearly, Abraham was knowledgeable about such ancient religious customs. When he was asked to sacrifice his son on the altar, he didn't ask what was meant by this new word, 'sacrifice.' Instead, he drew his knife to slay Isaac, but on the advice of another, he slew instead a nearby ram. I was referring to such animal sacrifices in my comment, and I should not have made specific reference to, and certainly intended no disrespect to, Judaism. As noted by someone else, I don't believe that ritualistic sacrifice has been practiced by any form of Judaism following destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Robert Byers · 19 April 2010

Paul Burnett said:
Robert Byers said: Accusations like this do not hurt creationism (s) but make our point about the incompetence of the opposition to take on our well studied and punchy intellectual arguments.
"Punchy" is a good term for the anti-intellectual arguments attempting to support creationism. Glad to hear you use it. And "well studied" apologetics for religion have not won a single court case for the creationists yet. Are you even aware of the 2005 Dover case? How well did the creationists' "intellectual arguments" succeed with the US Supreme Court in the Aguillard case?
...a rising creationist intellectual movement.
Great Ghu - led by whom? Ken Ham? Kent Hovind? Casey Luskin?
Relying on these minor court cases shows a bigger problem with your side. The whole censorship/expel game is coming under attack by increasing interested parties. There is no problem for creationism to win in the courts as the issue becomes a topic in public conversation. All creationism needs is better lawyers. We have the law on our side in reality. The law from the founders of America and the centuries since. In fact i have discussed myself why the present censorship is illegal or is illegal because its only one way. The issue is bigger then the straitjacket of the dover thing. Its about the freedom to seek and teach the truth on origins in public institutions. Creationism can't but win. Just more activity and agitation is needed.

Keelyn · 19 April 2010

Robert Byers said:
Paul Burnett said:
Robert Byers said: Accusations like this do not hurt creationism (s) but make our point about the incompetence of the opposition to take on our well studied and punchy intellectual arguments.
"Punchy" is a good term for the anti-intellectual arguments attempting to support creationism. Glad to hear you use it. And "well studied" apologetics for religion have not won a single court case for the creationists yet. Are you even aware of the 2005 Dover case? How well did the creationists' "intellectual arguments" succeed with the US Supreme Court in the Aguillard case?
...a rising creationist intellectual movement.
Great Ghu - led by whom? Ken Ham? Kent Hovind? Casey Luskin?
Relying on these minor court cases shows a bigger problem with your side. The whole censorship/expel game is coming under attack by increasing interested parties. There is no problem for creationism to win in the courts as the issue becomes a topic in public conversation. All creationism needs is better lawyers. We have the law on our side in reality. The law from the founders of America and the centuries since. In fact i have discussed myself why the present censorship is illegal or is illegal because its only one way. The issue is bigger then the straitjacket of the dover thing. Its about the freedom to seek and teach the truth on origins in public institutions. Creationism can't but win. Just more activity and agitation is needed.
Bayers, you are a pathetic delusional twit. Get over it and move on. Moron.

Keelyn · 19 April 2010

*Byers - excuse the typo.

Jesse · 19 April 2010

Robert Byers said:
Paul Burnett said:
Robert Byers said: Accusations like this do not hurt creationism (s) but make our point about the incompetence of the opposition to take on our well studied and punchy intellectual arguments.
"Punchy" is a good term for the anti-intellectual arguments attempting to support creationism. Glad to hear you use it. And "well studied" apologetics for religion have not won a single court case for the creationists yet. Are you even aware of the 2005 Dover case? How well did the creationists' "intellectual arguments" succeed with the US Supreme Court in the Aguillard case?
...a rising creationist intellectual movement.
Great Ghu - led by whom? Ken Ham? Kent Hovind? Casey Luskin?
Relying on these minor court cases shows a bigger problem with your side. The whole censorship/expel game is coming under attack by increasing interested parties. There is no problem for creationism to win in the courts as the issue becomes a topic in public conversation. All creationism needs is better lawyers. We have the law on our side in reality. The law from the founders of America and the centuries since. In fact i have discussed myself why the present censorship is illegal or is illegal because its only one way. The issue is bigger then the straitjacket of the dover thing. Its about the freedom to seek and teach the truth on origins in public institutions. Creationism can't but win. Just more activity and agitation is needed.
All creationism needs is some actual evidence to back it up. Since there is zero evidence for creationism, it will not win in court. It is religion. Evolution is not. End of story, you lose. Learn the 14th amendment. You and your wingnut political fellows have a very warped, revisionist view of history and law.

