Mt. Vernon: An open letter to a school board candidate

Posted 4 November 2011 by Richard B. Hoppe

Mt. Vernon, Ohio, as most PT readers know, has been the site of three years of legal maneuvering over John Freshwater. As a consequence of that, several creationists are running for school board here. There are three vacancies with six candidates, including two incumbents who voted to terminate Freshwater. One candidate is Steve Kelly, an official with the local Salvation Army. Kelly is obviously a creationist. In an email response to a questioner, he wrote

I do not believe that the opening chapters of the book of Genesis belong in a science classroom. I do, however, believe that there is considerable scientific evidence that challenges the assumptions of the old-earth/evolutionary model. There is also significant scientific evidence for which the theory of an intelligent designer seems to fit the evidence better than random chance over a lengthy period of time. (I will be happy to cite some examples if you so desire.) Our students deserve to have all theories of the origin of the world and species presented, along with evidence for and against each theory. (Quotes from religious texts do not constitute "evidence".) All presentations should be consistent with the Scientific Method. Students can then decide for themselves which evidence seems more convincing. This is teaching our children to be independent thinkers rather than just absorbers of official dogma. That said, the School Board has no right to abridge or abrogate any curricular requirements set by the State of Ohio. Where requirements exist, I will , if elected, follow the law.

That last sentence is all well and good, but the preceding two paragraphs are real problematic. So another person pressed Kelly about those "examples." In response Kelly wrote

Here is a link to a page at Conservapedia.com. While I do not necessarily endorse everything on that website, this is a helpful compilation of counterexamples to an old earth. See all of the references at the bottom of the page for source material. > > http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth

Gack! So I was forced to respond to Kelly's claim in an open letter first published on Facebook (Parts 2-4 are in the comments to Part 1: Facebook posting limits and formatting regularly defeats me). I'll reproduce that open letter below the fold with very light editing to correct a couple of typos and more substantial editing to correct an error.

An open letter to Steve Kelly Dear Mr. Kelly: In correspondence and conversations with several members of Concerned Mount Vernon City School District Citizens you have claimed that there is "considerable scientific evidence" against the proposition that the earth is old and that this purported evidence should be shown to students in the Mt. Vernon schools. You made that assertion, in one form or another, to Michelle Mood, Kent Woodward Ginther, and Joshua Ganz. In support of that claim you directed Joshua Ganz to a Conservapedia article on alleged counterexamples to an old earth. A desirable goal for education is to produce critical thinkers, students who have the cognitive skills and resources to evaluate claims about the way the world works. So I thought I'd provide you with an example of critical thinking about the purported evidence to which you directed Joshua. This email is long, over 2,500 words, but I hope you'll read it carefully since it directly addresses your claims about scientific evidence contradicting an old earth and your expressed plans for the schools here. Please see my request concerning distribution at the end of this email. Who I am: First, a little about me so you know the background from which I write. I have undergraduate degrees in anthropology and psychology and a doctorate in what would now be called cognitive science, an amalgam of cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and computer science, with a fair dose of philosophy of science on the side. I have worked in science and techology for 50 years, starting in the aerospace and defense industry (the 1960s with the U.S. Navy, Control Data Corporation, and Honeywell's Systems & Research Center); Kenyon College (professor of psychology in the 1970s and 1980s); and private industry (the most recent 20 years). For the last 20 years I have been directly involved in designing and building computer models of evolutionary processes in an applied context, and I have twice taught a course on evolutionary modeling at Kenyon College as a Visiting Professor of Biology. I also led a seminar on the history of the evolution/creationism controversy at Kenyon a couple of years ago. I am currently an Affiliated Scholar in Biology at Kenyon. I first wrote on the evolution/creationism controversy in 1987 for the Committees of Correspondence on Evolution Education (7 published essays). Over the years I have read virtually all of the major creationist and intelligent design works, ranging from early "scientific" creationism like Morris and Whitcomb's "The Genesis Flood", Morris's "Scientific Creationism", and Duane Gish's "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" to recent intelligent design like Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution," William Dembski's "No Free Lunch" and Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell." I daresay I've read more creationist and intelligent design material than have most creationists. My expertise in science ranges from professional level (cognitive science, evolutionary modeling) to well informed layman (paleontology, geology, population genetics, etc.), to interested layman (cosmology, astrobiology, etc.). I have access to the professional research literature across the various scientific disciplines. So I deem myself reasonably well qualified to critically evaluate many scientific claims. Conservapedia Article Introduction: The Conservapedia article to which you referred Joshua Ganz is a listing of 37 purported counterexamples to the proposition that the earth is very old. (It says it has 38 counterexamples, but I count only 37 numbered specific claims.) You told Joshua that the references at the bottom of that page constitute the source material for your claim that there is evidence against an old earth. I haven't the time to analyze all of the claims on the Conservapedia page, so I'll use several examples to illustrate what a genuine critical thinker would do with those claims. First, the second paragraph of the Conservapedia article claims that "The motivation for atheists to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from God's immediate presence, and to turn them away from Jesus Christ. Also, atheists are motivated, and biased, by the fact that their evolutionist theories require the world to be an implausible billions of years old." A well-informed critical thinker would immediately know that the writer of the article is ignorant of the history of geology. As any competent historian of geology would tell you, the old earth hypothesis was originated mainly by Christians (many of them clergymen) in the 18th and 19th centuries. See, for example, this brief history of conceptions of the age of the earth. Those Christians came to that conclusion based on the evidence, not as a pre-conceived view, and they did so well before Darwin published--it was not proposed to allow time for evolution to have occurred. In fact, not a few of those who proposed an old earth of geological evidence did not accept Darwin's theory of biological evolution. Their old-earth geology was independent of their view of biological evolution. Scientists who are [Christian] believers from a wide range of Christian denominations, ranging from members of mainstream denominations through evangelical Christians, accept an old earth. Even Michael Behe, a leading proponent of so-called "intelligent design," accepts an old earth and accepts common descent of all species including humans. Conservapedia's framing of this issue as atheism vs. Christianity is a serious misrepresentation unless one classifies as heretics those Christians, scientists and lay people, who accept an old earth and biological evolution. Footnote 1 to the introductory paragraphs of the Conservapedia article reads "Most of the "evidence" for an Old Earth is based on claims that lack testability, as in radiometric dating, and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in a court of law." Again, there is no reference to the scientific literature: this claim sits there by itself, unsupported. And it is false. For a good lay-friendly overview of radiometric dating see Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens. There you will learn why the Conservapedia claim about radiometric dating is false. Radiometric dating is eminently testable and passes those tests with ease. So right from the beginning, a critical reader of the Conservapedia article would learn that its very first claims are not supported by reference to the scientific literature and are in fact false. It ignores the history of geology and misrepresents an important scientific methodology for measuring the age of the earth. That should induce some skepticism about the rest of the claims in that article. However, I will persevere for a while. The Specific Conservapedia Claims: Of the 37 purported counterexamples in the article, 13 have no references at all. For example, claim #6 under Astronomy says "The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these is too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years." No citation to the professional literature of solar physics is provided. However, a quick search of Google Scholar, which indexes a good deal of the professional scientific literature, yields 18,800 hits on [hydrogen helium ratio sun age]. But the Conservapedia article makes no reference to any of the scientific articles available. The reader has no idea what the scientific basis of the Conservapedia claim might be. It's a naked claim, bereft of any scientific support. I won't spend time assessing the claim here, but will only note that while there is extensive scientific research on the topic, the Conservapedia article doesn't bother to even acknowledge its existence. A dozen more of the purported counterexamples are similarly bereft of support, and so the critical reader will regard them with some suspicion. Just a little research shows some of them to be false. For example, counterexample #5 under Geology reads "The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place." Baloney. We know that natural aquifers provide filtration of underground water. The very first hit in a Google search on [aquifer sand filtering natural] refers to the natural filtration of sediments and contaminants, and the 6th hit, from Idaho State University's Museum of Natural History, explains how filtration works in natural aquifers. Evaluating this false counterexample took me less than 5 minutes. Consider another supposed counterexample from Geology, #13: "The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years." Again, a few minutes of research shows that claim to be false. A Google search on [isotopes half life table] produces this site on the first page, which lists all isotopes with a half life greater than 1,000 years. As one can plainly see, some isotopes have half lives in the billions of years or more and are also relatively common. For example, Uranium-238 has a half life of about 4.5 billion years, meaning that since the birth of the earth 4.5 billion years ago only half of the original U-238 has decayed. Similarly, Rubidium-87, Thorium-232, and 21 more radioactive isotopes have half lives greater than 4.75 billion years and are relatively common. Isotopes with half lives in the billions of years have persisted plenty long enough to continue to heat the earth's interior--roughly 80% of the earth's heat is produced that way (that took me less than a minute to find). Once again, the unsupported Conservapedia claim is shown to be false and it took less than 2 minutes to find the data that shows that it is false. By this time a critical reader should have some considerable skepticism about the rest of the claims in the Conservapedia article, since the first few I examined were so easily shown to be false. But I'll persevere a bit longer. Consider an alleged counterexample that does cite some real science. Claim #1 under Astronomy reads "The Moon's orbit is a very strong counterexample: the moon is receding from the Earth at a rate~~[3]~~ [2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the Moon being as they are today." Footnote 3 2 refers us to an article on a NASA web site. It's not really a scientific paper in the professional peer reviewed literature, but it is a little better than no reference to science at all. And sure enough, that article does say that the Moon is currently receding from the earth at 3.8 centimeters per year. But is that a counterexample to an old earth? No. The moon is currently about 38.5 billion centimeters from the earth. A few moments with a calculator shows that at a rate of recession of 3.8 cm/year extrapolated back linearly, 4 billion years ago the Moon would have been 23.3 billion centimeters from the earth, 60.5% of its present distance. That would create one condition that the Conservapedia articles claims it would--tidal catastrophes, or at least massively impressive tides. But the Conservapedia article and the NASA article it references provide no support for the orbital instability claim. And a few minutes more spent searching produces a nice introduction to the dynamics of the earth-moon tidal system and the age of the earth that debunks the Conservapedia claim. Another claim down, this time in less than 10 minutes. Added in edit: I screwed up the footnote numbers in the original letter. Footnote 3 in the next sentence of the Conservapedia claim refers us to a recent article in arXiv which describes research on changes in the eccentricity of the moon's orbit. However, the changes are excruciatingly far below the magnitude necessary to support the Conservapedia claim that "... the moon's orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability,[3] which further disproves the theory of an Old Earth." The measured anomaly in eccentricity amounts to 3.5 mm/yr^-1 in perigee and apogee distance. To give that some scale, it's about 1/8 of an inch. The average distance to the moon is 237,700 miles, or 16,961,472,000 inches. So the anomaly is 1/8 in 16,961,472,000 inches, or about one part in 136 billion. Even measuring the effect would have been impossible before laser reflectors were placed on the moon during the Apollo program. There is apparently no accepted explanation for the tiny change in eccentricity yet, but in any case it is so small as to render the Conservapedia claim of orbital instability sufficient to counter the old earth proposition ludicrous. By now the critical reader should be more than skeptical of the Conservapedia claims, since those we've examined so far have all turned out to be false. At some point one reaches the conclusion that a source cannot be trusted, and our critical analysis of the Conservapedia article strongly suggests it can't be trusted. I could spend another few hours analyzing the rest of the claims it makes, but life is finite and I have better things to do. Just this brief critical analysis of the Conservapedia article has provided strong evidence that it is untrustworthy. If you want students to be exposed to evidence that supposedly contradicts an old earth you are going to have to do much better than that Conservapedia article. One use I can see for that Conservapedia article is that it could be very useful for teaching students how to effectively debunk creationist claims. After all, creationism is much more vulnerable to fasification via critical analysis than is genuine science, since hard critical analysis is central to the process of science. Creationists tell us that they want "critical analysis of evolution." Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It might be fun for a science teacher to help students find all of the logical errors, misrepresentations, and flatly false claims in the creationist Conservapedia article. Even 8th graders could find and recognize many of the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the article. That exercise would also help students learn about the dangers in trying to support a worldview with empirical claims that are so easily shown to be false. Only weak worldviews must depend on false empirical claims and misrepresentations of science. What happens to children's religious beliefs when they learn that their pastors and parents have been misleading them, intentionally or not, about the scientific evidence as the Conservapedia article does? Further, according to recent news (via private correspondence) from the National Research Council, evolution will be one of the four core organizing themes of the new high school biology Advanced Placement curriculum. Increased emphasis on evolution is also now being included in the MCAT, the entrance examination for medical school, as one of the four major biological competencies expected of medical students. Misrepresenting the state of evolutionary science to high school students would cripple their prospects for advanced education. That is not a desirable outcome for school board members to advocate. A couple of other issues arose in your comments and correspondence. I'll briefly touch on some of them here. You told Michelle Mood that in your view, the Dover school board did not meet the standards you outlined, "... that only scientific evidence should be presented, without citation of religious texts. That is why they lost." In fact, the Dover board's policy did not cite religious texts. They lost because they explicitly made the religious motivations for their policy clear in several public venues. Moreover, the court found that the material they wanted to use--the book "Of Pandas and People"--was no more than recycled creationism disguised as "intelligent design", and the Supreme Court 7-2 ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987 ruled out "scientific" creationism in the public schools because it is a sectarian religious doctrine, not science. Your Conservapedia article is even less presentable than "Of Pandas and People." Please don't fool yourself. You and Jeff Cline have both made your religious motivations regarding the schools clear in public statements and conversations, just as did members of the Dover board. Look at the sole reference for your 'evidence that contradicts an old earth' claim: the Conservapedia article. The very first paragraphs of the article that you recommend presents the issue in overtly religious terms. All that is admissible in evidence, as the Dover trial demonstrated, and it would firmly establish violation of the "intention" prong of the Lemon test for violations of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. You say that your primary focus is as a financial manager. A board that flirts with intelligent design creationism in any of its guises is not [on] a path to prudent financial management of the Mt. Vernon school district. Finally, you remarked on the tension between the Establishment clause of the First Amendment and the Free Exercise clause. There is undoubtedly a tension there, and in our system of government the courts are charged with resolving that kind of tension in particular cases. I am not a lawyer, but in my understanding, by and large the courts have so far held that when it comes to agents of the state, including public school teachers, administrators, and board members, the Establishment clause takes precedence over the Free Exercise clause. Teachers, administrators, and board members in public schools are not permitted to freely exercise their religions when they are in their roles as agents of the state in the public schools. The history of First Amendment jurisprudence tends to support that claim, though individual differences among specific cases can sometimes shift the balance. Regardless of that, I would hate to see the Mt. Vernon City Schools add to the body of First Amendment case law by inviting expensive litigation in the federal courts. That is not a wise use of taxpayer resources. At the very least, I hope the board would get competent legal advice (more competent than John Freshwater had!) before sailing off into those stormy legal waters. Please feel free to distribute this email as you wish, subject only to the condition that it be reproduced in full. I myself plan to post it on the web on a public site. Regards, Richard B. Hoppe

239 Comments

David · 4 November 2011

Richard,

As always, you are teh awesome.

W. H. Heydt · 4 November 2011

Wow... Do please let us know if and how he responds.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 4 November 2011

(Quotes from religious texts do not constitute “evidence”.)

Neither do quotes from creationists, including IDists. Glen Davidson

ogremk5 · 4 November 2011

I'd also like to add the evolution is a central theme in the new Science K-12 Frameworks, which are roughly comparable to the common core of literacy and mathematics. You can find that K-12 Framework for free here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165

I'll also add the evolution will be a central theme (as well as age of the Earth) of the next generation GED test.

By teaching incorrect science, they will not be meeting federal guidelines and harming students, making it more difficult to pass the next generation of science assessments.

BTW: Neither do quotes from scientists.

DS · 4 November 2011

It's time that these yahoos learn that there will be price to pay for breaking the law and cheating students out of a real science education. Why do they always have to pretend that the evidence is on their side when anyone can see that they are just plain lying?

Joe Felsenstein · 4 November 2011

A very good article. I would suggest that future versions contain a succinct summary early on ("I will show below that the claims made in the Conservapaedia article are deeply flawed or false.") as otherwise it is a hard slog to get all the way to the end for someone who may not care to go through the details. Like, say, a politican or a news reporter.

John_S · 4 November 2011

Our students deserve to have all theories of the origin of the world and species presented, along with evidence for and against each theory.

Well, here are about 40 of them. And does Kelly really want evidence against Genesis presented to children? I'll bet he'd be the first one out there with torches and pitchforks screaming "First Amendment".

SensuousCurmudgeon · 4 November 2011

It would be interesting if the school board heard from their insurance companies that they're not covered for intentional violations of the law.

Mike Elzinga · 4 November 2011

An excellent letter, Richard.

One of the things I have noted about ID/creationists is that they want to mud-wrestle and eat up all the time available addressing their “concerns.”

So if one starts critiquing the details of ID/creationist claims, that is a signal to them that you are hooked and that they can jump in and keep the “debate” going.

I think a more effective, long-term approach with the ID/creationist war on science is to force the issues back onto the basics. It appears that, in their haste to appear knowledgeable about everything, ID/creationists tend to go for a blunderbuss approach by throwing out nit-picky details; and they do this especially in the sciences that have lots of categories with Latin words, and an extensive vocabulary. Biology has this more than does chemistry and physics.

But when one presses any ID/creationist - including their major leaders - about basic concepts in science, one finds that they know almost nothing. Their foundations are almost non-existent; and their arguments are built of conceptual foundations that have been constructed to agree with sectarian dogma, thereby making them useless in the real world.

In most of my own local responses to ID/creationists, I have gone directly to pointing out that ID/creationists have repeatedly misrepresented all of science, scientific evidence, and the scientific process. No teacher should be obligated to deal with the gratuitous introduction of sectarian pseudo-science as a ruse for encouraging “critical thinking.” There are enough good examples of critical thinking within science itself.

I have also pointed out that ID/creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations extend to the most basic of physics and chemistry concepts; they aren’t just attacking biology and evolution. My own experience locally has been that ID/creationists run like hell from the basic concepts. They can no longer look impressive by endless mud-wrestling. One either knows the fundamentals or does not; end of story.

garystar1 · 4 November 2011

If you ever decide to write a book about this whole affair, allow me to recommend a title. It would be "But I'll Perservere a Bit Longer".
This was such a slam dunk that, as I neared the end of your letter, I almost felt sorry for Kelly.

Almost.

Atheistoclast · 4 November 2011

An excellent comment from Mr. Kelly. I am all for having critical evaluation of scientific theory in the classroom. Those who oppose this no doubt hate freedom and the American way of life. Only authoritarian regimes and false ideologies need censorship, lawsuits and threats in order to survive. If evolutionism is so well-supported, then it has nothing to fear from having scientific objections to it raised in education.

As for the age of the Earth, I take an agnostic position: don't ask, don't tell. But I am greatly troubled about where all the water in the oceans came from.

SensuousCurmudgeon · 4 November 2011

Well, it was a great thread while it lasted.