Alex H · 19 April 2010

Robert Byers said: Relying on these minor court cases shows a bigger problem with your side. The whole censorship/expel game is coming under attack by increasing interested parties. There is no problem for creationism to win in the courts as the issue becomes a topic in public conversation. All creationism needs is better lawyers. We have the law on our side in reality. The law from the founders of America and the centuries since. In fact i have discussed myself why the present censorship is illegal or is illegal because its only one way. The issue is bigger then the straitjacket of the dover thing. Its about the freedom to seek and teach the truth on origins in public institutions. Creationism can't but win. Just more activity and agitation is needed.
AND you can make a fortune working from home. Ask me how!

TomS · 19 April 2010

Jesse said: All creationism needs is some actual evidence to back it up.
What creationism needs, first of all, is something substantive. And then some effort, some evidence or reasoning to back it up. But as long as it ignores those first two steps, why should we expect any change?

Frank J · 19 April 2010

The whole censorship/expel game is coming under attack by increasing interested parties.

— Robert Byers
Yes, we are very interested in why anti-evolution activists, from young-earthers to common descent accepting old-lifers, want to censor the refutations of their arguments, especially from students who barely have enough time in science class to hear their catchy, but misleading sound bites, let alone real science. We are very interested in why they censor each other, and even themselves, then they are unable to support their mutually contradictory "theories." We are very interested in why, for each teacher who flunks by peddling pseudoscience instead of doing their job, there are probably dozens more who really are "expelled" for daring to teach only that which has earned the right to be taught.

Frank J · 19 April 2010

All creationism needs is some actual evidence to back it up.

— Jesse
In a way creationism has too much evidence. Depending on what evidence you remove from the context, you can "support" a young earth, old-earth-young-life, old-earth-progressive-creation, or even Behe's "virtual evolution." Or you can give up trying to support any of those mutually-contradictory "theories" and just pick-and-choose evidence to make evolution look "weak." What creationism does not have is what the leader of a major Christian religion ascribed to the evidence for evolution, and that's "convergence, neither sought, nor fabricated."

Stanton · 19 April 2010

So, tell us, how come you can not explain how Creationism is supposed to be a science?

Stanton · 19 April 2010

Frank J said:

All creationism needs is some actual evidence to back it up.

— Jesse
In a way creationism has too much evidence. Depending on what evidence you remove from the context, you can "support" a young earth, old-earth-young-life, old-earth-progressive-creation, or even Behe's "virtual evolution." Or you can give up trying to support any of those mutually-contradictory "theories" and just pick-and-choose evidence to make evolution look "weak." What creationism does not have is what the leader of a major Christian religion ascribed to the evidence for evolution, and that's "convergence, neither sought, nor fabricated."
Of course. Ultimately, all creationist "explanations" boil down to either "because I said so," or "because I said the Bible said so." Evidence? What creationist gives a damn about evidence? The only creationist who's honest about the situation is Kurt Wise, who had stated that he is neither willing or capable of doing science, as it would conflict with his evidence-free belief that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

DS · 19 April 2010

Byers wrote:

"The issue is bigger then the straitjacket of the dover thing. Its about the freedom to seek and teach the truth on origins in public institutions."

Right. Research laboratories, not public grade schools. That is where science is done. That is where theories are tested. Not by ten year olds who don't know what the hole in their butt is for. And guess what, that real research in those real laboratories has shown conclusively that evolution is the case. You lose. No matter how good your lawyer, she cannot change that simple fact. That is why there are no lawyers in science laboratories. Why don't you pay for a a good geneticist instead. Oh wait, ... never mind.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 19 April 2010

I have to say that I laughed out loud when I read this. Of course Byers has been delusional essentially from his first post, but this was beautiful. "All creationism needs is better lawyers." - No, creationism needs evidence. The fact that Byers claims that there has been NO legal case in which the lawyers for his side argued effectively is sour grapes. Is he really arguing that creationist lawyers (and by extension, the creationists who hired them) are that incompetent? At last, something we can agree on. "We have the law on our side in reality." - which is why they have lost every case, apparently. I'd like to see how Byers defines "reality". "Its about the freedom to seek and teach the truth on origins in public institutions." - sure, just don't teach religion as truth on the public dime. "Creationism can't but win." - Waterloo! "Just more activity and agitation is needed." - not, apparently, data or research.
Robert Byers said: Relying on these minor court cases shows a bigger problem with your side. The whole censorship/expel game is coming under attack by increasing interested parties. There is no problem for creationism to win in the courts as the issue becomes a topic in public conversation. All creationism needs is better lawyers. We have the law on our side in reality. The law from the founders of America and the centuries since. In fact i have discussed myself why the present censorship is illegal or is illegal because its only one way. The issue is bigger then the straitjacket of the dover thing. Its about the freedom to seek and teach the truth on origins in public institutions. Creationism can't but win. Just more activity and agitation is needed.

Matt Young · 19 April 2010

To the extent that I attributed to Judaism the religious concept of sacrificial death, I withdraw my careless remark and would ask that my comment be read as referring to "ancient religious customs" without any need to reference Judaism.
Thank you for the clarification. My apologies if I did not word my remark carefully enough; I had no intention of accusing you of anti-Semitism. I am still not convinced that Leviticus 17 demonstrates what people have said it does, but I also do not think it is worth any further discussion.

Matt Young · 19 April 2010

Bayers, [sic] you are a pathetic delusional twit. Get over it and move on. Moron.
Could we please keep this kind of rhetoric to a minimum, preferably 0? I do not relish another 300-400 comments discussing religion and evolution with people who understand neither.

Paul Burnett · 19 April 2010

A continuingly delusional Robert Byers said: There is no problem for creationism to win in the courts as the issue becomes a topic in public conversation.
Then why hasn't it won any court cases? "The public" continues to be amazingly scientifically illiterate, but that has no effect on court cases, as there are lots of smart judges, who can see right through the transparent fraud of creationism, which has no proof whatsoever.
All creationism needs is better lawyers.
Good luck. The problem for lawyers trying to defend creationism is there is nothing to show. The other side can easily a pattern of obfuscation and downright lying in support of creationism. As Judge Jones ruled about certain sworn witnesses' perjury in 2005, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the (Intelligent Design) Policy." Why do creationists lie under oath, Byers?
We have the law on our side in reality.
No. You. Don't. If you did, you would win in court.
The law from the founders of America and the centuries since.
Quote us that law, Byers. Chapter and verse. You can't, can you?

raven · 19 April 2010

Speaking of EXPELLED teachers and censorship by creationists, another secondary school teacher gets EXPELLED.
westforum.com: Mr. Tangarone, a 17-year veteran of the Weston school system, claims that a program he wanted to teach about Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln was rejected by the school administration because it involved teaching evolution -- the scientific theory that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. "I find it hard to believe that in this day and age that a teacher such as myself can be ordered to eliminate the teaching of Darwin's work and the theory of evolution," he said. deleted for length Awards Mr. Tangarone has taught for 33 years, 29 in gifted programs. He has won awards and fellowships for his TAG programs. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of Bridgeport, where he plans to continue teaching when he leaves Weston. “Having taught in five districts in the course of my career, I found the greatest rewards were in the delightful eyes and lighted looks of the pupils who crossed my classroom threshold,” he said.
Another secondary school teacher forced out for the crime of teaching science, reality, and evolution to kids. Which is their job. This happens a lot at the secondary school level and no one really keeps track. I keep track at the college/university level. Far more are simply intimidated because they want to earn money to eat and sleep indoors. Evolution commonly isn't taught in large areas of the south central USA despite the state standards. That is two teachers forced out in two weeks. Noted scholar Dr. Bruce Waltke was fired from The Reformed Theological Seminary last week for the crime of claiming that xianity and evolution were compatible. They got off easy. A few hundred years ago they would have been burned at the stake or hung. The only thing preventing the creationists from doing so today are the police, courts, prosecuting attorneys, prisons, and the US armed forces. Democracy can be an obstacle for certain ideologies.