Atheistoclast · 4 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Paul Burnett · 4 November 2011

Any candidate for school board - or dogcatcher - who quotes Conservapedia should automatically be disqualified from running.

Rob · 4 November 2011

Calibration of Theistoclast.

“… I am not here to be liked - I am here to shatter the idols of ignorance and to pave the way for a new era in science and philosophy. Like it or not, I represent the future of humanity whereas you represent only the fossilized remains you examine.”

“… The fusion of chromosome 2a and 2b, again, does not indicate common ancestry. It could so easily refer to the fact that Adam had 48 chromosomes but Noah and his descendants had 46 thanks to a translocation...”

“… Bozorgmehrism is going to take just a few years to become mainstream. You’ll see.”

Paul Burnett · 4 November 2011

Atheistoclast said: As for the age of the Earth, I take an agnostic position: don't ask, don't tell.

I'll ask: Please tell us whether, in your opinion, the earth is closer to six thousand or four billion years old. Tell us, Joe. We really want to know.

Atheistoclast · 4 November 2011

Paul Burnett said:
Atheistoclast said: As for the age of the Earth, I take an agnostic position: don't ask, don't tell.
I'll ask: Please tell us whether, in your opinion, the earth is closer to six thousand or four billion years old. Tell us, Joe. We really want to know.

By my calculations, there is a disparity between the age of the planet and the material it is made from. The mahogany table in my living room is 10 years old, but the tree from which it is made lived much longer ago. But if you had to press me, I would say the planet is between 0.8bn to 1.5 bn years old.

Atheistoclast · 4 November 2011

Paul Burnett said: Any candidate for school board - or dogcatcher - who quotes Conservapedia should automatically be disqualified from running.

Well, if you want to turn America into the 32nd province of Iran, go right ahead. I guess you would ban FOX News, which is sympathetic to creationism, as well?

co · 4 November 2011

I would say the planet is between 0.8bn to 1.5 bn years old.

Why?

Rob · 4 November 2011

Theistoclast,

What is your evidence for your calculation of the age of the earth?

Atheistoclast · 4 November 2011

Rob said: Theistoclast, What is your evidence for your calculation of the age of the earth?

Numerous sources and techniques. I am less of a fan of radiometric dating methods, which is based on many generous and unwarranted assumptions, as I am of geological formations that were first used to date the age of the planet.

Rob · 4 November 2011

Theistoclast, AS expected, you have said nothing.

Atheistoclast said:
Rob said: Theistoclast, What is your evidence for your calculation of the age of the earth?
Numerous sources and techniques. I am less of a fan of radiometric dating methods, which is based on many generous and unwarranted assumptions, as I am of geological formations that were first used to date the age of the planet.

DS · 4 November 2011

Richard,

You know what you have to do.

Scott F · 4 November 2011

Atheistoclast said:
Paul Burnett said: Any candidate for school board - or dogcatcher - who quotes Conservapedia should automatically be disqualified from running.
Well, if you want to turn America into the 32nd province of Iran, go right ahead. I guess you would ban FOX News, which is sympathetic to creationism, as well?

So, you would want someone like Mr. Kelly, someone who wants to lie to children, to be in charge of their education. You do recall that Fox News went to court to prove that it is their constitutional right to knowingly tell lies and falsehoods to their audience. Should we ban Fox News? No. Should we believe them? Also, no. Should we want our teachers and school boards to teach our students that Conservapedia is true and accurate? To knowingly teach lies and falsehoods? Is that the purpose of public education? Also, no.

DavidK · 4 November 2011

RBH said:

"Please don’t fool yourself. You and Jeff Cline have both made your religious motivations regarding the schools clear in public statements and conversations, just as did members of the Dover board. Look at the sole reference for your ‘evidence that contradicts an old earth’ claim: the Conservapedia article. The very first paragraphs of the article that you recommend presents the issue in overtly religious terms."

I think the question then becomes, are there sufficient numbers of fundies that would vote for these people? We've seen a lot of outside influence and money in OH, WI, PA, TX, etc., that want to tear down the public schools and dumb down the kids. They look at conservapedia articles and say, "see, there's all the evidence we need," no critical thinking skills required. Also, I think OH is one of those states where the gov/legislature is trying very hard to cut public school funding and put it into vouchers for parochial schools.

W. H. Heydt · 4 November 2011

Joe Felsenstein said: A very good article. I would suggest that future versions contain a succinct summary early on ("I will show below that the claims made in the Conservapaedia article are deeply flawed or false.") as otherwise it is a hard slog to get all the way to the end for someone who may not care to go through the details. Like, say, a politican or a news reporter.

Back when I got stuck being put through a short "business writing" course, I was told that if you want the manager you were writing a report for to do what the report recommended, put the "action item"/"executive summary" at the top. If you DON'T want him do what the report recommended...put it at the bottom. The odds of a manager reading past the second page were somewhere between slim and none... --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Mike Elzinga · 5 November 2011

It’s interesting that Kelly isn’t running in stealth mode after what that school district went through with Freshwater. The district is now in the national spotlight.

I’m wondering if these creationists are now determined to deliberately wreck public education and bankrupt their school district in order to taunt another lawsuit and try to get it up to the US Supreme court.

The anger of ignorant sectarianism can be pretty dangerous.

co · 5 November 2011

Atheistoclast said:
Rob said: Theistoclast, What is your evidence for your calculation of the age of the earth?
Numerous sources and techniques. I am less of a fan of radiometric dating methods, which is based on many generous and unwarranted assumptions, as I am of geological formations that were first used to date the age of the planet.

That's no answer. Again: why? And are how are you dating those geological formations? Do you count the Laurentian Plateau in your "calculations"?

raven · 5 November 2011

Wow… Do please let us know if and how he responds.

Don't wait up. It's going to be "goddidit". It always is.

raven · 5 November 2011

I’m wondering if these creationists are now determined to deliberately wreck public education and bankrupt their school district in order to taunt another lawsuit and try to get it up to the US Supreme court.

They might. One of the countless hates of fundies is public education. Because it teaches kids...knowledge. One of the Dover school board members was a woman who refused to send her kids to public schools, a homeschooler. She made no secret of her contempt for public education. These are Nihilists in the common meaning of the word. They just hate a lot and want to destroy what is around them. The fundies like martyrs. The best martyrs are...someone else. They would love to martyr a few million dollars as long as it was OPM, other people's money. We will see if the taxpayers and parents of Mt. Vernon want to watch their money get martyred for the fundies.

raven · 5 November 2011

If you ever decide to write a book about this whole affair, allow me to recommend a title.

There is a book from Mt. Vernon, every bit as gripping and dramatic as Dover. RBH has already written most of it or enough for two volumes, and quite ably at that. Richard H. has so far declined the opportunity to the detriment of almost everyone in the USA. It's his time, his call.

raven · 5 November 2011

Anyone who cites conservapedia is an idiot.

All it does is document Andy Schlafly's descent into madness.

robert van bakel · 5 November 2011

Conservapedia was started by Andrew Schlafly (Phyllis Schlafly's son) because he didn't like someone spelling 'Labour' with 'our' when everybody knowes it should be 'Labor'. Andrew is presently rewriting the New Testament so that all of Jesus' communist acts, such as feeding the 5000, or thrashing the bankers in the temple are correctly interpreted. Someone should tell Andrew (Atheistclast) that the Bible has been written, rewritten, interpreted, re-interpreted, translated, untranslated, retranslated and then rewritten again so many times, that the 'Chosen' have a book, which, though occasionally beautiful, and even inspiring, is an utter dog's breakfast as an historical text.

bigdakine · 5 November 2011

Mike Elzinga said: It’s interesting that Kelly isn’t running in stealth mode after what that school district went through with Freshwater. The district is now in the national spotlight. I’m wondering if these creationists are now determined to deliberately wreck public education and bankrupt their school district in order to taunt another lawsuit and try to get it up to the US Supreme court. The anger of ignorant sectarianism can be pretty dangerous.

Or they crave attention

bigdakine · 5 November 2011

Atheistoclast said:
Rob said: Theistoclast, What is your evidence for your calculation of the age of the earth?
Numerous sources and techniques. I am less of a fan of radiometric dating methods, which is based on many generous and unwarranted assumptions, as I am of geological formations that were first used to date the age of the planet.

Fine. What are the generous and unwarranted assumptions in the U-Pb isochron method?

morrisma1954 · 5 November 2011

Atheistoclast: Well, if you want to turn America into the 32nd province of Iran, go right ahead.

Well that is as big a pile of projection as any I've seen. Kelly's theocratic push is far closer Iran or Saudi Arabia than America will (I hope) ever get.

Atheistoclast: Numerous sources and techniques. I am less of a fan of radiometric dating methods, which is based on many generous and unwarranted assumptions, as I am of geological formations that were first used to date the age of the planet.

Radiometric dating even mentioned when discussing the age of the planet is a sure indication of idiocy. Radio-carbon dating is for living tissues, you know, with carbon in them. It is unreliable past 50,000 years and cannot be used to date ages of rocks.

Paul Burnett · 5 November 2011

Atheistoclast said: I guess you would ban FOX News, which is sympathetic to creationism, as well?

Absolutely not - but the intelligence of anybody who believes anything F-Word "News" says is suspect, by definition. F-Word "News" is the Conservapedia of news organizations - like Conservapedia, like you, like all creationists, they hold scientific illiteracy to be a virtue, not something to be embarrassed about but proud of.

Paul Burnett · 5 November 2011

raven said: We will see if the taxpayers and parents of Mt. Vernon want to watch their money get martyred for the fundies.

That's a good tagline for anybody on the side of science to use in the election. Do the Mount Vernon taxpayers want another Dover? Because it's clear that's where Kelly and the other creationists want to go. That may be a good wedge to split the fundagelicals from the already outraged taxpayers: "Do you want these supporters of ignorance to waste more of your tax money?"

Paul Burnett · 5 November 2011

robert van bakel said: Conservapedia was started by Andrew Schlafly...

Conservapedia's start was homework papers collected by Andy in his job as a home-schooling academy teacher. Many of the articles in Conservapedia appear to have been written by a high school sophomore in a hurry. Many of the biology-related articles' bibliographies mention Jay Wile's book Exploring Creation With General Science from Apologia Educational Ministries and other blatantly creationist publications as resources.

Atheistoclast · 5 November 2011

morrisma1954 said: Well, if you want to turn America into the 32nd province of Iran, go right ahead. Well that is as big a pile of projection as any I've seen. Kelly's theocratic push is far closer Iran or Saudi Arabia than America will (I hope) ever get.

I think most Americans are tired of the rampant abuse of the First Amendment to impose a secular totalitarianism that excludes religion from public life whilst promoting non-religion. I believe in democracy: if parents, teachers and school boards want to explore creationism or vitalism in the classroom, then I don't see why they should be prevented from doing so. I think students should be exposed to the intellectual objections of creationists (as embodied in the peer-reviewed literature) and learn why the theory of evolution is so problematic. This is why critical evaluation is so necessary and urgent. I sincerely hope we see more academic freedom bills passed next year - starting with Tennessee. I will be do my utmost to lobby state congresses to support the unalienable human right to criticize. The NCSE and the ACLU has no prerogative to demand how schools conduct themselves.

matthewstull2 · 5 November 2011

. . .just a general comment that frustrates me about this particular situation, but I suppose it is inevitable.

Dr. Hoppe is an intelligent and erudite scientist. However, this well thought out response probably takes away from the time he has to teach and research legitimate scientific questions. That makes me angry. What if mathematicians had to constantly defend the infinitude of prime numbers? They had to write papers about it over and over again. Crazy religious zealots would tell them primes are not infinite and don’t trust encryption methods. Probably not the best analogy, but hopefully the point is made. At any rate, great article, great site, and I hope Dr. Hoppe can get back to teaching and exploring legitimate topics so we all can benefit from his amazing ability to make the scientifically complex clear and understandable.

Atheistoclast · 5 November 2011

matthewstull2 said: . . .just a general comment that frustrates me about this particular situation, but I suppose it is inevitable. Dr. Hoppe is an intelligent and erudite scientist. However, this well thought out response probably takes away from the time he has to teach and research legitimate scientific questions. That makes me angry. What if mathematicians had to constantly defend the infinitude of prime numbers? They had to write papers about it over and over again. Crazy religious zealots would tell them primes are not infinite and don’t trust encryption methods. Probably not the best analogy, but hopefully the point is made. At any rate, great article, great site, and I hope Dr. Hoppe can get back to teaching and exploring legitimate topics so we all can benefit from his amazing ability to make the scientifically complex clear and understandable.

Except that prime numbers are not the issue here. Rather, the origins and diversity of life is the subject - and it is of far greater consequence than some abstract reality. As we have seen on this site, the likes of Felsenstein and Plavcan have little to offer as far as a mechanism is concerned with which to explain their observations. They just claim "Evolutiondidit" whilst ignoring the laws of physics and chemistry, and the natural limits to biological change. This is not a valid argument and it has to be challenged in the classroom. Anything else just isn't kosher.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM · 5 November 2011

Perhaps the "Sword and Shield of People of Faith" could pick up the tab for defending Mt. Vernon--they did such a good job for Dover.

But it really bugs me that someone running for school board would suggest that students should pick and choose which school lessons they should give credence to. I thought the point of going to school was to become educated. I guess next thing, students will be presented with Loony Tunes illustrating the alternative viewpoint that people don't fall after running off a cliff until after they look down!

Atheistoclast · 5 November 2011

Scott F said: So, you would want someone like Mr. Kelly, someone who wants to lie to children, to be in charge of their education. You do recall that Fox News went to court to prove that it is their constitutional right to knowingly tell lies and falsehoods to their audience. Should we ban Fox News? No. Should we believe them? Also, no.

Mr. Kelly wants children to at least explore objections to the Old Earth model. I don't have a problem with that.

Should we want our teachers and school boards to teach our students that Conservapedia is true and accurate? To knowingly teach lies and falsehoods? Is that the purpose of public education? Also, no.

No. We shouldn't teach kids what source is truthful and what is false. This isn't Stalinist Russia. They should be able to make their own minds up. Let's have some freedom of thought, and less indoctrination. Let me just repeat: If your worldview is so wonderful then all objections to it will be exposed as tripe. But if it is flawed, you need censorship and the like to sustain it.

Paul Burnett · 5 November 2011

Atheistoclast said: I will be do my utmost to lobby state congresses...

"State congresses"? Is that a quote from your "academic freedom" civics class?

ogremk5 · 5 November 2011

DavidK said: RBH said: "Please don’t fool yourself. You and Jeff Cline have both made your religious motivations regarding the schools clear in public statements and conversations, just as did members of the Dover board. Look at the sole reference for your ‘evidence that contradicts an old earth’ claim: the Conservapedia article. The very first paragraphs of the article that you recommend presents the issue in overtly religious terms." I think the question then becomes, are there sufficient numbers of fundies that would vote for these people? We've seen a lot of outside influence and money in OH, WI, PA, TX, etc., that want to tear down the public schools and dumb down the kids. They look at conservapedia articles and say, "see, there's all the evidence we need," no critical thinking skills required. Also, I think OH is one of those states where the gov/legislature is trying very hard to cut public school funding and put it into vouchers for parochial schools.

The main thing is that creationism is not a main focus of anyone in or out of politics. The people vote for the ones that they think will do the best job. In many cases, people vote for obviously Christian candidates because they think that Christians are more trustworthy. This is obviously untrue. They also vote for people who have the same thoughts (lower taxes, increase funding for sports, etc, etc) as they do. Creationism is just a side topic that gets carried along with the rest of the baggage... until you get a critical mass of creationists on the board and then all of a sudden, you have Dover and this thing.

Atheistoclast · 5 November 2011

Paul Burnett said:
Atheistoclast said: I will be do my utmost to lobby state congresses...
"State congresses"? Is that a quote from your "academic freedom" civics class?

'State legislatures' then. So you don't support academic freedom? You would fire teachers who bring up objections to evolutionism in the classroom? You would make sure that no other school hired them? Is that the kind of country you want to live in where there is a thought police? Have you ever read George Orwell's classic work, 1984? "BIG COMMON ANCESTOR IS WATCHING YOU!"

harold · 5 November 2011

matthewstull2 said: . . .just a general comment that frustrates me about this particular situation, but I suppose it is inevitable. Dr. Hoppe is an intelligent and erudite scientist. However, this well thought out response probably takes away from the time he has to teach and research legitimate scientific questions. That makes me angry. What if mathematicians had to constantly defend the infinitude of prime numbers? They had to write papers about it over and over again. Crazy religious zealots would tell them primes are not infinite and don’t trust encryption methods. Probably not the best analogy, but hopefully the point is made. At any rate, great article, great site, and I hope Dr. Hoppe can get back to teaching and exploring legitimate topics so we all can benefit from his amazing ability to make the scientifically complex clear and understandable.

This is a very good point. I am a pathologist (MD), although I have been involved in start up companies for the last six years. I have not lived in an area where direct creationist attacks on local school systems has been an issue. Unlike some of the contributors and commenters here, I only became aware of organized political creationism in 1999, when I was an academic pathologist in a state near Kansas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#Kansas When I mentioned my concerns and efforts to get involved - and bluntly, although I'm looking for ways to do even more, all I really do right now is support NCSE and voice my opinion - other academic pathologists tended to think I was crazy. Pathology has its own vast, ever-increasing literature and innumerable things going on that advance and sometimes markedly change the clinical practice of pathology. Basic biomedical science is incredibly critical to pathology. Clinical utilization of molecular diagnostic techniques and immunohistochemistry have emerged since I graduated from medical school and massively affected the field. Digital imaging of microscopic slides is a major emerging area. In the US, due to certain aspects of our residency training system, pathologists are a very diverse group, in terms of ethnicity, religion, nationality, and gender (about half of pathologists are women). And we work with laboratory staff who are, if anything, even more diverse. Even acknowledging political creationism can be awkward. Some lab staff may hold creationist beliefs (clinical lab tech jobs require extreme dedication, reliability, and aptitude, but, although appreciation of basic biology is a strong plus for personal satisfaction, they resemble skilled industrial jobs more than creative research). And of course, while colleagues in other countries can afford to perhaps concentrate almost exclusively on the clinical and academic, in the US, reimbursement and regulations are another major, constantly shifting, complex field of concern. And of course, there's always the very, very real risk (also present in basic academia or any other job) that some administrative or even clinical higher-up might be a closet creationist, or, far more likely at that education level, a right winger, who winks at the religious right in the belief that this will advance a desired economic or social agenda. I'm currently thinking of going back into pathology, possibly even trying to get back into academics, but even if I move on to more start up involvement, the issues are largely the same. Challenging fields require dedication, and involvement in contentious, politically loaded issues carries risks. Nevertheless, I plan to look for opportunities to do more, not less. The ideal system is that religion (or lack of religion) is private and freely chosen and practiced without coercion, that basic science education is provided up to the high school level to everyone, unless individual academic needs dictate otherwise, and that higher level science education is highly available, with science itself based on skeptical peer review. We have many problems in US society today, but we do have that system roughly in place, and we need to fight to preserve it. So you're right, it isn't easy for active professionals in science or any other challenging field to defend science from absurd attacks, but it is worthwhile.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 November 2011

bigdakine said:
Atheistoclast said:
Rob said: Theistoclast, What is your evidence for your calculation of the age of the earth?
Numerous sources and techniques. I am less of a fan of radiometric dating methods, which is based on many generous and unwarranted assumptions, as I am of geological formations that were first used to date the age of the planet.
Fine. What are the generous and unwarranted assumptions in the U-Pb isochron method?

That science works, even when it overturns Blowhard's infinite prejudice. Glen Davidson

harold · 5 November 2011

So you don’t support academic freedom?

I do.

You would fire teachers who bring up objections to evolutionism in the classroom?

Rather than address that in the abstract, I will simply note that all teachers I am aware of who brought up implicitly or explicitly sectarian dogma in taxpayer funded schools and portrayed it as science or as "disproving" or "casting doubt on" strongly supported science richly deserved to be fired and sued. As for the abstract, the main problem is that there do not seem to be any current valid objections to the theory of evolution overall (this is also true of Atomic Theory/Periodic Table of Elements, Relativity, Newtonian Physics as a very accurate approximation at most scales, Cell Theory, Germ Theory of Infectious Disease, Pasteur's demonstration of lack of spontaneous generation of fully formed modern life, etc). Thus, a teacher who thinks there are, but proposes false objections, is biased to the point of judgment lapse and incompetence, and is potentially violating the rights of students. A lesser problem is that, while the exact details of evolution of exact lineages is a field rich in investigative possibilities, this is not within the scope of high school, except in places where very enriched AP classes are available for very academically advanced students.

You would make sure that no other school hired them?

1) Unless they demonstrated improved judgment and sincere commitment to an appropriate curriculum, which would probably require completion of a counseling program at their own expense, there would be no reason to think that an incompetent teacher with poor judgment at one public school would do better at another public school. I would be happy to see rehabilitation, but would not expect to, as we are dealing with emotionally motivated "brainwash" beliefs, abandonment of which would provoke major life changes, and possibly transient dissociative events. 2) I would have no objection whatsoever to the hiring of such teachers by privately funded religious schools. Of course, academic work at such schools, if it teaches science incorrectly, cannot be the basis for a state-recognized high school diploma or university admission.

Is that the kind of country you want to live in where there is a thought police?

False dichotomy. Respect for the legal rights of students and their families and an organized, accurate curriculum is not equivalent to "thought police".

Have you ever read George Orwell’s classic work, 1984?

A favorite work by a favorite author of mine.

Rob · 5 November 2011

Calibration of Theistoclast.

“… Bozorgmehrism is going to take just a few years to become mainstream. You’ll see.”

and has no evidence for the age of the Earth, but is certain ~4.5 Gyr is wrong.

Mary H · 5 November 2011

AC The problem I see, as a long time teacher of biology, is that if we critically analyzed creationism in the same way you want us to critically analyze evolution, creationism would be easily shown to be false. This would cause fundy parents to complain that we were attacking their religion. At the same time they are trying to claim creationism (in all its forms) isn't religion. What they really want is for teachers to critically analyze evolution while pretending that creationism shouldn't be touched. As someone earlier said in another form is, what goes around comes around. You are unwilling to see your ideas treated the same way as the ideas of others because they might be shown to be false. Would you fire a teacher for showing evidence that made creationism look foolish because some students don't believe in it? Better to let the science stand on its own and when creationsim has sufficient evidence to stand up to the science then we'll teach both sides.( I should live so long) As it is the "evidence" for creation does not exist. So, what is it I'm suppossed to teach? Creationsim has no evidence beyond criticism of evolution, no mechanism and no experiements. That's going to make for a VERY SHORT lesson in creationism.

Here's my creationism lesson for today. Some people think an unknown entity created all this. We don't know when. We don't know how. We don't have any experiements to prove it. End of lesson. Now let's go back to what we can demonstrate with experiments and observations.

The other question I have that has never been answered by a creationists and I know you won't either because you have never answered my questions; is this. What exactly causes the "limits of evolution" and how do we know when that "limit" is reached?

dalehusband · 5 November 2011

Atheistoclast lying again, and again, and again, and AGAIN: I think most Americans are tired of the rampant abuse of the First Amendment to impose a secular totalitarianism that excludes religion from public life whilst promoting non-religion. I believe in democracy: if parents, teachers and school boards want to explore creationism or vitalism in the classroom, then I don't see why they should be prevented from doing so. I think students should be exposed to the intellectual objections of creationists (as embodied in the peer-reviewed literature) and learn why the theory of evolution is so problematic. This is why critical evaluation is so necessary and urgent. I sincerely hope we see more academic freedom bills passed next year - starting with Tennessee. I will be do my utmost to lobby state congresses to support the unalienable human right to criticize. The NCSE and the ACLU has no prerogative to demand how schools conduct themselves. Except that prime numbers are not the issue here. Rather, the origins and diversity of life is the subject - and it is of far greater consequence than some abstract reality. As we have seen on this site, the likes of Felsenstein and Plavcan have little to offer as far as a mechanism is concerned with which to explain their observations. They just claim “Evolutiondidit” whilst ignoring the laws of physics and chemistry, and the natural limits to biological change. This is not a valid argument and it has to be challenged in the classroom. Anything else just isn’t kosher. We shouldn’t teach kids what source is truthful and what is false. This isn’t Stalinist Russia. They should be able to make their own minds up. Let’s have some freedom of thought, and less indoctrination. Let me just repeat: If your worldview is so wonderful then all objections to it will be exposed as tripe. But if it is flawed, you need censorship and the like to sustain it. So you don’t support academic freedom? You would fire teachers who bring up objections to evolutionism in the classroom? You would make sure that no other school hired them? Is that the kind of country you want to live in where there is a thought police? Have you ever read George Orwell’s classic work, 1984? “BIG COMMON ANCESTOR IS WATCHING YOU!”

All this talk about the "right" of teachers to present objections to evolution ignores the fact that it is only religious bigotry that makes such objections look even slightly credible to some people. Take religion out of the picture and no objections even stand critical scrutiny. Note: Fraud is fraud and it shouldn't be excused just because of its association with religion. And that's all Creationism has ever been since Darwin's time. You know this, you worthless fraud, or you wouldn't be playing these mind and word games!

harold · 5 November 2011

Mary H. - What a great comment.

What they really want is for teachers to critically analyze evolution while pretending that creationism shouldn’t be touched.

Technically, even this is too generous to creationists, since a critical analysis of the theory of evolution reveals it to be sound. What they want is false arguments against evolution, and uncritical presentation of ID/creationist propaganda. They have also occasionally advocated mere censorship of anything that contradicts any form of creationism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creati[…]ation#Kansas.

cepetit.myopenid.com · 5 November 2011

Now this really demonstrates Atheistoclast's ignorance... I've added some markers for later reference.

Atheistoclast said:
matthewstull2 said: . . .just a general comment that frustrates me about this particular situation, but I suppose it is inevitable. Dr. Hoppe is an intelligent and erudite scientist. However, this well thought out response probably takes away from the time he has to teach and research legitimate scientific questions. That makes me angry. What if mathematicians had to constantly defend the infinitude of prime numbers? They had to write papers about it over and over again. Crazy religious zealots would tell them primes are not infinite and don’t trust encryption methods. Probably not the best analogy, but hopefully the point is made. At any rate, great article, great site, and I hope Dr. Hoppe can get back to teaching and exploring legitimate topics so we all can benefit from his amazing ability to make the scientifically complex clear and understandable.
{1} Except that prime numbers are not the issue here. Rather, the origins and diversity of life is the subject - and it is of far greater consequence than some abstract reality. As we have seen on this site, the likes of Felsenstein and Plavcan have little to offer as far as a mechanism is concerned with which to explain their observations. {2} They just claim "Evolutiondidit" whilst ignoring the laws of physics and chemistry, and the natural limits to biological change. This is not a valid argument and it has to be challenged in the classroom. {3} Anything else just isn't kosher.

{1} Really now... have you ever heard of imaginary numbers <sarcasm> except in government budgets and calculations of the age of the earth by creationists </sarcasm>? One of the first things that we're taught in the mathematics sequence is that multiplying a negative number by a negative number gives a positive result... and that one reaches a negative result only by either an additive process or by multiplying a positive number by a negative number. And that's a truthful statement inside the boundary of the real numbers. However, there are also so-called "imaginary numbers". That's a poor name, but what do you expect from something originally translated through three languages before it reached English? In any event, if imaginary numbers were really "imaginary," you wouldn't be reading this... as they are absolutely necessary to designing and making the microprocessors that form the internet (as are calculations and assumptions derived from non-Euclidean geometry, but that's getting even farther afield) and, indeed, the design of that bridge that Atheistoclast is trying to sell us. {2} Which laws of physics and chemistry are being violated by evolutionary theory? And what are the limits of biological change... or, better yet, what is the source of such limits? Before trotting out some purported argument from thermodynamics, make sure to consistently designate the system under discussion — not just as to the obvious "open" or "closed" problem (inconsistencies in which sink every creationist thermodynamic argument I've ever encountered), but the necessary-subsystem problem. Failure to do inherently violates the laws of thermodynamics and makes the math internally inconsistent (see {1} above, too, as a Hermetian that describes a hydrogen atom's thermodynamic state involves a few interesting gyrations). Then there's the imposition of limits on biological change. I will accept as a premise that no biological change can occur in the heart of a star; the conditions there are, so far as we can determine consistent with everything else we know, so hostile to anything we would call "biological" that it's not worth considering. I am certain that there are other contexts in which no biological change can occur; those limits, however, require both (a) justification and (b) a connection to the biological systems observable on Earth at any hypothetical time t prior to the heat-death of the universe. For example, one might claim that there's no biological change in a condition of pure randomness (that is, infinite entropy); the problem is that such a state does not exist in the natural universe due to the consequences of the third law of thermodynamics, and even if it did would be altered by observation and verification of such a state. Rhetorically, this entire statement is merely projection: The accusation that one's opponent is falling prey to the same fallacy of which one is accused. Leaving aside that this manner of projection ("Bobby took my lunch money!" "But Andy took my lunch money first!") sounds an awful lot more like squabbling children at recess than any way of reaching a conclusion, it is not actually a defense of the accused's argument. {3} Since this argument is taking place on Saturday, it's not kosher — or at least not consistent with the Sabbath's imprecations to rest and contemplate only Y--weh — in the first place.

RWard · 5 November 2011

My admiration for Mr. Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr grows with every posting. For someone with a minimal education he professes expertise in evolution, geology, physics, sociology, and law. Charles Darwin did a great deal with his undergraduate education; Joe has gone beyond Darwin - of course, Darwin only had [b]one[/b] undergraduate degree.

harold · 5 November 2011

You know this, you worthless fraud, or you wouldn’t be playing these mind and word games!

I doubt that this level of self-awareness is operating. More likely the word and mind games are directed as much at his own unconscious as at anyone else. Of course, we can't read minds, and it really doesn't matter.

Atheistoclast · 5 November 2011

Mary H said: AC The problem I see, as a long time teacher of biology, is that if we critically analyzed creationism in the same way you want us to critically analyze evolution, creationism would be easily shown to be false.

But creationism is not (yet) on the school syllabus; evolution is. It isn't six-day creation that is being promulgated in the classroom but Darwinism.

This would cause fundy parents to complain that we were attacking their religion. At the same time they are trying to claim creationism (in all its forms) isn't religion.

I think you will find that some biology textbooks do attack creationism and ID already, so I don't see why things would be any different if creationist hypotheses were explored in more detail.

What they really want is for teachers to critically analyze evolution while pretending that creationism shouldn't be touched. As someone earlier said in another form is, what goes around comes around. You are unwilling to see your ideas treated the same way as the ideas of others because they might be shown to be false.

No. We want critical evaluation of scientific theories. Unless, you want to elevate creationism to the status of a scientific theory, I don't see what grounds there are for analyzing it as you would evolutionism.

Would you fire a teacher for showing evidence that made creationism look foolish because some students don't believe in it?

This is happening right now. I wouldn't fire him or her, but I would write to the school board asking them to investigate his conduct and determine if it is appropriate.

Better to let the science stand on its own and when creationsim has sufficient evidence to stand up to the science then we'll teach both sides.( I should live so long) As it is the "evidence" for creation does not exist.

Have you ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? It is in the school textbooks, but it is far more synonymous with sudden creation than it is with gradual evolution.

So, what is it I'm suppossed to teach? Creationsim has no evidence beyond criticism of evolution, no mechanism and no experiements. That's going to make for a VERY SHORT lesson in creationism.

I am writing a paper for American Biology Teacher about this very thing. I would have you refer to peer-reviewed papers that support a more intelligent role for the emergence of novelty in biology - including my own.

Here's my creationism lesson for today. Some people think an unknown entity created all this. We don't know when. We don't know how. We don't have any experiements to prove it. End of lesson. Now let's go back to what we can demonstrate with experiments and observations.

Well, the timing of creation is a separate matter altogether. The agency/manner of creation is a valid question, but it does not detract from the fact that distinct animal types were created and did not simply evolve by differential reproduction.

The other question I have that has never been answered by a creationists and I know you won't either because you have never answered my questions; is this. What exactly causes the "limits of evolution" and how do we know when that "limit" is reached?

I suggest you read this excellent piece on the subject by Barton and Partridge: Limits to Natural Selection http://www.ufscar.br/~evolucao/popgen/ref12-5.pdf Thanks.

Atheistoclast · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

DS · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

cepetit.myopenid.com · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

dalehusband · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

dalehusband · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Flint · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

morrisma1954 · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

First Approximation · 5 November 2011

Here are some of my favourite "counterexamples":

The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[8] music, personal letters,[9] quality of political debates,[10] the quality of news articles,[11] and many other measures. This means that if one goes back far enough, intelligence would measure at ridiculous heights, if humans were even tens of thousands of years old.

To be fair, if I spent my time at Conservapedia I would also probably believe human intelligence is rapidly decreasing. Oh, and here's footnote [9]: "E.g., Civil War letters".

The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[14] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[14] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[15] increasingly experience premature graying or balding.

I like any "counterexample to an old Earth" that includes Taylor Hicks, Cal Ripken, Jr., AND Anderson Cooper.

The Bible makes references to the dinosaurs. There is no explanation for this if dinosaurs supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago.

Seriously, Steve Kelly? You cited that article?

Atheistoclast · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Paul Burnett · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Atheistoclast · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Atheistoclast · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Paul Burnett · 5 November 2011

First Approximation said: Here are some of my favourite "counterexamples"

Whenever somebody drags the rotting carcass of Conservapedia into the conversation, I refer them to the articles on "the origin of kangaroos" and "the meaning of ~~kinds~~ baramins" to demonstrate the anti-science / pro-ignorance / utter intellectual vacuity of Conservapedia. Say, Joe - what is your opinion of the scientific rigor demonstrated by Conservapedia?

harold · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Paul Burnett · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Mike Elzinga · 5 November 2011

harold said: 1) Unless they demonstrated improved judgment and sincere commitment to an appropriate curriculum, which would probably require completion of a counseling program at their own expense, there would be no reason to think that an incompetent teacher with poor judgment at one public school would do better at another public school. I would be happy to see rehabilitation, but would not expect to, as we are dealing with emotionally motivated "brainwash" beliefs, abandonment of which would provoke major life changes, and possibly transient dissociative events.

In every case I have known – one of which I have direct knowledge – “rehabilitation” of these rabid sectarians is useless; and the school always suffers financial loss while the rest of the faculty face extra work picking up the pieces and carrying a heavier teaching burden. Those fundamentalists who engage in this kind of aggressive proselytizing are clearly not mentally stable in some very obvious way. They are obsessive/compulsive about their dogma, and they know little else. In the case of the individual I know, he couldn’t teach any subject matter properly, he couldn’t shut up about his sectarian dogma, and he just had to get in swipes at other religions. In response to the objections of Muslim and Hindu students in his class, his sneering response would be, “Those aren’t real religions.” And all this crap was recorded on audio and video by the students. These were shown to him, and he denied it even as he watched. The cowardly administrators tried all sorts of “remediation” while the other faculty took over most of his classes as he got paid full salary to do childish “professional development” activities. The idiot is still there, and the school still carries his dead weight; much to the frustration of the rest of the faculty. The administrators apparently think they face a dilemma about the cost of lawsuits versus the cost of “rehabilitation,” and they tend to choose the latter. More than once I have heard the battle cry from these idiots that “freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion.” One can only wonder what they have in mind if we didn’t have secular laws that held them in check.

Paul Burnett · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/4f1X94QR24kRWz4_hOjl7YXq.mahuYAR.A--#605cf · 5 November 2011

I am a resident of Mt. Vernon, and I greatly appreciate you standing up against Steve Kelly's anti-scientific views. The only thing I worry about in you letter is the fact that you give your credentials as an evolution expert up front, giving Kelly the opportunity to think, "Oh, this guy's an evolutionist, this letter must be full of evolutionary claptrap." Very well done, nevertheless! I love to see Conservapedia being thoroughly discredited.

ksplawn · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Paul Burnett · 5 November 2011

https://me.yahoo.com/a/4f1X94QR24kRWz4_hOjl7YXq.mahuYAR.A--#605cf said: I love to see Conservapedia being thoroughly discredited.

For anybody with the most basic knowledge of the sciences, Conservapedia does a really good job of discrediting itself. See the "Great Flood" and "Grand Canyon" articles, for example.

harold · 5 November 2011

Mike Elzinga -

Needless to say we agree, and I oppose the use of state resources for "remediation" in a case like that.

mplavcan · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Scott F · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Richard B. Hoppe · 5 November 2011

Ugh. I should know better than to take the evening off after posting. I'm going to work through the comments and send all but Atheistoclast's first comment (and all responses to the rest) to the BW. Sorry, folks, but please DNFTT. Thanks!

DS · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

DS · 5 November 2011

Richard B. Hoppe said: Ugh. I should know better than to take the evening off after posting. I'm going to work through the comments and send all but Atheistoclast's first comment (and all responses to the rest) to the BW. Sorry, folks, but please DNFTT. Thanks!

Thanks Richard. I posted before I saw your post.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

ogremk5 · 5 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

John_S · 5 November 2011

Mike Elzinga said: More than once I have heard the battle cry from these idiots that "freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion."

No one actually has "religion". They have a religion - one of thousands. "Freedom of religion" means freedom from the state proselytizing your children for my religion; and there's no way to ensure that freedom unless it is barred from proselytizing for all religions.

cmb · 5 November 2011

Paul Burnett said:
raven said: We will see if the taxpayers and parents of Mt. Vernon want to watch their money get martyred for the fundies.
That's a good tagline for anybody on the side of science to use in the election. Do the Mount Vernon taxpayers want another Dover? Because it's clear that's where Kelly and the other creationists want to go. That may be a good wedge to split the fundagelicals from the already outraged taxpayers: "Do you want these supporters of ignorance to waste more of your tax money?"