DavidK · 19 April 2010

Why these cases are so important is that they distract from the science itself and go down Johnson's back alley regarding freedom of speech, that is the thrust of the creationist's arguments against evolution. Evidence is missing, but then again they aren't arguing evidence anymore, it's freedom of speech to say whatever they choose in the classroom. In regard to evidence, the creationist (fundamentalist christian/muslim/jew/etc.) define evidence differently than the scientist. Put plainly, to the fundamentalist, "believing is seeing," and here the bible , torah, koran suffice, whereas to the scientist, "seeing is believing," i.e., what is actually observed in nature. So asking for creationists to present evidence will get nowhere. Again, that's why this focus on free speech, no evidence is needed, just the red herring argument creationists use to gain public support and trash science.

Jesse · 19 April 2010

DavidK said: Why these cases are so important is that they distract from the science itself and go down Johnson's back alley regarding freedom of speech, that is the thrust of the creationist's arguments against evolution. Evidence is missing, but then again they aren't arguing evidence anymore, it's freedom of speech to say whatever they choose in the classroom. In regard to evidence, the creationist (fundamentalist christian/muslim/jew/etc.) define evidence differently than the scientist. Put plainly, to the fundamentalist, "believing is seeing," and here the bible , torah, koran suffice, whereas to the scientist, "seeing is believing," i.e., what is actually observed in nature. So asking for creationists to present evidence will get nowhere. Again, that's why this focus on free speech, no evidence is needed, just the red herring argument creationists use to gain public support and trash science.
Don't forget about "academic freedom," which the creationists are so found of.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 19 April 2010

Raven, can you give a better link than that? I tried it and got an Arabic language website. I'm especially horrified by this story, because it's in a town in CT next to the one that I grew up in, and at least when I lived there (30 years ago) was a pretty good school system
raven said: Speaking of EXPELLED teachers and censorship by creationists, another secondary school teacher gets EXPELLED.
westforum.com: ...

Steve Taylor · 19 April 2010

Try searching on Tangarone and Darwin
it got me

http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/thewestonforum/news/local/55349-mark-tangarone-tag-teacher-leaves-over-evolution-flap.html

Steve Taylor · 19 April 2010

Try searching on Tangarone and Darwin
it got me

http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/thewestonforum/news/local/55349-mark-tangarone-tag-teacher-leaves-over-evolution-flap.html

eric · 19 April 2010

Gvl,

Try here (primary) or here (secondary).

Jesse · 19 April 2010

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Raven, can you give a better link than that? I tried it and got an Arabic language website. I'm especially horrified by this story, because it's in a town in CT next to the one that I grew up in, and at least when I lived there (30 years ago) was a pretty good school system
raven said: Speaking of EXPELLED teachers and censorship by creationists, another secondary school teacher gets EXPELLED.
westforum.com: ...
How do you think that I feel? I live next to Texas!

raven · 19 April 2010

Raven, can you give a better link than that? I tried it and got an Arabic language website.
Why Evolution Is True The WestonForum.com, a website for the community of Weston, Connecticut, ... The school superintendent denies that Tangarone's resignation is about evolution, .... Talk about discouraging students from believing in creationism… ... whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/?archives-list=1 - Cached
Oops. That is because I misspelled the website. The primary source is westonforum.com, article by Patricia Gay. It has been discussed all over the web, whyevolutionistrue by J. Coyne among others.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 19 April 2010

Thanks to all for the links. Using the magic of Google I found them all.

Sojourner · 19 April 2010

I would caution anyone about using the legal system as justification for what to believe; in the end, the legal system is nothing but human beings making choices, and any good review of the law through history includes many instances where the human beings involved got it wrong -- sometimes innocently, sometimes not so innocently.

Jesse · 19 April 2010

Sojourner said: I would caution anyone about using the legal system as justification for what to believe; in the end, the legal system is nothing but human beings making choices, and any good review of the law through history includes many instances where the human beings involved got it wrong -- sometimes innocently, sometimes not so innocently.
There are still some of those laws/rulings that we're dealing with today, but that is an entirely different and offtrack discussion. There are even some court rulings where the legal justification was piss poor but the results were not. However, the 1st Amendment rulings that I have gone through certainly did not get it wrong. The courts tried their best to be in line with the original intent and the 14th amendment. They have set down some guidelines that should be followed. People like Byers want to have their cake and they want to be able to eat it too. They want evolution banned because it hurts their little religious feelings, but at the same time, they want their religion taught in class. They don't give a crap about any of us sinners who look at the world more objectively than they do. Some of the measures that they take are quite Orwellian too. Part of their MO is to control information as a means of controlling the religious beliefs of th populous. Texas stepped it up a couple of notches to really match 1984.

He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.

Thomas Jefferson anybody?

Sojourner · 19 April 2010

It's not just "a marketplace of ideas" when social standing, political influence and economic advantage are also at stake. I think it would be great if we could reason ourselves to a common understanding, but there is a part of me that thinks such a notion is morbidly naive. How can reason emerge from a cauldron of emotion, social networks and opportunistic political alliances?

Wheels · 20 April 2010

Sojourner said: It's not just "a marketplace of ideas" when social standing, political influence and economic advantage are also at stake. I think it would be great if we could reason ourselves to a common understanding, but there is a part of me that thinks such a notion is morbidly naive. How can reason emerge from a cauldron of emotion, social networks and opportunistic political alliances?
How is that different from society as a whole?

Sojourner · 20 April 2010

I guess I'm taken by surprise at the inroads being made by right-wing religious zealots. So many people seem so willing to cling to their traditional beliefs at any cost, that reason, science and understanding take a back seat to Fox news, tea bag parties and radio talk show hosts. It all seems so backwards to me. I enjoy pandasthumb for the reasonableness of the thoughts being expressed here, but I can't help but think that in the end, reason may not win the day. It looks at times as if our society is headed for more Crusades and a return to the Spanish Inquisition.

Lion IRC · 20 April 2010

Hi Sojourner,
The Spanish Inquisition failed.
You cannot "convert" someone by force, violence and aggression.

Tomas de Torquemada learned that.

His opponents argued, (quite logically in my opinion,) that the very need to use force was itself an admission that the ideology was so flawed that it would never be freely accepted.

And if a person will not freely renounce their former ideology, then getting them to do so by force or aggression simply highlights the fact that people will lie if you beat them hard enough.

Some however, hold an idea to be so important and founded in truth, that they are willing to go to their deaths in Nero's Stadium rather than submit to earthly/secular authority.

Lion (IRC)

John Kwok · 20 April 2010

Hey Booby - Why don't you just shut up and put your words down on paper:
Alex H said:
Robert Byers said: Relying on these minor court cases shows a bigger problem with your side. The whole censorship/expel game is coming under attack by increasing interested parties. There is no problem for creationism to win in the courts as the issue becomes a topic in public conversation. All creationism needs is better lawyers. We have the law on our side in reality. The law from the founders of America and the centuries since. In fact i have discussed myself why the present censorship is illegal or is illegal because its only one way. The issue is bigger then the straitjacket of the dover thing. Its about the freedom to seek and teach the truth on origins in public institutions. Creationism can't but win. Just more activity and agitation is needed.
AND you can make a fortune working from home. Ask me how!
With any luck, you can be as prolific a published author as my "favorite" Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer, one William Dembski. The last time I checked, I think he had published more books than E. O. Wilson, Niles Eldredge, Genie Scott and Frank McCourt combined since 2000. What an amazing example of literary fecundity, don't you think?

John Kwok · 20 April 2010

Alex H -

That last comment of mine was of course addressed to everyone's favorite living cretinist Mexican pinata, Booby Byers.

Sincerely,

John

Alex H · 21 April 2010

John Kwok said: Alex H - That last comment of mine was of course addressed to everyone's favorite living cretinist Mexican pinata, Booby Byers. Sincerely, John
No problem, John. I was just making a joke about how closely his statement resembled the kind of things I find in my spam filter.

Ichthyic · 21 April 2010

The Spanish Inquisition failed. You cannot "convert" someone by force, violence and aggression.

that was not the function, nor is it, of the Inquisition then, or now.

then it was used as a terrorist device in order to maintain the political clout of the Catholic Church.

Now, it is used as a strongarm device (rarely needed, but still exists) in order to kaibash outspoken internal critics of current dogma.

as far as converting by force... you might want to go back in time and take that up with the Romans.

Some however, hold an idea to be so important and founded in truth, that they are willing to go to their deaths in Nero’s Stadium rather than submit to earthly/secular authority.

we should go back to throwing idiots xians to the lions, just so they can see what REAL persecution is like, instead of this Drama Queen act they like to put on for their own benefit these days.

DavidK · 21 April 2010

A little history about the inquisition:

On July 21, 1542, Pope Paul III established the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, whose task it was "to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith and to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines". It served as the final court of appeal in trials of heresy and served as an important part of the Counter-Reformation (remember Galileo, et. al?).