I am not by nature an optimist but judging by the letters to the editor in The Mount Vernon News (including a great one from our own Dr. Hoppe) people in the community are on to the agendas of Cline and Kelly. There have been several letters in the past week encouraging the voters of Mount Vernon to vote for the incumbents and Ms. Curry to prevent Cline or Kelly from obtaining a seat on the school board. I don't recall any letters of support for our creationist friends in the past week or so.

Mike Elzinga · 5 November 2011

John_S said:
Mike Elzinga said: More than once I have heard the battle cry from these idiots that "freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion."
No one actually has "religion". They have a religion - one of thousands. "Freedom of religion" means freedom from the state proselytizing your children for my religion; and there's no way to ensure that freedom unless it is barred from proselytizing for all religions.

That particular sneering retort by these fundamentalists apparently means that their religion commands them to proselytize. So, to them, that means that no government can stand in their way even if they are working for a secular, governmental institution such as a school. Apparently having their churches just isn’t good enough for them. “Freedom of religion” means they are free to do whatever they want if they claim it is part of their religious beliefs. These are the sectarians that are at war with everyone even to the point of declaring that secular science or someone else’s religion are dogmas that are being foisted off onto them and therefore they are justified in fighting back. The problem is that even trying to ignore these idiots is construed by them to mean that they are being attacked by infidels “refusing to listen to God’s word.” I take that as clear evidence of a severe paranoid mental illness; and it is a mental illness brought on and exacerbated by their sectarian beliefs that are blasted from the pulpits and Sunday schools of their churches. They may not show up very often – at least in the North – but when they do, they can generate havoc in a school for decades. These people seem to come with an entire set of beliefs that their “Christian nation, founded on Christian principles” has been stolen from them by atheists and compromisers. I am really hoping that we are beginning to see a firm pushback from the rest of society that has politely put up with this crap for something like four decades now.

Richard B. Hoppe · 5 November 2011

cmb said: I am not by nature an optimist but judging by the letters to the editor in The Mount Vernon News (including a great one from our own Dr. Hoppe) people in the community are on to the agendas of Cline and Kelly. There have been several letters in the past week encouraging the voters of Mount Vernon to vote for the incumbents and Ms. Curry to prevent Cline or Kelly from obtaining a seat on the school board. I don't recall any letters of support for our creationist friends in the past week or so.

My favorite letter from the Cline/Kelly/Feasel supporters was Kenneth Dove's on Oct 27, when he said

Finally, as a community, do we want heathens, atheists and agnostics guiding the policies of the Mount Vernon School System or do we want those who fear the Lord (which is the true beginning of wisdom)?

He forgot infidels and kitten eaters. :)

SLC · 5 November 2011

Dr. Hoppe might also be aware that the morons at Conservapedia also reject the Theory of Relativity. I would dearly like them to explain how, if relativity is false, one can compute a value for the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron that agrees with measured values to 10 significant figures, using quantum electrodynamics, which is the relativistic extension of quantum mechanics.

ogremk5 · 5 November 2011

SLC said: Dr. Hoppe might also be aware that the morons at Conservapedia also reject the Theory of Relativity. I would dearly like them to explain how, if relativity is false, one can compute a value for the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron that agrees with measured values to 10 significant figures, using quantum electrodynamics, which is the relativistic extension of quantum mechanics.

I bet every one of the ones that reject it also use GPS.

Paul Burnett · 5 November 2011

SLC said: Dr. Hoppe might also be aware that the morons at Conservapedia also reject the Theory of Relativity. I would dearly like them to explain how, if relativity is false, one can compute a value for the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron that agrees with measured values to 10 significant figures, using quantum electrodynamics, which is the relativistic extension of quantum mechanics.

The anti-relativity illiterates at Conservapedia should be asked what explanation they propose for why gold is the unique color it is, and why mercury is a liquid - both explanations are based on the theory of relativity. (Unfortunately I can't ask them, because I have been banned there, as well as at Uncommon Dissent - but I managed to last a while, getting in a few licks for sanity.)

Paul Burnett · 5 November 2011

Mike Elzinga said: I take that as clear evidence of a severe paranoid mental illness; and it is a mental illness brought on and exacerbated by their sectarian beliefs that are blasted from the pulpits and Sunday schools of their churches.

Further, this mental illness is passed on through the generations by a most wicked form of ritual child abuse, a program of brainwashing innocent children (who are born with no knowledge of gods and demons - all children are born naive atheists) into believing all manner of superstitions which are utterly inappropriate for the 21st century. Chime in here, Raven - I know you've got a sentence or two of wisdom on this topic.

I am really hoping that we are beginning to see a firm pushback from the rest of society that has politely put up with this crap for something like four decades now.

Amen, Brother Mike.

Flint · 5 November 2011

Further, this mental illness is passed on through the generations by a most wicked form of ritual child abuse, a program of brainwashing innocent children (who are born with no knowledge of gods and demons - all children are born naive atheists) into believing all manner of superstitions which are utterly inappropriate for the 21st century.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins discusses exactly this issue for about 40 pages. In another chapter, he discusses something perhaps tangential but nonetheless interesting - WHY do religions take root and get passed from generation to generation like parasites? He suggests several interesting proposals.

harold · 5 November 2011

Further, this mental illness is passed on through the generations by a most wicked form of ritual child abuse, a program of brainwashing innocent children (who are born with no knowledge of gods and demons - all children are born naive atheists) into believing all manner of superstitions which are utterly inappropriate for the 21st century.

I'm sure Raven will say it better, but...the rate of successful brainwashing seems to be less than the rate of US population growth (they have a lot of children but a surprisingly large number of flexible young brains escape the trap). Therefore if all were stable, they would gradually be selected out of existence. But all isn't stable, because we have learned how to destroy human life (multiple options as to how) before learning how to get along. Thus, it is a race. Will the hate-crazed destroy all human (and possibly most or all other) life on the planet earth, before their demented mythologies finally go extinct? Only time will tell. This comment not does not refer to people who hold spiritual or religious beliefs that are not hate-crazed and/or denying of basic measurable reality.

stevaroni · 5 November 2011

Atheistoclast said: But creationism is not (yet) on the school syllabus; evolution is. It isn't six-day creation that is being promulgated in the classroom but Darwinism.

No, it isn't "Darwinism" that's being promulgated, it's 150 years of carefully researched data all of which point to a natural mechanism. Darwin is dead. Darwin was often wrong about a lot of things. Darwin's understanding of evolution was, to put it mildly, limited. Darwin is not taught in classrooms, other than how he gets the credit for being the first guy to say "hey - I think I might see how this works", and the voyage of the Beagle, which is a good story for explaining the scientific process. What we do teach in classrooms is modern evolutionary theory, which is the end product of 150 years of careful measurement. This is exactly what creationism doesn't have. careful measurement. Any measurement. Anything to measure.

I think you will find that some biology textbooks do attack creationism and ID already,

Actually, no. Every biology textbook I've seen takes great pains to stay as far away from religion as humanly possible. Every one I've seen adopts a strict "Just the facts, Maam", approach. If you have a current counter-example, please, give forth. You're good with quote mining. Go and mine me a quote from a current, generally, circulated, grade school or high school biology textbook that directly denigrates religion. Any religion.

so I don't see why things would be any different if creationist hypotheses were explored in more detail.

Details, details! You didn't tell me that the creationists finally had a hypothesis with some testable details! Please, provide us with these details post haste. Who did what, when, and where do I go for some evidence of it.

Have you ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? It is in the school textbooks, but it is far more synonymous with sudden creation than it is with gradual evolution.

"Sudden" creation took 55 million years? That's how long the Cambrian explosion lasted. And when it was over we had gone from a limited number soft-bodied arthropods to much larger variety of hard bodied arthropods. No Mammals, birds, plants, fish, flowers, fir trees or dinosaurs. just aquatic bugs. Well, there were also some spider and scorpion-ish things, but "bugs" pretty much sums it up.

Well, the timing of creation is a separate matter altogether. The agency/manner of creation is a valid question, but it does not detract from the fact that distinct animal types were created and did not simply evolve by differential reproduction.

Prove it. That's the requirement that evolution has had to meet for 150 years. Evolution has put a lot of evidence on ethe table. Creationism has provided none. Your turn. Bring forth some actual evidence. Then, by law, Creationism will no longer be religious in nature and you will be allowed to demand it's teaching in any school in the land. It's such a very low bar. All you need is one tiny little scrap of real evidence. And yet... once again you have none, now do you?

mplavcan · 5 November 2011

stevaroni said: All you need is one tiny little scrap of real evidence. And yet... once again you have none, now do you?

They have plenty. Their imagination, distortion, and of course "interpretations", which allows them to say anything they like and denigrate scientists for the hubris of claiming that their "interpretation" is somehow better than that of the creationists. Same data, different "interpretations."

Mike Elzinga · 6 November 2011

mplavcan said: They have plenty. Their imagination, distortion, and of course "interpretations", which allows them to say anything they like and denigrate scientists for the hubris of claiming that their "interpretation" is somehow better than that of the creationists. Same data, different "interpretations."

I’ve always been curious about where creationists would take that line of “reasoning.” Does New York City exist? How about the Moon? Does Earth orbit Sun? Do electrons exist? How about neutrinos? Who has what evidence in these cases? Does speciation take place? Is the Earth about 4.6 billion years old? Who has what evidence in these cases? Is the Christian bible true? Which god or gods exist? Who has what evidence? Do we really all have the same evidence; or is evidence something we make up to support what we already want to believe? If the latter, how did we come to believe in electrons and neutrinos? How did we come to believe the Earth orbits the Sun? Where is the dividing line between “we all have the same evidence but different conclusions” and “we believe we have the correct evidence? What constitutes evidence? If evidence doesn’t support a particular sectarian dogma, is the “evidence” therefore non-evidence? Why is someone “blind” to a particular sectarian dogma out of literally thousands of dogmas? Who is missing the evidence; or who is “misinterpreting” the evidence? What is the rationale for asserting one should adopt a “biblical set of glasses,” ala Ken Ham, rather than the “secular set?” What evidence is one using in deciding? Man, there is so much wrong with that childish line of reasoning. Even many of the ancient Greeks realized that assuming deities led to grotesque distortions of reality such that meeting the demands of belief resulted in extreme kludges in the descriptions of the universe. Better to start with a “clean slate” regarding deities and then see where evidence takes us. Bending data to fit sectarian preconceptions leads directly to pseudo-science; as we can so easily observe on the ID/creationist websites. Their “science” simply does not apply to the real universe; and that is evidence that cannot be ignored.

mplavcan · 6 November 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Better to start with a “clean slate” regarding deities and then see where evidence takes us. Bending data to fit sectarian preconceptions leads directly to pseudo-science; as we can so easily observe on the ID/creationist websites. Their “science” simply does not apply to the real universe; and that is evidence that cannot be ignored.

They know that ideology trumps science. It is that simple. And ideology makes them feel happy and content because it is easy.

mplavcan · 6 November 2011

We live in a realm of denial. Bozrgmehr and Ken Hamm and Michael Behe -- it is all just denial with a purpose. But denial is always mixed with the ability to construct a reality that is consistent with one's presuppositions. Scientific thinking is hard, not because it is difficult to comprehend, but because it is difficult to let the data falsify what you cherish and believe. The ability o say "I am wrong" is the most profound statement of scientific humility. Even in science it often fails. The data always seem to win in the long run, but only when they truly matter to people's existence. But for people in general, belief is stability, and stability confers meaning to life. The constructs that people erect to make their lives feel significant will always be more important than data.

Rolf · 6 November 2011

I wish somebody would press for the calculations and data in support of

"By my calculations, there is a disparity between the age of the planet and the material it is made from." … "But if you had to press me, I would say the planet is between 0.8bn to 1.5 bn years old."

IMHO everything is made of stuff all originating at the same time, about 13.75 billion years ago. Then, 9.2 billion years later the groundwork had been done to make possible the making of the Earth, that would be about 4.54 billion years ago. With the moon not too long after that.

If it is possible to be off 3 billion years wrt the age of the earth how is it possible not to be all wrong about everything?

raven · 6 November 2011

Chime in here, Raven - I know you’ve got a sentence or two of wisdom on this topic.

It's mostly been said. A lot of US fundie religion these days seems to be tribalism. "We believe the same silly things so we belong to the same tribe." Some philosophers lately have noticed this and have said that US xianity has been zombiized. They don't really much believe in god anymore or care, they believe in their tribe. They certainly don't follow the tenets of their religion which prohibits lying among other things. Dennett: Religion is the best vehicle ever invented for social conflict. Which is what it is being used for in Mt. Vernon right now. I've ended up looking at a lot of religion as just a cover for the human drives for money, power, and sex. On a personal basis it definitely is sometimes just a cover for mental illness.

raven · 6 November 2011

but…the rate of successful brainwashing seems to be less than the rate of US population growth.

The statistics say US xianity is slowly dying. The reality may be a lot worse. A lot of fundie xian religion seems to be nothing more than very thinly disguised right wing extremist politics these days. Tribal identity politics. According to ARIS and the National Council of Churches, 1-2 million people leave the religion every year. The Southern Baptists claim a retention rate of young people of 30%, they are losing members 4 years in a row now, and project their sect being cut in half in a few decades. Every where you look, churches are struggling, sometimes closing, losing members and money. Schuller's Crystal Cathedral cult is bankrupt and may be sold to the Catholic church. A projection I saw a few days ago has US xianity falling below 50% by 2050. That being said, the fundie xians may still destroy us. It turns out the US weak point is the modern economy. It is just finely balanced and easy to derail and economics underlies much of anyone's existence.

Scrooge McDuck: Money might not be everything, but without money everything is nothing. Bill Clinton. It's the economy, stupid!!!

Bush did so much damage in 8 years that the US Federal Reserve Bank is projecting economic recovery to take until 2018. They base this on the time to recover from a severe financial shock. Unemployment is very high at 9.2% and not going down. The US economy is at stall speed and going nowhere. Even my prosperous area on the west coast is feeling it for the first time in my life, with people I know struggling to keep their houses and underemployed. My 401(K) plan net of contributions has gone exactly nowhere since the year 2000. We aren't looking at a lost decade here anymore. It is a lost generation. IMO, one more Tea Party president wrecking the economy, and you can add another decade to the recovery. Recovery in 2028. That is so far out you might well just say, never. My friend who is one of the most perceptive people I know said it recently. "I don't expect the US economy to recover in my lifetime."

raven · 6 November 2011

I am really hoping that we are beginning to see a firm pushback from the rest of society that has politely put up with this crap for something like four decades now.

There is some for sure. According to recent CNN/CBS polls, fundie xians are one of the most hated groups in the USA these days. The other three are the Tea Party, the Moslems, and atheists. The fundies have managed to polarize the USA to the point where there is little consensus and little ability to fix anything. Same thing happens to a lot of countries. Japan has been in gridlock for decades.

cmb · 6 November 2011

Richard B. Hoppe said:
cmb said: I am not by nature an optimist but judging by the letters to the editor in The Mount Vernon News (including a great one from our own Dr. Hoppe) people in the community are on to the agendas of Cline and Kelly. There have been several letters in the past week encouraging the voters of Mount Vernon to vote for the incumbents and Ms. Curry to prevent Cline or Kelly from obtaining a seat on the school board. I don't recall any letters of support for our creationist friends in the past week or so.
My favorite letter from the Cline/Kelly/Feasel supporters was Kenneth Dove's on Oct 27, when he said
Finally, as a community, do we want heathens, atheists and agnostics guiding the policies of the Mount Vernon School System or do we want those who fear the Lord (which is the true beginning of wisdom)?
He forgot infidels and kitten eaters. :)

Ah yes, Mr. Dove. Too bad he didn't run for a seat on the school board. THAT would have been fun!

Paul Burnett · 6 November 2011

raven said: Schuller's Crystal Cathedral cult is bankrupt...

There was a news story a few days ago that Mrs. Schuller is sick and church members were encouraged to cook food for them, but to deliver it to the church's Tower of Hope, where one of their limo drivers pick it up and take it to the Shuller's mansion! Talk about clueless... http://global.christianpost.com/news/crystal-cathedral-bankruptcy-members-outraged-at-limos-food-request-for-schullers-60471/

DS · 6 November 2011

mplavcan said: We live in a realm of denial. Bozrgmehr and Ken Hamm and Michael Behe -- it is all just denial with a purpose. But denial is always mixed with the ability to construct a reality that is consistent with one's presuppositions. Scientific thinking is hard, not because it is difficult to comprehend, but because it is difficult to let the data falsify what you cherish and believe. The ability o say "I am wrong" is the most profound statement of scientific humility. Even in science it often fails. The data always seem to win in the long run, but only when they truly matter to people's existence. But for people in general, belief is stability, and stability confers meaning to life. The constructs that people erect to make their lives feel significant will always be more important than data.

Agreed. It reminds me of the teenager with the mohawk hair cut, the nose ring and tattoos. His parents asked him "what are you rebelling against?" He replied "what have you got?" The point is that they rebel just to rebel. The particulars don't matter. Their egos just cannot stand the fact that other people have more knowledge, so they have to find ways to denigrate those people and somehow make it seem like they have more knowledge instead, even though they are just faking it. That is why they get so upset when the people who actually know something point out that they have no idea what they are talking about. To them, objective reality is just something to be twisted and distorted and of course you don't actually have to know anything to do that. All you have to do is talk a good game and try to fool people who have even less knowledge than you. What these people forget is that reality matters and it doesn't care what you think. Our entire technological civilization is built on real progress and real achievement brought about by real understanding of the real universe. Facing up to reality is serious business. We may not know everything yet, but we certainly know what happens when reality deniers are allowed to impose their misconceptions on others. A wise man once said that those who fail to learn from the lessons of history are idiots. I was right.

co · 6 November 2011

Rolf said: I wish somebody would press for the calculations and data in support of "By my calculations, there is a disparity between the age of the planet and the material it is made from." … "But if you had to press me, I would say the planet is between 0.8bn to 1.5 bn years old." IMHO everything is made of stuff all originating at the same time, about 13.75 billion years ago. Then, 9.2 billion years later the groundwork had been done to make possible the making of the Earth, that would be about 4.54 billion years ago. With the moon not too long after that. If it is possible to be off 3 billion years wrt the age of the earth how is it possible not to be all wrong about everything?

Check out the Bathroom Wall, as that's where most of that material has been shuttled. So far he's given bullshit about the ratio of two stable iridium isotopes, and rock formations. It appears his googling skills enable him only to throw up a quick "fact" at a time, but he's not able to figure out if the facts are actually of any help to him or not, or actually _real_.

Paul Burnett · 6 November 2011

DS said: ...objective reality is just something to be twisted and distorted and of course you don't actually have to know anything to do that. All you have to do is talk a good game and try to fool people who have even less knowledge than you.

Congratulations - you have just dest described essentially every politician (at every level) and most managers (cf. Dilbert's "Pointy Haired Boss").

A wise man once said that those who fail to learn from the lessons of history are idiots.

George Santayana actually wrote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - sometimes paraphrased as ""Those who cannot remember the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them." Here is another favorite quote from Santayana which is germane to the current Mount Vernon debacle: "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."

SLC · 6 November 2011

Paul Burnett said:
DS said: ...objective reality is just something to be twisted and distorted and of course you don't actually have to know anything to do that. All you have to do is talk a good game and try to fool people who have even less knowledge than you.
Congratulations - you have just dest described essentially every politician (at every level) and most managers (cf. Dilbert's "Pointy Haired Boss").
A wise man once said that those who fail to learn from the lessons of history are idiots.
George Santayana actually wrote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - sometimes paraphrased as ""Those who cannot remember the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them." Here is another favorite quote from Santayana which is germane to the current Mount Vernon debacle: "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."

Or as Albert Einstein was quoted as once saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

Science Avenger · 6 November 2011

Atheistoclast said: I think most Americans are tired of the rampant abuse of the First Amendment to impose a secular totalitarianism that excludes religion from public life whilst promoting non-religion.

And I think monkeys are flying out of your ass. Seriously, what fucking planet do you live on? Exclude religion from public life? In a country where, out of political necessity, politicians stumble over each other trying to appear more pious than thou? In a country with god jabber plaster on every bit of currency and sprinkled through every political speech? In a country where we have laws in countless areas (abortion, birth control, gay rights) that have no nonreligious basis? In a country where we have government paid-for chaplains in our military, and most every political body opens its meetings with some sort of religious observance? You might as well accuse nudists of imposing a nudist totalitarianism that excludes clothing from public life while you're at it. It is equally well-evidenced.

ogremk5 · 6 November 2011

Science Avenger said:
Atheistoclast said: I think most Americans are tired of the rampant abuse of the First Amendment to impose a secular totalitarianism that excludes religion from public life whilst promoting non-religion.
And I think monkeys are flying out of your ass. Seriously, what fucking planet do you live on? Exclude religion from public life? In a country where, out of political necessity, politicians stumble over each other trying to appear more pious than thou? In a country with god jabber plaster on every bit of currency and sprinkled through every political speech? In a country where we have laws in countless areas (abortion, birth control, gay rights) that have no nonreligious basis? In a country where we have government paid-for chaplains in our military, and most every political body opens its meetings with some sort of religious observance? You might as well accuse nudists of imposing a nudist totalitarianism that excludes clothing from public life while you're at it. It is equally well-evidenced.

To fulfill the requirements of the First Amendment, we really should start a campaign to require that on "Talk like a pirate day", the congressional prayer must be given by a Pastafarian.

raven · 6 November 2011

Crashing the Tea Party - NYTimes.com - New York Timesw ww.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.htmlAdd to iGoogle Published: August 16, 2011 ... Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. ... Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right. ... As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea ... or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters. ...

Some documentation for the pushback against fundie christofascists. Polls almost never use the words fundamentalist xians. So you have to use the closest approximation. Evangelical is close although not all evangelicals think the earth is 6,000 years old, i.e. Collins, NIH head. The Tea Party and the Christian right are probably a little closer.

Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus Zuckerman and Cady, historians. Posted: 03/ 3/11 10:06 AM ET The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://w ww.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Tea-Party-and-Religion.aspx) reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus.

Recently a number of scholars have noticed this. There is a good possiblility that US xianity has already died while no one was paying attention. What is left is a demented zombie threatening to take over the US and destroy it.

Alan(UK) · 6 November 2011

If each of 38 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%. In other words, the Earth must be young with a likelihood of greater than 96%

The above indicates that the writer's arguments cannot be supported by science. He intends to throw us 38 counterexamples in the hope that one will stick. Failing that he hopes that 10% of each will stick to reach his 'likelihood of greater than 96%'. Does a lawyer put 38 witnesses in the box in the hope that the jury will find one convincing or that they will find 10% of what each has to say convincing?

If the "theory of an Old Earth" is wrong, then why limit yourself to 38 counterexamples? Why pick only weak arguments?

When I am confronted by a YEC argument that depends on some branch of science that I understand, I find that it is not just wrong but depends on the writer not understanding the subject himself. Why is it that a YEC appears to be an expert on every branch of science but, when it comes to the bit that I know, they suddenly appear woefully ignorant?

Mike Elzinga · 6 November 2011

Alan(UK) said: Why is it that a YEC appears to be an expert on every branch of science but, when it comes to the bit that I know, they suddenly appear woefully ignorant?

One of the first things that one noticed about Henry Morris and Duane Gish back in the 1970s is that they tried to make themselves appear to be experts in ALL the sciences. That already raised suspicions. They did this by fabricating a bunch of arguments they could dance among (the old Gish Gallop), arguments that were designed to taunt scientists and impress rubes with the illusion of infinite erudition. Back in the 1970s, one of the first things that we in the physics community noticed was that Morris had deliberately concocted a conflict between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics; and he did it by mischaracterizing both concepts. Now we physicists at that time – with only a few exceptions – spent our time on the sidelines assuming that this was the biologists’ war. But it wasn’t long before the emboldened creationists started getting cocky and using their newly founded Institute for Creation “Research” as a full-time, fully-funded think tank for churning out misconceptions and misrepresentations in all fields of science. So it is no coincidence that someone with knowledge and expertise in any particular area of science will discover that their field has been totally mangled by the ID/creationists. The real issue comes down to the morality of the kinds of people who would engage in this kind of activity for over four decades now. These are not nice people in any sense of the word. Any “avuncular niceness” they exude is for political purposes only. Beneath those ratty sheepskins are some of the vilest forms of humanity on this planet. They hide behind religion to commit crimes that enrich themselves and undermine the educational foundations of society. These charlatans have exploited the “freedom of religion” clause in the US Constitution in order to avoid prosecution for fraud. If they were conducting this kind of activity in any other area – such as insurance, or any other form of business or commerce – the law would have had them in jail long ago. Freedom of religion has created a haven for fraudsters who find themselves welcomed into the fold of sectarians who judge people only on the basis of their use of biblical code words and not on the basis of their truthfulness.

Richard B. Hoppe · 6 November 2011

Alan(UK) said:
If each of 38 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%. In other words, the Earth must be young with a likelihood of greater than 96%
The above indicates that the writer's arguments cannot be supported by science. He intends to throw us 38 counterexamples in the hope that one will stick. Failing that he hopes that 10% of each will stick to reach his 'likelihood of greater than 96%'. Does a lawyer put 38 witnesses in the box in the hope that the jury will find one convincing or that they will find 10% of what each has to say convincing?

That's what Kelly Hamilton, John Freshwater's attorney, did in the administrative hearing. Didn't work.

John_S · 6 November 2011

Atheistoclast said: I think most Americans are tired of the rampant abuse of the First Amendment to impose a secular totalitarianism that excludes religion from public life whilst promoting non-religion.

I wouldn't be surprised if a large number don't like the First Amendment preventing their religion from being promoted in public schools and on public property; but I'll bet they'd be the first ones screaming "First Amendment" if someone of another religion asked for the privilege. Remember what happened in Albemarle County, VA when Jerry Falwell's Liberty Council won the right for public schools to send home flyers announcing a vacation Bible school in backpacks: a pagan group promptly demanded the same right to send announcements of its programs, too, and the school had to do it. The parents went nuts and the school board eventually ended up eliminating the whole backpack flyer program. If Freshwater had kept a Quran on his desk, do you think the same fundamentalists in Mt. Vernon would be defending him and demanding his religious "rights"? Not on your life! BTW, actually promoting non-religion, as opposed to simply ignoring it, is illegal under the First Amendment, too.

Scott F · 6 November 2011

raven said: According to ARIS and the National Council of Churches, 1-2 million people leave the religion every year. The Southern Baptists claim a retention rate of young people of 30%, they are losing members 4 years in a row now, and project their sect being cut in half in a few decades. Every where you look, churches are struggling, sometimes closing, losing members and money.

This may be true of established "churches", but not of "religion" in general. I live in a semi-rural area. While the "traditional" churches (Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc) in the area are certainly in decline, the non-affiliated, non-denominational, fundamentalist, evangelical churches are thriving and growing by leaps and bounds. There isn't a year that goes by that someone isn't expanding or building a new church here. If you're only looking at the NCC and their member churches, you may be getting a skewed perspective. If you want to gauge the health of a church, look to see how many children are there. The traditional churches don't have anyone in the pews who doesn't have gray hair. A good third or more of people in the evangelical churches are under 25. I don't see any decline in religion in my neck of the woods.

Scott F · 6 November 2011

mplavcan said: Scientific thinking is hard, not because it is difficult to comprehend, but because it is difficult to let the data falsify what you cherish and believe. The ability o say "I am wrong" is the most profound statement of scientific humility. Even in science it often fails.

I'm no expert, but I've read some things recently about the history of scientific advancements. Even in science, it's not unusual that advancements only come about as the then-current generation of scientists retire. The acceptance of plate tectonics was used as an example. It's really hard for anyone to say, "I was wrong".

apokryltaros · 6 November 2011

John_S said: BTW, actually promoting non-religion, as opposed to simply ignoring it, is illegal under the First Amendment, too.

How do you promote "non-religion"? You mean like encouraging people to give up their religious beliefs or persecuting churches?

Henry · 6 November 2011

robert van bakel said: Conservapedia was started by Andrew Schlafly (Phyllis Schlafly's son) because he didn't like someone spelling 'Labour' with 'our' when everybody knowes it should be 'Labor'. Andrew is presently rewriting the New Testament so that all of Jesus' communist acts, such as feeding the 5000, or thrashing the bankers in the temple are correctly interpreted. Someone should tell Andrew (Atheistclast) that the Bible has been written, rewritten, interpreted, re-interpreted, translated, untranslated, retranslated and then rewritten again so many times, that the 'Chosen' have a book, which, though occasionally beautiful, and even inspiring, is an utter dog's breakfast as an historical text.

I think you have a strong Pro Communist, Anti Capitalist worldview.

Henry · 6 November 2011

Under the Constitution

Section 8: Powers of Congress

Main article: Enumerated powers

Congress's powers are enumerated in Section Eight:
“ The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

What kind of science was Congress authorized to promote 7 decades prior to Darwin's Origin of Species and 140 years prior to the Scopes monkey trial?

John_S · 6 November 2011

apokryltaros said:
John_S said: BTW, actually promoting non-religion, as opposed to simply ignoring it, is illegal under the First Amendment, too.
How do you promote "non-religion"? You mean like encouraging people to give up their religious beliefs or persecuting churches?

A teacher could actively oppose or ridicule their students' religious beliefs, as opposed to simply keeping his/her mouth shut about religion. IANAL, but I think that would be illegal under the First Amendment, too.

Henry, replying to robert van bakel Conservapedia was started by Andrew Schlafly (Phyllis Schlafly’s son) because he didn’t like someone spelling ‘Labour’ with ‘our’ when everybody knowes it should be ‘Labor’.

I heard a fundie claim changing "saviour" in the KJV to "savior" in newer translations was evidence of a liberal conspiracy to change the godly seven letter word to a Satanic six letter one!. There's no end to the lunacy of some of these people.

harold · 6 November 2011

Henry said:
robert van bakel said: Conservapedia was started by Andrew Schlafly (Phyllis Schlafly's son) because he didn't like someone spelling 'Labour' with 'our' when everybody knowes it should be 'Labor'. Andrew is presently rewriting the New Testament so that all of Jesus' communist acts, such as feeding the 5000, or thrashing the bankers in the temple are correctly interpreted. Someone should tell Andrew (Atheistclast) that the Bible has been written, rewritten, interpreted, re-interpreted, translated, untranslated, retranslated and then rewritten again so many times, that the 'Chosen' have a book, which, though occasionally beautiful, and even inspiring, is an utter dog's breakfast as an historical text.
I think you have a strong Pro Communist, Anti Capitalist worldview.

Thank you Henry. Thank you for revealing the purely political right wing nature of creationism more blatantly than some of your more clever fellow travelers. For the record, you don't know what communism is, you don't know what capitalism is, you don't understand any of the science that you arrogantly deny, and what you call Christianity is a post-modern cult of resentment, hatred, and narcissistic magical thinking.

raven · 6 November 2011

Scott: I don’t see any decline in religion in my neck of the woods.

How unfortunate. Here on the west coast, we don't see that or at least I don't. Same thing in the northeast.

I live in a semi-rural area.

BTW, 88% of the US population doesn't live in rural areas. The USA is a very urban society. The small fundie chuches in lower boondock might not show up on the National Council of Churches lists. But they will get picked up by survey data such as ARIS. And the Southern Basketcases, by all accounts one of the weirder and more malevolent cults, reports losing members for years now. It's known that they cook their numbers, so the decline is likely to be more than they report. The so called moderate xians are definitely getting hit as hard or harder than the fundies. I should know, up until a few years ago, I was one. A survey I just read today by a Catholic priest, said the US RCC has lost 1/3 of its members. That is 20 million people. A lot of them however, moved to Protestant churches so it's almost a wash. One of my Catholic relatives is now a mid level lay church official. In a Protestant church.

harold · 6 November 2011

John_S -

I assume you are the "good" John S, not the creationist John S.

Your second comment would logically be addressed to Robert van Bakel. Henry is a dullwit troll who parrots extreme right propaganda, including but not limited to creationism.

As for your first comment, it would of course be illegal for public school teachers to single out some religious stances for ridicule or opposition. I am not a lawyer, either, but it is obvious that disparaging of some religions by government agents is the equivalent of favoring non-disparaged religious stances.

It would also be a terrible idea for teachers to do so, even if it were legal. Good-natured "ridicule" by peers or family members may help adolescent males to learn under some circumstances. We should note that the difference between shared humor and ridicule can difficult to measure. Likewise, there is a vast difference between a group of peers who direct humor at one another, versus some students being relentlessly singled out for ridicule or criticism of their cultural traits while others are arbitrarily favored. Hostile ridicule of a students' cultural groups would not have beneficial effects under any conceivable rational analysis.

I am non-religious and opposed to hostile ridicule of students' cultural traits by teachers in public schools. There may be some non-religious people who disagree, and favor ridicule of children whose parents belong to some or any religious sects. Whether this is right or wrong is subjective. However, we should note that the question of how it would be predicted to impact the students is not entirely subjective. Such activity would surely be harmful to the impacted students; any claim to the contrary would fly in the face of empirical reality to date.

Likewise, I would not personally perceive much ethical difference between an atheist teacher ridiculing students for their families' religious affiliation, or a sincerely religious teacher ridiculing students for their families' religious affiliation.

Thus, one can support or oppose ridicule of students by teachers - whether it is "right" or "wrong" is, as I noted, a subjective decision. But one cannot argue that supporting such ridicule would be due to a rational belief that it would help students.

For the record, I wish that people could learn to find the psychological and social benefits of religion without magical or superstitious beliefs, but ridiculing children in school would not be the way to get there.

rags_2004#462fd · 6 November 2011

Harold

Your supposition may be tested soon. Michigan is passing an 'anti-bullying' law that specifically exempts those claiming religious motivations for their actions from prosecution.

Rags

raven · 6 November 2011

Largest Metropolitan Areas | Fastest Growing Metros | Metropolitan ...proximityone .com/metros.htmCached - Similar Metropolitan Areas: Assessing Competitive Position and Change ..... More than 93-percent of the total U.S. population live in metropolitan areas (details). Unlike most ... new estimates and projections, June 2011, reflect Census 2010 results. ... U.S. Census: Only 16% live in rural America | Marketplace From ...marketplace.publicradio.org/.../2011/.../am-us-census-only-16-live-in...Cached Marketplace Morning Report, Thursday, July 28, 2011 ... Sixteen percent of Americans live in areas that aren't part of a metropolitan area. Kenneth Johnson is a Senior ... Chiotakis: We're talking about how many people live in rural areas. ...

The US census says only 16% of the US population lives in rural areas. Another source says it is even lower. FWIW, where I live, I haven't seen a new church go up in a long time. The mainline sects definitely have a very old membership. My parent's church has a sunday school. Most of the time there are zero kids for it. None. The stealth SBC church down the road isn't doing so well. They keep beating the bushes for new members but it hasn't worked. I can't say that any have closed though but I don't pay much attention.

raven · 6 November 2011

FYI. The US RCC has lost 1/3 of its members. Half remain unaffiliated, half go Protestant, often Evangelical.

Vancouver Sun Douglas Todd The Catholic church is losing huge numbers of members. If ex-Catholics were their own denomination, they would make up the third largest denomination in the United States, according to The National Catholic Reporter. Canadians have much to learn from a powerful new study released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, which shows that one out every 10 Americans is now an ex-Catholic. {Scroll through my take on more Catholic church issues.} “Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening,” writes Jesuit Father Thomas Reese continues

SWT · 6 November 2011

Henry said: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; What kind of science was Congress authorized to promote 7 decades prior to Darwin's Origin of Species and 140 years prior to the Scopes monkey trial?

The kind of science that results in patentable inventions -- inventions that are novel, useful, and non-obvious. What kind of science were you thinking of?

Paul Burnett · 6 November 2011

Henry said:
The US Constitution, Section 8, says The Congress shall have power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
What kind of science was Congress authorized to promote 7 decades prior to Darwin's Origin of Species and 140 years prior to the Scopes monkey trial?

[sigh] Another right-wing ignoramus who doesn't know much about science or history. I know the fundagelicals don't like Thomas Jefferson because of his "separation of church and state" comment, but they also don't like him because he was (among other things) a scientist as the word was understood in the late 18th century. "Science" meant a body of reliable knowledge about a topic and was at the time just beginning to drift into including a method for finding that knowledge. Jefferson, for instance, invented the moldboard plow, demonstrating a "useful Art."

Mike Elzinga · 6 November 2011

rags_2004#462fd said: Harold Your supposition may be tested soon. Michigan is passing an 'anti-bullying' law that specifically exempts those claiming religious motivations for their actions from prosecution. Rags

Here is a link containing further links. It’s atrocious; but if someone wants to use religion to hide from the law, it appears that they have to actually state their sectarian beliefs in order to do so. That loophole in the law may actually backfire against bullying sectarians. If they make explicit statements of sectarian dogma, I don’t see why such persons and their statements can’t be plastered all over the internet and in the newspapers. One just has to make sure these sectarians are quoted accurately. If there is anything that will turn the general public against these sectarians, this loophole may be just the ticket. But the mere fact that some of these sectarians got the loophole put into the law is already damning evidence of their hatred and bigotry.

SWT · 6 November 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
rags_2004#462fd said: Harold Your supposition may be tested soon. Michigan is passing an 'anti-bullying' law that specifically exempts those claiming religious motivations for their actions from prosecution. Rags
Here is a link containing further links. It’s atrocious; but if someone wants to use religion to hide from the law, it appears that they have to actually state their sectarian beliefs in order to do so.

If the WaPo article is correct, I'm disgusted. Bullying is wrong; there is no exception for bullying in God's name.