It was renamed the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1908 by Pope Saint Pius X.

Renamed again changed to Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on December 7, 1965. In 1983, "Sacred" was dropped, so its current name is Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

The current Pope was, prior to his elevation to infallible popeness, Cardinal Ratzinger, who headed the CDF (i.e., the office of the inquisition).

Robert Byers · 22 April 2010

Paul Burnett said:
A continuingly delusional Robert Byers said: There is no problem for creationism to win in the courts as the issue becomes a topic in public conversation.
Then why hasn't it won any court cases? "The public" continues to be amazingly scientifically illiterate, but that has no effect on court cases, as there are lots of smart judges, who can see right through the transparent fraud of creationism, which has no proof whatsoever.
All creationism needs is better lawyers.
Good luck. The problem for lawyers trying to defend creationism is there is nothing to show. The other side can easily a pattern of obfuscation and downright lying in support of creationism. As Judge Jones ruled about certain sworn witnesses' perjury in 2005, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the (Intelligent Design) Policy." Why do creationists lie under oath, Byers?
We have the law on our side in reality.
No. You. Don't. If you did, you would win in court.
The law from the founders of America and the centuries since.
Quote us that law, Byers. Chapter and verse. You can't, can you?
I can. Chapter and verse. The right to freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in all things of American life. including education. Now if a law is brought up about origin issues and schools then the law is again on the good guys side. The law(as its wrongly used at the present time in these issues) was made by a very Protestant/Puritan Yankee/Southern peoples and no and never did they put in their constitution anything to be constructed to ban God or genesis from subjects in schools touching on origins. There is no law against creationism and there is the law that allows creationism. These little obscure court cases have nothing to do with the real issue and law(or no law) touching on these matters. They are minor skirmishes before minor battles. The whole subject just needs to gain in public awareness and the right court cases will come along with right principals at stake.

Dave Luckett · 22 April 2010

Well, Byers, since you can't quote any law, let's try you on your own delusional grounds. "Freedom of thought, speech and inquiry in all things of American life", you say, is the law. You're wrong, of course, but let's operate as if you weren't.

Let us leave aside the fact that as a Canadian, you have no right whatsoever to instruct the Courts of the United States in how they shall interpret the law of the United States. Let us also leave aside the fact that speech, at least, is not unrestricted, as Oliver Wendell Holmes demonstrated, and that thought and inquiry is restricted by no law whatsoever. (Even you, Byers, delusional as you are, may think whatever you please, and make whatever inquiries you like, just as we may regard you as unhinged and risible - for we partake of the same freedom.)

No, let us only consider whether you are in any way constrained in your thought, speech or enquiry by an (interpretation of) a law that states that creationism is a religious doctrine, and hence cannot be taught as science in the public schools. The plain and obvious fact is that you are not in any way constrained.

Now, you will probably argue (or you would, were you capable of rational thought) that science teachers are in some way constrained by such an interpretation of the law. Well, there are teachers who teach like John Freshwater, and who would like to slip creationism in as if it were science. But the plain fact is that creationism is not science. It is a religious dogma. Such teachers, by presenting a dogma as science, are teaching falsehood. No teacher has the right to teach falsehood. There is no such right, much in the way that freedom of speech does not licence a person to stand up and bellow "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Hence, even in your delusional Universe, Byers, where quoting "chapter and verse" of laws that exist only in your imagination, and holding it to be true because Puritans in the seventeenth century probably thought so, and the court decisions of the twentieth and twenty-first don't exist, you're totally wrong, Byers.

vel · 22 April 2010

"billionaire Howard Ahmanson, whom Mr. Zimmerman quotes as saying, “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.” Always amusing when they say this and ignore the bible when convenient, like that part of how a rich man can't get into heaven and how one should give away all of ones's wealth and follow Jesus.

stevaroni · 22 April 2010

Robert Byers said: I can. Chapter and verse. The right to freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in all things of American life. including education.

Hmm. I googled that exact phrase and got... No results found for "The right to freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in all things of American life." So, um, apparently, you're not actually quoting any actual law. You're just waving your hands again. If you actually do have the law, please quote it. You know, like this...