Henry · 6 November 2011

harold said:
Henry said:
robert van bakel said: Conservapedia was started by Andrew Schlafly (Phyllis Schlafly's son) because he didn't like someone spelling 'Labour' with 'our' when everybody knowes it should be 'Labor'. Andrew is presently rewriting the New Testament so that all of Jesus' communist acts, such as feeding the 5000, or thrashing the bankers in the temple are correctly interpreted. Someone should tell Andrew (Atheistclast) that the Bible has been written, rewritten, interpreted, re-interpreted, translated, untranslated, retranslated and then rewritten again so many times, that the 'Chosen' have a book, which, though occasionally beautiful, and even inspiring, is an utter dog's breakfast as an historical text.
I think you have a strong Pro Communist, Anti Capitalist worldview.
Thank you Henry. Thank you for revealing the purely political right wing nature of creationism more blatantly than some of your more clever fellow travelers. For the record, you don't know what communism is, you don't know what capitalism is, you don't understand any of the science that you arrogantly deny, and what you call Christianity is a post-modern cult of resentment, hatred, and narcissistic magical thinking.

Communists across the globe must be delighted to know that Jesus is on their side. When will they stop persecuting Christians and closing Churches?

Henry · 6 November 2011

SWT said:
Henry said: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; What kind of science was Congress authorized to promote 7 decades prior to Darwin's Origin of Species and 140 years prior to the Scopes monkey trial?
The kind of science that results in patentable inventions -- inventions that are novel, useful, and non-obvious. What kind of science were you thinking of?

That kind of science has been around for long time before the Constitution and continues after it was written, without evolution being much of a factor, if any. Evolution wasn't taught exclusively in the public schools until the 1950's.

mplavcan · 6 November 2011

Henry said: That kind of science has been around for long time before the Constitution and continues after it was written, without evolution being much of a factor, if any. Evolution wasn't taught exclusively in the public schools until the 1950's.

When the panic hit that the Soviets were overtaking us in science.

raven · 6 November 2011

Henry: Communists across the globe must be delighted to know that Jesus is on their side. When will they stop persecuting Christians and closing Churches?

The communists fell decades ago. The Soviet Union doesn't even exist any more. Several of their former satellite nations are part of NATO. They are all but extinct. Psst, someone is going to have to update Henry. A lot has happened in the last 30 years.

mplavcan · 6 November 2011

Henry said: That kind of science has been around for long time before the Constitution and continues after it was written, without evolution being much of a factor, if any. Evolution wasn't taught exclusively in the public schools until the 1950's.

Cutting to the quick here, is it your proposition that if you can't force sectarian religion to be taught in schools, you want to ban the teaching of science that you don't like, and if you can't do that, then you will cut off funding for said science? And that is your "capitalist" plan?

mplavcan · 6 November 2011

raven said:
Henry: Communists across the globe must be delighted to know that Jesus is on their side. When will they stop persecuting Christians and closing Churches?
The communists fell decades ago. The Soviet Union doesn't even exist any more. Several of their former satellite nations are part of NATO. They are all but extinct. Psst, someone is going to have to update Henry. A lot has happened in the last 30 years.

One suspects that he cannot distinguish between a communist, socialist, capitalist, or, ahem, fascist.

raven · 6 November 2011

BTW, the new bad guys in the world are Moslems. Update your demonology.

FWIW, Moslems are mostly creationists. In percentage terms much more so than xians, most of whom are not.

tomh · 6 November 2011

SWT said: If the WaPo article is correct, I'm disgusted. Bullying is wrong; there is no exception for bullying in God's name.

But it's not surprising. After all, the majority of states allow parents to deny medical care for children, if it's because of a sincerely held religious belief. Faith healing, in other words. States vary a good deal in what is allowed, from Rhode Island, for instance, where prayer instead of medical care is only allowed for minor conditions, to states like Idaho where the parent is immune from prosecution even if the child dies. In Michigan, the exemption in the child abuse statute reads "A parent or guardian legitimately practicing his religious beliefs who thereby does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, for that reason alone shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian." Unlike many states, however, Michigan does allow for a court to order treatment if necessary.

SWT · 6 November 2011

Henry said:
SWT said:
Henry said: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; What kind of science was Congress authorized to promote 7 decades prior to Darwin's Origin of Species and 140 years prior to the Scopes monkey trial?
The kind of science that results in patentable inventions -- inventions that are novel, useful, and non-obvious. What kind of science were you thinking of?
That kind of science has been around for long time before the Constitution and continues after it was written, without evolution being much of a factor, if any. Evolution wasn't taught exclusively in the public schools until the 1950's.

Do you see some sort of connection between the text you quoted from the US Constitution and public school curricula?

Dave Luckett · 6 November 2011

Henry thinks 'communists' means 'bad guys'. He probably thinks 'Nazis' and even 'fascists' are synonyms. On another level, he apparently thinks a communist is anyone who closes churches.

For the record, the essential feature of communism is common ownership by all citizens of all means of production, leading to a classless society where there are neither rich nor poor, and where all goods and services are equally shared according to need.

This is impossible even in theory, and it produces gross abuses and tyrannies in practice, but if followed at the level of individuals, would have been in perfect accord with the teachings of Jesus. Other aspects of Marxist thought were not, of course, but Marxism, and more particularly Leninism, is not communism.

tomh · 7 November 2011

raven said: Here on the west coast, we don't see that or at least I don't.

I don't doubt your stats on believers leaving traditional churches, but the west coast may have more megachurches, and some of the biggest, like Rick Warren's Saddleback, than anywhere in the country. The database of megachurches in the U.S. lists 195 megachurches (minimum 2000 attendance) in California, with another 60 in Oregon and Washington. Saddleback has an average weekly attendance of over 22,000 and a number of others in CA average over 10,000. Don't underestimate the attraction of these newer churches.

raven · 7 November 2011

Don’t underestimate the attraction of these newer churches.

Never appealed to me. Some observers claim that the megachurches are a sign of impending collapse. They are consolidating what is left of the xians and cannibalizing the smaller churches. At least one in CA has gone bankrupt, Schuller's crystal cathedral and one near me was in big trouble. They don't seem all that great a sign, IMO. Religion should be personal and ecstatic and participation and community at least. That is why the charismatic and pentacostals have been expanding while the others are dying. That is why the US RCC has lost 1/3 of its members. A lot of them go pentacostal. Sitting in a huge crowd listening to some fabulously wealth (with your money) vaguely humanoid toad with an IQ half yours rant and rave, just doesn't sound very fun.

raven · 7 November 2011

BTW, a lot of the leaders of the megachurches are just conmen. There is big money in lots of gullible suckers and all it takes is a lack of any capacity for morality, greed, and you don't have to even be very intelligent or educated.

Pat Robertson is reputed to have made over a billion dollars by never having said anything intelligent while hating a lot. Ted Haggard, the Bakkers and on and on.

A lot of them are televangelists as well and that speaks for itself.

dalehusband · 7 November 2011

raven said: FWIW, where I live, I haven't seen a new church go up in a long time. The mainline sects definitely have a very old membership. My parent's church has a sunday school. Most of the time there are zero kids for it. None. The stealth SBC church down the road isn't doing so well. They keep beating the bushes for new members but it hasn't worked. I can't say that any have closed though but I don't pay much attention.

My Unitarian Universalist church is thriving, due to a strong emphasis on bringing up youth within it and keeping them involved from start to finish. We also added several new members this year who were adults from the outside. We have about 150 members now, with an average attendance on Sunday mornings at about 80. http://www.firstjefferson.org/

harold · 7 November 2011

mplavcan said:
Henry said: That kind of science has been around for long time before the Constitution and continues after it was written, without evolution being much of a factor, if any. Evolution wasn't taught exclusively in the public schools until the 1950's.
Cutting to the quick here, is it your proposition that if you can't force sectarian religion to be taught in schools, you want to ban the teaching of science that you don't like, and if you can't do that, then you will cut off funding for said science? And that is your "capitalist" plan?

Actually, although I'm sure that's true, in this thread, his proposition is also that anyone who doesn't support the Conservapedia rewriting of the Bible is a communist. He actually seems to think he holds the following beliefs at the same time - 1) Traditional versions of the Bible are "literally true" and must obeyed 2) communism is bad 3) traditional versions of the Bible are communist and must be rewritten. Like his fellow authoritarian followers, he literally has zero self-awareness or critical thinking capacity. As I have mentioned, these people enjoy the comforts of a prosperous (for them) and fairly free (for them) society. But they seethe with rage and resentment because they aren't also allowed to sadistically persecute certain groups of people as much as they want to. Anything associated with unjustified hatred of certain groups must be correct, in his mind. Therefore, since some hate-mongers say the the Bible is perfect, and other hate-mongers say it must be rewritten to remove "communist" parts, both of those things must be simultaneously true. And yes, as others have noted, he does not know or care what communist or capitalist mean. And never will.

Paul Burnett · 7 November 2011

tomh said: ...the west coast may have more megachurches, and some of the biggest, like Rick Warren's Saddleback, than anywhere in the country.

Rick Warren is a typical fundagelical Biblical literalist and anti-evolution creationist.

tomh · 7 November 2011

Paul Burnett said: Rick Warren is a typical fundagelical Biblical literalist and anti-evolution creationist.

Of course he is. And his church is thriving. There is a big market for his product and his brand has a lot of influence, witness Warren being invited to the White House early in this Administration. Churches spend millions of dollars each year lobbying Congress, and the biggest lobbyist of all is the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 45,000 local churches from 40 denominations, and claim to represent one quarter of all American voters. Politicians listen to those kinds of numbers (along with hefty campaign contributions.) Of course churches are exempt from lobbying disclosure rules so it's hard to pin down where their money is going, but they are pushing their agenda with millions of dollars. Heck, the lobbying arm of the Quaker Church, (the only one to voluntarily report how much they spent), spent about two million dollars on lobbying in 2010, so just imagine how much the churches who have real money spent.

W. H. Heydt · 7 November 2011

dalehusband said: My Unitarian Universalist church is thriving, due to a strong emphasis on bringing up youth within it and keeping them involved from start to finish. We also added several new members this year who were adults from the outside. We have about 150 members now, with an average attendance on Sunday mornings at about 80. http://www.firstjefferson.org/

Well....maybe. I was raised as Unitarian (this was before the merger with the Universalists) and as my wife says, you can't get much less religious than a fallen away Unitarian. Certainly is past Unitarians were a haven for people who wanted a religion and didn't want whatever they were. This included "mixed religion" couples, such as (to give an example I knew of) a Cathloic married to a Jew. Neither religion approved of such marriages at the time, but the Unitarians didn't care. Another source of Unitarians were people who didn't like reality-denial of other religions. When I lived in Abilene, TX (3 Bible Colleges in town) in the mid-50s, most of the local oil geologists were Unitarians. Unitarians did generate some good jokes, though... Catholics pray to Mary, Protestants pray to God, Unitarians pray To Whom It May Concern. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

John_S · 7 November 2011

harold said: John_S - I assume you are the "good" John S, not the creationist John S. Your second comment would logically be addressed to Robert van Bakel. Henry is a dullwit troll who parrots extreme right propaganda, including but not limited to creationism.

Well, I think I'm the good one ... You're right - I knew I'd make a mistake like that sooner or later. I hit the "reply" to Henry, who was quoting Robert van Bakel; but in fact I should have quoted RvB directly and left Henry out of it. Thanks for clearing that up, and apologies to RvB. John_S, who is not John S.

Carl Drews · 7 November 2011

Richard B. Hoppe wrote: Even 8th graders could find and recognize many of the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the article. That exercise would also help students learn about the dangers in trying to support a worldview with empirical claims that are so easily shown to be false.

Actually, my 6th-grade son was quite pleased to debunk the moon receding claim by himself a few weeks ago, discovering that there is plenty of distance for the moon to recede at the observed rate and avoid scraping the earth's atmosphere when the process began! It was a good exercise in beginner astronomy. My daughter is a freshman in a public high school. She has the "Biology" textbook by Miller and Levine, which includes an extensive section on Evolution. Now *that's* some good science! Of course the primary author Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University is a devout Roman Catholic Christian. Thus we can further debunk the claim that biological evolution is inherently atheistic.

Golkarian · 7 November 2011

This is what I can't stand about YEC. At least with ID there a little scrupulous. But with YEC they come up with so many unsupported or downright false allegations that one person can't possibly be able to respond to them all.

ogremk5 · 7 November 2011

Golkarian said: This is what I can't stand about YEC. At least with ID there a little scrupulous. But with YEC they come up with so many unsupported or downright false allegations that one person can't possibly be able to respond to them all.

Which is exactly the point. You throw enough shit at the wall and some of it will stick somewhere. Fortunately, there is a group dedicated to dealing with creationists and creationism and, while not experts in all of the subjects, have enough of an understanding to deal with the majority of them.

Richard B. Hoppe · 7 November 2011

ogremk5 said: Which is exactly the point. You throw enough shit at the wall and hope that some of it will stick somewhere.

Fixed it for you. :)

ogremk5 · 7 November 2011

Richard B. Hoppe said:
ogremk5 said: Which is exactly the point. You throw enough shit at the wall and hope that some of it will stick somewhere.
Fixed it for you. :)

yeah... you right.

harold · 7 November 2011

Golkarian said: This is what I can't stand about YEC.

I agree with this.

At least with ID there a little scrupulous.

Unfortunately, no, there isn't any scrupulousness to ID. In fact, it's arguably worse than YEC, because it's arguably more dishonest. Which isn't surprising, because it was designed, no pun intended, to "court proof" creationism by disguising it, so that it could be taught in public schools. YEC offers a coherent, testable hypothesis. The problem is that the hypothesis has been repeatedly tested, it's obviously false, and they keep lying about the data. However, YEC is more or less coherent and testable. Six thousand year old earth, all species created magically six thousand years ago and not related to each other by descent, global flood four thousand years ago, boat that contained two of every species (or seven), etc - all of this can be tested by science and has been, typically unintentionally, but decisively. ID creationism is logically incoherent and untestable, except to the extent that it must be false because it isn't even logical. It was designed to untestable.

But with YEC they come up with so many unsupported or downright false allegations that one person can't possibly be able to respond to them all.

There is no reason to think that "ID advocates" behave any differently. Do not be fooled by ID creationism.

cwjolley · 7 November 2011

... YEC offers a coherent, testable hypothesis. ...

How could one test the actions of a literally all powerful God? It could have magically created the universe as is 12 seconds ago. Created the flood then erased the evidence. It could have done ANYTHING, and made the universe appear anyway it wanted to. It's coherent I suppose. But testable? I don't see how.

Science Avenger · 7 November 2011

John_S said:
harold said: John_S - I assume you are the "good" John S, not the creationist John S.
Well, I think I'm the good one ... John_S, who is not John S.

Clearly you are intelligently designed. After all, the probability of the letters "J-O-H-N-[space]-S" appearing randomly after the first John S graced us with his presence is 1/27^6 (counting the space as a letter) = 1/387,420,489! Clear design I say!

Mike Elzinga · 7 November 2011

harold said: YEC offers a coherent, testable hypothesis. The problem is that the hypothesis has been repeatedly tested, it's obviously false, and they keep lying about the data. However, YEC is more or less coherent and testable. Six thousand year old earth, all species created magically six thousand years ago and not related to each other by descent, global flood four thousand years ago, boat that contained two of every species (or seven), etc - all of this can be tested by science and has been, typically unintentionally, but decisively.

It appears that Ken Ham and his sycophants are trying to confuse this issue also. By claiming “we have the same evidence but different perspectives,” they attempt to quash any refutation of their claims by alleging that the “materialist perspective” nullifies any scientific proof that YEC is wrong. The “correct perspective” is the literal reading of their holy book. I think that the YECs have actually become far more juvenile in their arguments after the intelligent design fiasco. YECs hate ID because it doesn't "properly identify" the creator; but their own stupid arguments are directed at the minds of young children.

harold · 7 November 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
harold said: YEC offers a coherent, testable hypothesis. The problem is that the hypothesis has been repeatedly tested, it's obviously false, and they keep lying about the data. However, YEC is more or less coherent and testable. Six thousand year old earth, all species created magically six thousand years ago and not related to each other by descent, global flood four thousand years ago, boat that contained two of every species (or seven), etc - all of this can be tested by science and has been, typically unintentionally, but decisively.
It appears that Ken Ham and his sycophants are trying to confuse this issue also. By claiming “we have the same evidence but different perspectives,” they attempt to quash any refutation of their claims by alleging that the “materialist perspective” nullifies any scientific proof that YEC is wrong. The “correct perspective” is the literal reading of their holy book. I think that the YECs have actually become far more juvenile in their arguments after the intelligent design fiasco. YECs hate ID because it doesn't "properly identify" the creator; but their own stupid arguments are directed at the minds of young children.

Yes, the "different perspective" thing is exceedingly lame. "The earth must be 6000 years old no matter what the evidence shows" is logically equivalent to "I don't care what the evidence shows".

mplavcan · 7 November 2011

harold said: Yes, the "different perspective" thing is exceedingly lame. "The earth must be 6000 years old no matter what the evidence shows" is logically equivalent to "I don't care what the evidence shows".

Exactly. But that is not your interpretation -- it is THEIR creed. I just LOVE the statement of Faith that their "scientists" have to sign. It says it all, and I feel compelled to make sure that this is publicized at every opportunity. "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Atheistoclast · 7 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

SWT · 7 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Atheistoclast · 7 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

mplavcan · 7 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

mplavcan · 7 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

DS · 7 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

mplavcan · 7 November 2011

DS said: Clean up on aisle six.

But this one is FUNNY. I am still chuckling. Agree, though. To the BW before the whole thing gets gummed up. The real point (perhaps as illustrated here) is that these folks are willing to twist and distort the very definition of science in order to deny scientific findings.

John_S · 7 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

co · 7 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Atheistoclast · 7 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Atheistoclast · 7 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

ogremk5 · 7 November 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

mplavcan · 7 November 2011

Well, at least one person is confused, I'll grant you that.

cwjolley · 7 November 2011

Richard B. Hoppe said: Ugh. I should know better than to take the evening off after posting. I'm going to work through the comments and send all but Atheistoclast's first comment (and all responses to the rest) to the BW. Sorry, folks, but please DNFTT. Thanks!

Did you dare to take another evening off?

Richard B. Hoppe · 7 November 2011

Swept again, with tired eyes. Please, please DNFTT, huh?

Paul Burnett · 7 November 2011

tomh said: Of course churches are exempt from lobbying disclosure rules...