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et al. v. Aguillard et al., 482 U.S. 578 (1987) McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982) John Hendren v. Glenden Campbell, MARION SUPERIOR COURT, NO. 5 CAUSE NO. S577-0139 (1977) Joseph C. Daniel, Jr., et al., v. Hugh Waters, Chairman, Textbook Commission of the State of Tennessee, et al. 515 F.2d 485 (6th Cir. 1975) Alton J. Lemon, et al. v. David H. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, et al.; John R. Earley, et al. v. John DiCenso, et al.; William P. Robinson, Jr. v. John DiCenso, et al. 403 U.S. 602 (1971) Susan Epperson et al. v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)

Now that would be "chapter and verse". Oh... hey, now, ... wouldja lookit that... Once you line up all the court cases on the subject, they all go against your side, Byers. Now who'da thunk it?

Robin · 23 April 2010

vel said: "billionaire Howard Ahmanson, whom Mr. Zimmerman quotes as saying, “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.” Always amusing when they say this and ignore the bible when convenient, like that part of how a rich man can't get into heaven and how one should give away all of ones's wealth and follow Jesus.
To be fair, the bible stories indicate that it is more difficult for a rich man to get into heaven, but not impossible. The catch is what motivates the person to be rich and how the person feels about money in general. If it rules his life, then he will find it hard to follow Jesus or let God rule. Ditto for anything man can become attached to: cars, sex, drugs, marriage, procreation, booze, self, work, people, power, philosophy, religion, and even life itself. Basically put, anything that one can't just walk from even with some difficulty and regret is a burden and focus preventing a person from achieving real fulfillment.

Larry Gilman · 23 April 2010

Original post says in part: "Creationism correlates with HIV denial, global-warming denial, and probably many other denials, not to mention Holocaust denial."

That's a pretty heavy speculation to lay down, that there about Holocaust denial, on the strength of a mere "probably."

Got data? If not, aren't the facts about the various denialisms that beset us bad enough without employing the Holocaust as a speculative point-scoring name-drop?

phantomreader42 · 23 April 2010

Larry Gilman said: Original post says in part: "Creationism correlates with HIV denial, global-warming denial, and probably many other denials, not to mention Holocaust denial." That's a pretty heavy speculation to lay down, that there about Holocaust denial, on the strength of a mere "probably." Got data? If not, aren't the facts about the various denialisms that beset us bad enough without employing the Holocaust as a speculative point-scoring name-drop?
There was a persistent, frantically morphing and sockpuppeting creationist troll here for years who was also a Holocaust denier. Oddly enough, he happened to be named Larry. I forget how to spell his last name. Strangely, being a Holocaust denier never stopped him from blaming Darwin for the Holocaust, which he said didn't happen. He went to great lengths to earn the name "Larry Farfromsane". On top of that I personally consider the creationist obsession with blaming Darwin for the Holocaust akin to Holocaust denial itself, as while they admit the event happened they deny and distort the actual reasons for it, for example totally ignoring the long history of christian anti-semitism.

Sojourner · 23 April 2010

The catch is what motivates the person to be rich and how the person feels about money in general.
Excellent sleight of hand. Bravo! Wealthy man / poor man, now you see it, switcheroo to motivations and feelings, now you don't see it. WOW. You should play Vegas.

bob · 24 April 2010

You all ought to read the original article re: HIV and evolution. It says nothing that Mr. Zimmerman claims.

Robert Byers · 25 April 2010

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: I can. Chapter and verse. The right to freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in all things of American life. including education.

Hmm. I googled that exact phrase and got... No results found for "The right to freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in all things of American life." So, um, apparently, you're not actually quoting any actual law. You're just waving your hands again. If you actually do have the law, please quote it. You know, like this...

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et al. v. Aguillard et al., 482 U.S. 578 (1987) McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982) John Hendren v. Glenden Campbell, MARION SUPERIOR COURT, NO. 5 CAUSE NO. S577-0139 (1977) Joseph C. Daniel, Jr., et al., v. Hugh Waters, Chairman, Textbook Commission of the State of Tennessee, et al. 515 F.2d 485 (6th Cir. 1975) Alton J. Lemon, et al. v. David H. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, et al.; John R. Earley, et al. v. John DiCenso, et al.; William P. Robinson, Jr. v. John DiCenso, et al. 403 U.S. 602 (1971) Susan Epperson et al. v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)