Can anybody provide the background on that particular rule? Is that like another IRS exemption?

dalehusband · 7 November 2011

W. H. Heydt said: I was raised as Unitarian (this was before the merger with the Universalists) and as my wife says, you can't get much less religious than a fallen away Unitarian. Certainly in the past Unitarians were a haven for people who wanted a religion and didn't want whatever they were. This included "mixed religion" couples, such as (to give an example I knew of) a Cathloic married to a Jew. Neither religion approved of such marriages at the time, but the Unitarians didn't care. Another source of Unitarians were people who didn't like reality-denial of other religions. When I lived in Abilene, TX (3 Bible Colleges in town) in the mid-50s, most of the local oil geologists were Unitarians. Unitarians did generate some good jokes, though... Catholics pray to Mary, Protestants pray to God, Unitarians pray To Whom It May Concern. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Considering that UUs admit atheists and agnostics are members, along with gays, lesbians, transgenders, and pagans, you could very well say that they left behind their Christian origins completely. http://www.uua.org/ Have you looked at how UUs have evolved since the merger 50 years ago? You might be astonished. http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/183129.shtml If not for UUs churches like the one I'm part of, I wouldn't have married my Christian wife. She has a place there too: http://www.uuchristian.org/

tomh · 7 November 2011

Paul Burnett said: Can anybody provide the background on that particular rule? Is that like another IRS exemption?

Not the IRS, this is part of the statute. In 1995, when the Lobbying Disclosure Act was passed, an exception was made for lobbying communications made by a “church, its integrated auxiliary or a convention or association of churches that is exempt from filing a federal income tax return," as well as a "religious order."

sayantani · 8 November 2011

Atheistoclast said: No. We shouldn’t teach kids what source is truthful and what is false. This isn’t Stalinist Russia. They should be able to make their own minds up.

Really? I mean, really? Are the kids mature enough to decide what is true and what is false? Do they have the necessary level of analysis abilities? Isn't that the whole point of the education system - to guide them to the truth? Well then let's make more room to teach alternative theories in the already-crunched classroom time; and give them alternatives in ALL the science classes. Why only life sciences? Let's teach them both Earth-centric view of the cosmos and the other, more current one in the geography class. Let's teach history from the viewpoints of many different sects of the world (including Hitler's. Or the terrorists'). Let's see what they go for, 'making up their own mind'. And let them believe whatever they chose - for the rest of their lives. Let's make one big confused messed up generation to inherit our world. And, as another reader mentioned, let's teach them the alternative way the loony tunes characters (i love them) don't fall off the edge of the cliff until after they look down. Really, the audacity of you!

Paul Burnett · 8 November 2011

sayantani said: ...let them believe whatever they chose - for the rest of their lives. Let's make one big confused messed up generation to inherit our world.

They're already here - they're called the ~~Tea~~ Republican Party.

Paul Burnett · 8 November 2011

tomh said:
Paul Burnett said: Can anybody provide the background on that particular rule? Is that like another IRS exemption?
Not the IRS, this is part of the statute. In 1995, when the Lobbying Disclosure Act was passed, an exception was made for lobbying communications made by a “church, its integrated auxiliary or a convention or association of churches that is exempt from filing a federal income tax return," as well as a "religious order."

I don't suppose there's a snowball's chance of getting that changed any time soon, is there?

tomh · 8 November 2011

Paul Burnett said: I don't suppose there's a snowball's chance of getting that changed any time soon, is there?

That's one leaf in the forest of religious exemptions that permeate US laws. Taxes, zoning, child abuse, copyrights, employment, civil rights, health and safety, and just about any other area of law you can think of, all contain exemptions of one sort or another for religious organizations. John Witte, Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at the Emory University law school, said it best; the special breaks amount to "a sort of religious affirmative action program.”

raven · 8 November 2011

That’s one leaf in the forest of religious exemptions that permeate US laws. Taxes, zoning, child abuse, copyrights, employment, civil rights, health and safety, and just about any other area of law you can think of, all contain exemptions of one sort or another for religious organizations.

Including murder and human child sacrifice to the Sky Monster. Fundies kill somewhere between 10-100 children a year by withholding medical treatment. AKA, faith healing. At least one state, Oregon, has changed its laws because one cult was losing too many kids. Someone noticed they have their own cemetery. With a whole lot of children's graves.

tomh · 8 November 2011

raven said: Including murder and human child sacrifice to the Sky Monster. Fundies kill somewhere between 10-100 children a year by withholding medical treatment. AKA, faith healing. At least one state, Oregon, has changed its laws because one cult was losing too many kids. Someone noticed they have their own cemetery. With a whole lot of children's graves.

My home state. We finally eliminated a religious defense for manslaughter, for withholding medical care from children, and convicted a couple for allowing their baby to die that could easily have been saved. They were recently sentenced to six years in prison for 2nd degree manslaughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to go after the church leaders who promote these actions.

j. biggs · 8 November 2011

tomh said:
raven said: Including murder and human child sacrifice to the Sky Monster. Fundies kill somewhere between 10-100 children a year by withholding medical treatment. AKA, faith healing. At least one state, Oregon, has changed its laws because one cult was losing too many kids. Someone noticed they have their own cemetery. With a whole lot of children's graves.
My home state. We finally eliminated a religious defense for manslaughter, for withholding medical care from children, and convicted a couple for allowing their baby to die that could easily have been saved. They were recently sentenced to six years in prison for 2nd degree manslaughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to go after the church leaders who promote these actions.

Perhaps you could charge "faith healers" with practicing medicine without a licence and sue them for medical malpractice because there is no basis in the medical literature for with-holding medical treatment in the majority of cases that have resulted in morbidity/mortality. I have heard of cases (for example) with Christian Scientists who purportedly don't believe in the use of medical services except in the case setting bones using the excuse that they have a broken bone in order to pursue other life-saving medical treatment without violating their doctrine. Unfortunately this excuse is often used by the Christian Science practitioner and employed well after cases can be easily treated, so the prognosis is usually not good in these cases..

tomh · 8 November 2011

j. biggs said: ... sue them for medical malpractice because there is no basis in the medical literature for with-holding medical treatment ...

Except that the church leaders are not the ones withholding medical treatment, it's the parents who do that. The leaders are simply preaching their own brand of faith. Hopefully, this last trial will send a message to the parents that they are at risk by following these preachings. We'll see.

j. biggs · 8 November 2011

tomh said:
j. biggs said: ... sue them for medical malpractice because there is no basis in the medical literature for with-holding medical treatment ...
Except that the church leaders are not the ones withholding medical treatment, it's the parents who do that. The leaders are simply preaching their own brand of faith. Hopefully, this last trial will send a message to the parents that they are at risk by following these preachings. We'll see.

Again in the case of Christian Science (I am aware that there are other Christian Sects that do similar things) the people who recommend foregoing real medical treatment call themselves "practitioners". Since these "practitioners" are claiming a status they haven't earned, I think the parents in these cases could claim they were fooled by a charlatan that they trusted could heal their child as he or she claimed. A real physician could be sued for medical malpractice and even tried for manslaughter in cases of gross neglect if that physician recommended no treatment for a condition that required treatment, employed the wrong treatment regimen, caused a delay in diagnosis, etc... I personally find it offensive that an untrained person holding themselves up as a "practitioner" can be granted immunity from their bad advice solely based on religion.

phhht · 8 November 2011

tomh said:
j. biggs said: ... sue them for medical malpractice because there is no basis in the medical literature for with-holding medical treatment ...
Except that the church leaders are not the ones withholding medical treatment, it's the parents who do that. The leaders are simply preaching their own brand of faith. Hopefully, this last trial will send a message to the parents that they are at risk by following these preachings. We'll see.

One thing we can do is to call upon Christians to repudiate the murderous false doctrine of miraculous healing. It's that or stand with the baby-killers.

eric · 8 November 2011

RBH - good open letter. A tad wordy, but to paraphrase Pascal, if you'd had more time you could've written a shorter letter. :) I doubt the candidate will read it, but that probably doesn't matter - hopefully some voters will.

tomh said: Except that the church leaders are not the ones withholding medical treatment, it's the parents who do that. The leaders are simply preaching their own brand of faith.

It can be a crime to incite someone else to commit a crime. A generic "trust in God" sermon is probably too generic to qualify, but statements like "you, parent X, should not take your kid to the doctor, but pray instead" probably *would* qualify. AFAIK Oregon et cetera shouldn't need a new, separate law to punish exhortations to commit acts some other law just made illegal. Here's an opportunity to see whether the Oregonian cult leaders will stand on principle or not. Whether said preachers will commit acts of civil disobedience or mere criminality - i.e., will they openly commit a crime and take the consequences to make a social point, or will they hide their acts so they can get away with them? The stories of the early Christian martyrs extol the virtues of the former approach - even if it results in lions. But my guess is they will not stand on their principles at all. They'll just be another liar for Jesus and do the latter.

j. biggs · 8 November 2011

phhht said:
tomh said:
j. biggs said: ... sue them for medical malpractice because there is no basis in the medical literature for with-holding medical treatment ...
Except that the church leaders are not the ones withholding medical treatment, it's the parents who do that. The leaders are simply preaching their own brand of faith. Hopefully, this last trial will send a message to the parents that they are at risk by following these preachings. We'll see.
One thing we can do is to call upon Christians to repudiate the murderous false doctrine of miraculous healing. It's that or stand with the baby-killers.

They can always rely on testimonials where their faith healing worked. And say, "See, so and so didn't go to the doctor and got better." Of course most heatlthy individuals will get better with time if they don't have a serious illness. But the problem with this approach is that it ignores all of the occasions that faith healing didn't work (and hence resulted in a bad outcome such as death). In the cases it doesn't work, you don't hear testimonials because the person is either dead, so brainwashed that they believe their faith wasn't strong enough or so mad that they left the Church.

phhht · 8 November 2011

j. biggs said:
phhht said:
tomh said:
j. biggs said: ... sue them for medical malpractice because there is no basis in the medical literature for with-holding medical treatment ...
Except that the church leaders are not the ones withholding medical treatment, it's the parents who do that. The leaders are simply preaching their own brand of faith. Hopefully, this last trial will send a message to the parents that they are at risk by following these preachings. We'll see.
One thing we can do is to call upon Christians to repudiate the murderous false doctrine of miraculous healing. It's that or stand with the baby-killers.
They can always rely on testimonials where their faith healing worked. And say, "See, so and so didn't go to the doctor and got better." Of course most heatlthy individuals will get better with time if they don't have a serious illness. But the problem with this approach is that it ignores all of the occasions that faith healing didn't work (and hence resulted in a bad outcome such as death). In the cases it doesn't work, you don't hear testimonials because the person is either dead, so brainwashed that they believe their faith wasn't strong enough or so mad that they left the Church.

We have, in the ghastly situation of the Followers of Christ Church in Oregon, a real-world, large-scale, long-term experimental test of faith healing. So far, that test has cost the lives of literally dozens of children and young people. Many of them died due to a lack of simple antibiotics. It's clear that faith healing doesn't work, and to proclaim the opposite is to stand with the Oregon faith-killers. I say Christians must reject the false doctrine of miraculous healing. To do otherwise, or to stay silent, is to be complicit with those Christian crazies.

j. biggs · 8 November 2011

I agree unequivocally. It is wrong to let people die needlessly.

Nathan · 8 November 2011

SensuousCurmudgeon | November 4, 2011 7:31 PM | Reply | Edit It would be interesting if the school board heard from their insurance companies that they’re not covered for intentional violations of the law.

The creationist members wouldn't care. After all, it's the district that will be stuck with the costs, not the individual board members.

W. H. Heydt · 8 November 2011

Nathan said:
SensuousCurmudgeon | November 4, 2011 7:31 PM | Reply | Edit It would be interesting if the school board heard from their insurance companies that they’re not covered for intentional violations of the law.
The creationist members wouldn't care. After all, it's the district that will be stuck with the costs, not the individual board members.

Hmmm...makes one wonder if--and what it takes--to do a public agency equivalent of "piercing the corporate veil"... One would think that making it known publically ahead of time that one was planning to take illegal actions after being elected *ought* to do the trick. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Gary_Hurd · 8 November 2011

Howdy Dick,

A few years ago, I wrote a debunking of the Answers in Genesis creatocrap about the moon. I posted it at "Oard's Moonbeam".

They have not offered anything new.

Henry · 8 November 2011

Paul Burnett said:
Henry said:
The US Constitution, Section 8, says The Congress shall have power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
What kind of science was Congress authorized to promote 7 decades prior to Darwin's Origin of Species and 140 years prior to the Scopes monkey trial?
[sigh] Another right-wing ignoramus who doesn't know much about science or history. I know the fundagelicals don't like Thomas Jefferson because of his "separation of church and state" comment, but they also don't like him because he was (among other things) a scientist as the word was understood in the late 18th century. "Science" meant a body of reliable knowledge about a topic and was at the time just beginning to drift into including a method for finding that knowledge. Jefferson, for instance, invented the moldboard plow, demonstrating a "useful Art."

Any Calvinist should know that the three Institutes of the Christian Religion are the Church, the State, and the Family, each has its authority from the Bible and each has definite boundaries.

Henry · 8 November 2011

raven said:
Henry: Communists across the globe must be delighted to know that Jesus is on their side. When will they stop persecuting Christians and closing Churches?
The communists fell decades ago. The Soviet Union doesn't even exist any more. Several of their former satellite nations are part of NATO. They are all but extinct. Psst, someone is going to have to update Henry. A lot has happened in the last 30 years.

Yes, the soviet communists are out of power presently, but communists worldwide rejoiced when one of their own was elected POTUS. We still have communists in control of China, North Korea, and Cuba.

stevaroni · 9 November 2011

Henry said: Yes, the soviet communists are out of power presently, but communists worldwide rejoiced when one of their own was elected POTUS.

Henry, I'm fascinated. Can you please define "communism" for me.

stevaroni · 9 November 2011

Henry said: Under the Constitution Section 8: Powers of Congress Main article: Enumerated powers (snip) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; What kind of science was Congress authorized to promote 7 decades prior to Darwin's Origin of Species and 140 years prior to the Scopes monkey trial?

As usual, Henry, you stopped quoting just a bit too soon. I'm shocked, shocked. Section 8, paragraph 18

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

And don't forget, Henry, one of the big powers "vested by this Constitution" is he stated goal of "providing for the general welfare" of the nation. A long-recognized requirement for an healthy democracy since the industrial revolution is an educated populace (I'd like to assume you're not going to argue with that, but I'd be wrong).

Dave Luckett · 9 November 2011

I'll second stevaroni. What is communism, Henry?

dalehusband · 9 November 2011

Henry said: Yes, the soviet communists are out of power presently, but communists worldwide rejoiced when one of their own was elected POTUS.

What is POTUS? And when did this happen and why should we care?

We still have communists in control of China, North Korea, and Cuba.

That has nothing to do with us.

Dave Luckett · 9 November 2011

Dale, POTUS is an acronym standing for "President of the United States".

Henry is saying that Barack Obama is a communist.

Yes, he's that stupid.

Paul Burnett · 9 November 2011

Dave Luckett said: I'll second stevaroni. What is communism, Henry?

I'll third both: Please define "communist / communism" for us, Henry. And then explain the linkage to President Obama.

SWT · 9 November 2011

Henry said: Any Calvinist should know that the three Institutes of the Christian Religion are the Church, the State, and the Family, each has its authority from the Bible and each has definite boundaries.

Do you have a citation from Calvin for this?

Science Avenger · 9 November 2011

Paul Burnett said: I'll third both: Please define "communist / communism" for us, Henry. And then explain the linkage to President Obama.

Anyone to the left of Limbaugh. We're all communists now.

W. H. Heydt · 9 November 2011

SWT said:
Henry said: Any Calvinist should know that the three Institutes of the Christian Religion are the Church, the State, and the Family, each has its authority from the Bible and each has definite boundaries.
Do you have a citation from Calvin for this?

And while he's at it...how about commentary from Hobbes to go with it. (Ducks and runs....) --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

SWT · 9 November 2011

W. H. Heydt said:
SWT said:
Henry said: Any Calvinist should know that the three Institutes of the Christian Religion are the Church, the State, and the Family, each has its authority from the Bible and each has definite boundaries.
Do you have a citation from Calvin for this?
And while he's at it...how about commentary from Hobbes to go with it. (Ducks and runs....) --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

I now regret not working that joke into my post ...

stevaroni · 9 November 2011

Paul Burnett said: I'll third both: Please define "communist / communism" for us, Henry. And then explain the linkage to President Obama.

I'm curious about this, Henry, because the way they taught it to me^* communism and socialism were about how the wealthy class (the bourgeoisie) oppresses the working class (the proletariat), and how the rational answer is to take everything off the rich and give it to the masses. Which, is kinda not what's happening in Washington at the moment. In fact, Obama's largest legislative success, for which he's been branded the modern Antichrist, has been health care reform, and the provision that has right-wing panties in a bunch from coast to coast is the requirement that individuals (um, the proletariat) be forced to buy health insurance from large corporations (um, the bourgeoisie) Therefore pulling a reverse Robin Hood on the scale of Monty Python's famous "Dennis Moore" sketch. Or are you talking about how the Obama administration secured a controlling interest in General Motors in rescuing it from bankruptcy, then sold it back to bourgeoisie private investors via the markets. So if Obama is a Socialist, Communist, Antichrist, Henry, you can rest easy, because, apparently, he's really bad at it. *_{Bear in mind, I'm only a product of the American Public Educaton, but, it should be noted, we were in Vietnam at the time so the various perils of the red menace in general and communism in particular was a big topic in my school, taught with great gusto. So I'm pretty sure I've got the whole "take from the rich, give to the poor" thing right.}

Henry · 11 November 2011

mplavcan said:
Henry said: That kind of science has been around for long time before the Constitution and continues after it was written, without evolution being much of a factor, if any. Evolution wasn't taught exclusively in the public schools until the 1950's.
When the panic hit that the Soviets were overtaking us in science.

So the Soviets were the Trojan Horse that got evolution only into the classrooms. Now that the Evil Empire is gone, we're stuck with evolution only.

Mike Elzinga · 11 November 2011

Henry said: So the Soviets were the Trojan Horse that got evolution only into the classrooms. Now that the Evil Empire is gone, we're stuck with evolution only.

Well we could hardly expect the Soviet Union to introduce a sectarian pseudo-science, could we? Henry Morris and Duane Gish showed us how to do that when they pushed “scientific creationism” back in the 1970s. Didn’t need the Soviets. Morris, Gish, et. al. didn’t want to see the science curriculum in the United States brought up to date after Sputnik. They already had a cushy, default elimination of modern biology from the schools due to the historic temper tantrums of fundamentalists. The impulse to improve the science curriculum scared the crap out of Morris and Gish. Gish quit his job at the Upjohn Company in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and joined Morris in concocting a fraud to prevent this attempt at a long-overdue curriculum update.