Now that would be "chapter and verse". Oh... hey, now, ... wouldja lookit that... Once you line up all the court cases on the subject, they all go against your side, Byers. Now who'da thunk it?
If you and others are making your case that Americans are not free in inquiry, speech, and everything of thought then go ahead. You will lose. Yet you must indeed say this. Freedom of thought/speech means the government can not impose censorship in the peoples institutions. Today in schools etc there is censorship of the true, historic, and popular convictions of origins from God or/and Genesis. The courts cases are a poor lot indeed. They are just minor skirmishes in obscure circles. The great case of creationism in the schools is yet to come. I am confident that freedom will prevail in the end. if origins is a subject then all sides that the people want must be presented in equal measure. There is no law that bans just the creationist side from the founders of America. Its an absurdity of the 1960's. The state can not by teaching evolution and by banning creationism be said to be nuetral on matters of religion. This idea being the origin of the censorship. You just can't find in the Yankee/Southern Protestant peoples anything in the constitution that bans God/Genesis in schools. In fact they would of banned any opposition to same. Creationism just needs to become more organized in taking on the dumb ideas iused to bann freedom or knowledge in schools. Well done arguements will prevail with the people and with honest smart judges. Of coarse thats a problem because today they are picked because of identity and so not even close to worthy able real judges.

fnxtr · 26 April 2010

Okay, I know, he's over the rainbow crazy, and he's Canadian.

Correlation != causation.

It's not our fault.

Robin · 26 April 2010

Sojourner said:
The catch is what motivates the person to be rich and how the person feels about money in general.
Excellent sleight of hand. Bravo! Wealthy man / poor man, now you see it, switcheroo to motivations and feelings, now you don't see it. WOW. You should play Vegas.
Not aware of any slight of hand on this; the words are pretty specific even after copious rewrites and edits. I may not be a Christian at this point in my life, but I do know the history and culture pertained to in the bible and what the verses mean in most cases.

eric · 26 April 2010

Robert Byers said: You just can't find in the Yankee/Southern Protestant peoples anything in the constitution that bans God/Genesis in schools.
Because as all Real AmericansTM know, those are the only people that count. And we aren't too sure about them Yankees.

amyc · 17 May 2010

eric said:
Robert Byers said: You just can't find in the Yankee/Southern Protestant peoples anything in the constitution that bans God/Genesis in schools.
Because as all Real AmericansTM know, those are the only people that count. And we aren't too sure about them Yankees.
What does yankee/southern mean? When the constitution was written, anyone from any of the states was considered a yankee by the british. It wasn't until we expanded and actually had a "south" that the states became more divided and began referring to each other as "yankee" or "southern."

Jesse · 17 May 2010

Robert Byers said: You just can't find in the Yankee/Southern Protestant peoples anything in the constitution that bans God/Genesis in schools. In fact they would of banned any opposition to same. Creationism just needs to become more organized in taking on the dumb ideas iused to bann freedom or knowledge in schools. Well done arguements will prevail with the people and with honest smart judges. Of coarse thats a problem because today they are picked because of identity and so not even close to worthy able real judges.
Except for the fact that it, is you know, respecting the establishment of your religion, and that little establishment clause applies to states and political subdivisions thereof via the due process clause 14th Amendment. The creationist propensity to outright ignore what is right in front of their eyes only contributes to little creationists growing up, leaving the church and not becoming big creationists.

Stanton · 17 May 2010

Jesse said:
Robert Byers said: You just can't find in the Yankee/Southern Protestant peoples anything in the constitution that bans God/Genesis in schools. In fact they would of banned any opposition to same. Creationism just needs to become more organized in taking on the dumb ideas iused to bann freedom or knowledge in schools. Well done arguements will prevail with the people and with honest smart judges. Of coarse thats a problem because today they are picked because of identity and so not even close to worthy able real judges.
Except for the fact that it, is you know, respecting the establishment of your religion, and that little establishment clause applies to states and political subdivisions thereof via the due process clause 14th Amendment. The creationist propensity to outright ignore what is right in front of their eyes only contributes to little creationists growing up, leaving the church and not becoming big creationists.
Please remember that we're dealing with a self-proclaimed Canadian who thinks that the 1st Amendment of the United States' Constitution says that it's actually illegal to teach Evolution or any other science in a science classroom because science conflicts with his own, personal religious bigotries.