Henry · 11 November 2011

stevaroni said:
Paul Burnett said: I'll third both: Please define "communist / communism" for us, Henry. And then explain the linkage to President Obama.
I'm curious about this, Henry, because the way they taught it to me^* communism and socialism were about how the wealthy class (the bourgeoisie) oppresses the working class (the proletariat), and how the rational answer is to take everything off the rich and give it to the masses. Which, is kinda not what's happening in Washington at the moment. In fact, Obama's largest legislative success, for which he's been branded the modern Antichrist, has been health care reform, and the provision that has right-wing panties in a bunch from coast to coast is the requirement that individuals (um, the proletariat) be forced to buy health insurance from large corporations (um, the bourgeoisie) Therefore pulling a reverse Robin Hood on the scale of Monty Python's famous "Dennis Moore" sketch. Or are you talking about how the Obama administration secured a controlling interest in General Motors in rescuing it from bankruptcy, then sold it back to bourgeoisie private investors via the markets. So if Obama is a Socialist, Communist, Antichrist, Henry, you can rest easy, because, apparently, he's really bad at it. *_{Bear in mind, I'm only a product of the American Public Educaton, but, it should be noted, we were in Vietnam at the time so the various perils of the red menace in general and communism in particular was a big topic in my school, taught with great gusto. So I'm pretty sure I've got the whole "take from the rich, give to the poor" thing right.}

You forgot about the proletarian dictatorship, which according to past and current ones, remain in power for decades, oppressing everyone and never achieving the stated goal of equality. Total power is just too irresistible to give up. http://www.answers.com/topic/karl-marx To Marx, capitalism is the last stage of historical development before communism. The proletariat, produced by capitalism, is the last historical class. The two are fated to be in conflict - the class struggle, which Marx proclaimed so eloquently in the Communist Manifesto - until the proletariat is inevitably victorious and establishes a transitional order, the proletarian dictatorship, a political system which Marx did not elaborate or explain. The proletarian dictatorship, in turn, evolves into communism, or the classless society, the final stage of historical development, when there are no classes, no exploitation, and no inequalities. The logical implication is that with the final establishment of communism, history comes to a sudden end. The dialectical process then presumably ceases, and there are no more historical evolutions or social struggles. This Marxist interpretation of history, with its final utopian-apocalyptic vision, has been criticized in the noncommunist world as historically inaccurate, scientifically untenable, and logically absurd.

Henry · 11 November 2011

By the way, have you noticed Obama's constant class warfare speeches?

apokryltaros · 11 November 2011

Henry said: By the way, have you noticed Obama's constant class warfare speeches?

No, henry, the only people who assume that President Obama is really an evil communist terrorist bent on destroying the United States are gibbering idiots. Like you. Furthermore, henry, we can not trust anything you say, either, as you repeatedly prove yourself to be extraordinarily dishonest, sometimes even manipulating what other people say right in front of our eyes.

stevaroni · 11 November 2011

Henry said: You forgot about the proletarian dictatorship, which according to past and current ones, remain in power for decades, oppressing everyone and never achieving the stated goal of equality. Total power is just too irresistible to give up.

The proletarian dictatorship? That means that the poor people have the power and the politicians pander to them? Do I have that right, or are there other definitions of "proletarian dictatorship" that I'm missing here? Because unless you get dramatically different news than I do, I'm kinda not seeing any great groundswell in the political class to kiss the ass of Joe six-pack. Unless making it more difficult for him to level the playing field, affect the political process, secure his retirement, afford his health care or send his kids to school somehow counts as the leading edge of a huge power shift to the masses. Seriously, dude, if Obama is helping me rise against the man, I really hope he stops.

To Marx, capitalism is the last stage of historical development before communism.... has been criticized in the noncommunist world as historically inaccurate, scientifically untenable, and logically absurd.

Yes, Henry, we all know all that. Marx was an idiot, and even true believers, like Cuba, have long since figured out that his ideas don't work. But what does that have to do with the current administration's policies? Examples Henry. Marx advocated taking over all the factories, sending the managers to the gulag, adn dispursing the means of prodcution to the masses. This administration's giant communist leaps forward involve saving the American auto industry from bankruptcy and trying to expand health care by requiring individuals to contract with private insurance companies. Kinda not the same thing.

By the way, have you noticed Obama’s constant class warfare speeches?

No, but I'm sure you'll enlighten us. Since nearly everything the president says is a public record, there are transcripts of all of it. It should be a moments work for you to locate these class warfare speeches and send us the link. Oh, and "speeches", Henry, not soundbites. Given your historical propensity for quote-mining, I'm going to set an arbitrary three-sentence minimum limit on quotes.

W. H. Heydt · 11 November 2011

stevaroni said: A lot of stuff that doesn't need repeating. It's just up there...^

As I recall the descriptions, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as a stage of development is Communism as it exists in theory. I don't know of any country that actually put it into practice... Mostly it was, "well WE know best, so we'll just run things until the proletariat are ready take over," and--of course--they just never are ready... I wouldn't describe Marx as an idiot. He correctly observed the conditions of labor in some of the worst excesses of 19th century manufacturing. He quite correctly saw that it wasn't going to be stable for very long. His mistake was in failing to comprehend that the workers didn't want to be a collective and overthrow their "masters", but that the workers wanted to be capitalists, too and *become* masters. For a third note, Marx was expecting the revolution to happen in Germany, what with all it's at least moderately educated (at least literate) industrial workers. Russian peasants as part of a communist revolution would have been the last thing he would have expected. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Henry · 12 November 2011

apokryltaros said:
Henry said: By the way, have you noticed Obama's constant class warfare speeches?
No, henry, the only people who assume that President Obama is really an evil communist terrorist bent on destroying the United States are gibbering idiots. Like you. Furthermore, henry, we can not trust anything you say, either, as you repeatedly prove yourself to be extraordinarily dishonest, sometimes even manipulating what other people say right in front of our eyes.

Manipulation like this?

Henry said:
apokryltaros said:
Atheistoclast said:
DS said: So that would be a no. No evidence for Adam, no evidence for Noah, no evidence for a world wide flood, no evidence for the dating of the chromosomal fusion, no explanation for the mitochondrial data, no explanation for the SINE insertion data. Nothing but bullshit and misinterpretation of the work of others. Got it. And of course now Joe knows more than every paleontologist about dating methods as well. What an asshole.
So you were too shit-scared to read the papers I cited. Oh well. Noah (MRCA) lived 5000 years ago - according to both science and the bible. Deal with it.
Do you have a paper or citation for the scientific evidence that Noah actually existed? In fact, where in the Bible did it say that Noah lived to be over a 1000 years old?

apokryltaros said:
Henry said:
j. biggs said:
apokryltaros said:
j. biggs said:
Henry said:
apokryltaros said:
Atheistoclast said:
DS said: So that would be a no. No evidence for Adam, no evidence for Noah, no evidence for a world wide flood, no evidence for the dating of the chromosomal fusion, no explanation for the mitochondrial data, no explanation for the SINE insertion data. Nothing but bullshit and misinterpretation of the work of others. Got it. And of course now Joe knows more than every paleontologist about dating methods as well. What an asshole.
So you were too shit-scared to read the papers I cited. Oh well. Noah (MRCA) lived 5000 years ago - according to both science and the bible. Deal with it.
Do you have a paper or citation for the scientific evidence that Noah actually existed? In fact, where in the Bible did it say that Noah lived to be over a 900 years old?
Gen 9:29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died .
He asked where it said in the Bible that Noah lived to be over nine hundred years old. You really don't comprehend much do you?
Actually, I asked for the scientific evidence for Noah living over nine hundred years old. Only Creationists assume the Bible is a science textbook (and look where that sort of thinking has gotten them) And yes, henry always demonstrates abominable reading comprehension skills.
Not trying to nitpick too much but you asked for scientific evidence that Noah existed and then you asked where in the Bible it said Noah was over a 1000 yrs old. But you are obviously right that the Bible is not scientific evidence and Henry's response was pretty funny considering that it only confirmed that the Bible doesn't say Noah lived more than 900 yrs.
apokryltaros said: Do you have a paper or citation for the scientific evidence that Noah actually existed? In fact, where in the Bible did it say that Noah lived to be over a 900 years old?

I'll fix your question for you.
Your fixing is unwarranted and unwanted, henry. If I want your help, I'll go have a total frontal and back lobotomy. Atheistoclast originally claimed that Noah lived for over a thousand years. I then asked what scientific evidence there was to support the claim that Noah lived for over a thousand years. You copy and pasted a Bible verse that stated Noah only lived for 900 years. Ergo, someone made a false claim, and someone else (that's you, henry) failed to provide scientific evidence. And now, you have gone and made yourself look stupid and dishonest. Again.
I didn't find any comment by Joe saying that the Bible states Noah lived over 1000 years. Instead you brought the challenge to him to show where in the Bible it states that. It doesn't--he lived 950 years. In fact, you asked for scientific evidence that Noah existed, not for his age.

Henry · 12 November 2011

stevaroni said:
Paul Burnett said: I'll third both: Please define "communist / communism" for us, Henry. And then explain the linkage to President Obama.
I'm curious about this, Henry, because the way they taught it to me^* communism and socialism were about how the wealthy class (the bourgeoisie) oppresses the working class (the proletariat), and how the rational answer is to take everything off the rich and give it to the masses. Which, is kinda not what's happening in Washington at the moment. In fact, Obama's largest legislative success, for which he's been branded the modern Antichrist, has been health care reform, and the provision that has right-wing panties in a bunch from coast to coast is the requirement that individuals (um, the proletariat) be forced to buy health insurance from large corporations (um, the bourgeoisie) Therefore pulling a reverse Robin Hood on the scale of Monty Python's famous "Dennis Moore" sketch. Or are you talking about how the Obama administration secured a controlling interest in General Motors in rescuing it from bankruptcy, then sold it back to bourgeoisie private investors via the markets. So if Obama is a Socialist, Communist, Antichrist, Henry, you can rest easy, because, apparently, he's really bad at it. *_{Bear in mind, I'm only a product of the American Public Educaton, but, it should be noted, we were in Vietnam at the time so the various perils of the red menace in general and communism in particular was a big topic in my school, taught with great gusto. So I'm pretty sure I've got the whole "take from the rich, give to the poor" thing right.}

Speaking of the health care reform, are you aware that waivers are available to companies to exempt them from the new law and the district which has the most waivers is Nancy "We have to pass the health care bill so we can read what's in it" Pelosi's district? http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/10/truth-about-health-care-waivers http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/140533-hhs-grants-new-reform-waivers-amid-heightened-scrutiny http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/09/nancy-pelosi-on-health-care-we The penalty for not buying health insurance starts at $95, but goes up to $2085 by 2016. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-24/health/health.care.penalties_1_health-insurance-insurance-pool-tax-filers?_s=PM:HEALTH

Bobsie · 12 November 2011

Henry said:The penalty for not buying health insurance starts at $95, but goes up to $2085 by 2016.

Interesting. You prefer to go without health insurance. And I suppose when you present to an ER with severe trama or contract a life threathening disease, given it it's illegal to withhold life saving treatments regardless of cost, you will look to all of us to pick up your tab. Thanks man. Obviously you fail to understand that the point is not about the penalties but about you being responsible for your own health care bills. Fine citizen you turned out to be, takes from all us but never gives. We need guys like you like we need a bad rash.

apokryltaros · 12 November 2011

Bobsie said:
Henry said:The penalty for not buying health insurance starts at $95, but goes up to $2085 by 2016.
Interesting. You prefer to go without health insurance. And I suppose when you present to an ER with severe trama or contract a life threathening disease, given it it's illegal to withhold life saving treatments regardless of cost, you will look to all of us to pick up your tab. Thanks man. Obviously you fail to understand that the point is not about the penalties but about you being responsible for your own health care bills. Fine citizen you turned out to be, takes from all us but never gives. We need guys like you like we need a bad rash.

A bad rash is far more tolerable than creationist trolls like henry.

apokryltaros · 12 November 2011

Bobsie said:
Henry said:The penalty for not buying health insurance starts at $95, but goes up to $2085 by 2016.
Interesting. You prefer to go without health insurance. And I suppose when you present to an ER with severe trama or contract a life threathening disease, given it it's illegal to withhold life saving treatments regardless of cost, you will look to all of us to pick up your tab. Thanks man. Obviously you fail to understand that the point is not about the penalties but about you being responsible for your own health care bills. Fine citizen you turned out to be, takes from all us but never gives. We need guys like you like we need a bad rash.

Also remember that henry is programmed to oppose everything and anything proposed by President Obama, as henry was also programmed to believe that President Obama is an evil, foreign-born communazi terrorist determined to destroy America because President Obama is not a white Republican/

Mike Elzinga · 12 November 2011

Bobsie said:
Henry said:The penalty for not buying health insurance starts at $95, but goes up to $2085 by 2016.
Interesting. You prefer to go without health insurance. And I suppose when you present to an ER with severe trama or contract a life threathening disease, given it it's illegal to withhold life saving treatments regardless of cost, you will look to all of us to pick up your tab. Thanks man. Obviously you fail to understand that the point is not about the penalties but about you being responsible for your own health care bills. Fine citizen you turned out to be, takes from all us but never gives. We need guys like you like we need a bad rash.

Henry provides another classic example of the fact that these ID/creationist fundamentalists never make it to adulthood; they remain emotionally stunted, dependent, spoiled brats their entire lives. They live in a secular society that protects and feeds them, but they spend their entire lives engaging in petty quarreling over sectarian dogma attempting to convince themselves they are the “true” believers.

Henry · 12 November 2011

apokryltaros said:
Bobsie said:
Henry said:The penalty for not buying health insurance starts at $95, but goes up to $2085 by 2016.
Interesting. You prefer to go without health insurance. And I suppose when you present to an ER with severe trama or contract a life threathening disease, given it it's illegal to withhold life saving treatments regardless of cost, you will look to all of us to pick up your tab. Thanks man. Obviously you fail to understand that the point is not about the penalties but about you being responsible for your own health care bills. Fine citizen you turned out to be, takes from all us but never gives. We need guys like you like we need a bad rash.
Also remember that henry is programmed to oppose everything and anything proposed by President Obama, as henry was also programmed to believe that President Obama is an evil, foreign-born communazi terrorist determined to destroy America because President Obama is not a white Republican/

I'll be delighted to vote for Herman Cain, the second black American POTUS.

Henry · 12 November 2011

Bobsie said:
Henry said:The penalty for not buying health insurance starts at $95, but goes up to $2085 by 2016.
Interesting. You prefer to go without health insurance. And I suppose when you present to an ER with severe trama or contract a life threathening disease, given it it's illegal to withhold life saving treatments regardless of cost, you will look to all of us to pick up your tab. Thanks man. Obviously you fail to understand that the point is not about the penalties but about you being responsible for your own health care bills. Fine citizen you turned out to be, takes from all us but never gives. We need guys like you like we need a bad rash.

You must be thinking about the Occupy Wall Street crowd. I'm not part of that group.

apokryltaros · 12 November 2011

Henry said:
Bobsie said:
Henry said:The penalty for not buying health insurance starts at $95, but goes up to $2085 by 2016.
Interesting. You prefer to go without health insurance. And I suppose when you present to an ER with severe trama or contract a life threathening disease, given it it's illegal to withhold life saving treatments regardless of cost, you will look to all of us to pick up your tab. Thanks man. Obviously you fail to understand that the point is not about the penalties but about you being responsible for your own health care bills. Fine citizen you turned out to be, takes from all us but never gives. We need guys like you like we need a bad rash.
You must be thinking about the Occupy Wall Street crowd. I'm not part of that group.

No, you're one of those idiot Teabaggers who thinks America should belong to only to extreme right-winged Christians and their groveling servants.

apokryltaros · 12 November 2011

Henry said:
Bobsie said:
Henry said:The penalty for not buying health insurance starts at $95, but goes up to $2085 by 2016.
Interesting. You prefer to go without health insurance. And I suppose when you present to an ER with severe trama or contract a life threathening disease, given it it's illegal to withhold life saving treatments regardless of cost, you will look to all of us to pick up your tab. Thanks man. Obviously you fail to understand that the point is not about the penalties but about you being responsible for your own health care bills. Fine citizen you turned out to be, takes from all us but never gives. We need guys like you like we need a bad rash.
You must be thinking about the Occupy Wall Street crowd. I'm not part of that group.

And it wasn't the Occupy Wall Street crowd who cheered for the death of a hypothetical man in dire need of medical assistance.

Henry · 13 November 2011

apokryltaros said:
Henry said:
Bobsie said:
Henry said:The penalty for not buying health insurance starts at $95, but goes up to $2085 by 2016.
Interesting. You prefer to go without health insurance. And I suppose when you present to an ER with severe trama or contract a life threathening disease, given it it's illegal to withhold life saving treatments regardless of cost, you will look to all of us to pick up your tab. Thanks man. Obviously you fail to understand that the point is not about the penalties but about you being responsible for your own health care bills. Fine citizen you turned out to be, takes from all us but never gives. We need guys like you like we need a bad rash.
You must be thinking about the Occupy Wall Street crowd. I'm not part of that group.
No, you're one of those idiot Teabaggers who thinks America should belong to only to extreme right-winged Christians and their groveling servants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement You need to be better informed about the Tea Party movement. Also, I follow it only on talk radio. I am not directly involved.

Dave Luckett · 13 November 2011

My nation has basic, but universal one-provider compulsory health insurance paid directly from a tax levy. Health insurance companies offer private cover over and above this, and this cover is itself subsidised from taxes, so most people have it. In addition, there is an absolute, and fairly low, cap on private expenditure on pharmaceuticals and appliances, after which the government picks up the tab.

This system has been in place since the late seventies of the last century, although slightly changing over time. It has its faults and shortcomings, but I am here to state that any government now that proposed to greatly limit or restrict the main heads of the system would be in a moment hurled from office amid the outrage of the citizenry.

(It is our good fortune to have time-limited but not fixed-term governments. The Cabinet that tried to ram substantial contraction of the health system through Parliament would find its Party and majority in Parliament breaking up under it.)

Yes, it costs higher taxes. So what?

Henry seems to think that this is socialism in intent and action. Henry's an idiot.

Dave Luckett · 13 November 2011

Henry says, of the Tea Party: I am not directly involved.

Godwin coming up. Too good to miss. (clears throat. The courtroom is silent) So. You were neffer a Nazi, hein?

Paul Burnett · 13 November 2011

Henry said: You need to be better informed about the Tea Party movement. Also, I follow it only on talk radio.

...and we all know how middle-of-the-road and "fair and balanced" talk radio is. Lessee, Rush and Glenn and Sean...who else? Who are your favorite talk radio hosts, Henry? That will help us determine where on the spectrum you are coming from.

Henry · 13 November 2011

Dave Luckett said:
Henry says, of the Tea Party: I am not directly involved.
Godwin coming up. Too good to miss. (clears throat. The courtroom is silent) So. You were neffer a Nazi, hein?

As stated previously, I am not white so how can I be a Nazi?

stevaroni · 13 November 2011

Henry said: Speaking of the health care reform, are you aware that waivers are available to companies to exempt them from the new law and the district which has the most waivers is Nancy "We have to pass the health care bill so we can read what's in it" Pelosi's district?

Actually, I wasn't really speaking of health care, Henry, it came up peripherally while I was asking you to provide some back up for your "Obama is a Communist" screed. I used health care as one of several of several examples, since many countries actually have socialized medicine, and the right constantly wails about the specter of socialized medicine, and the right constantly wails that Obama is a socialist, but Obama's actual plan - having individuals buy health insurance from large conglomerates - is about as far from socialism as one can actually get. It's actually forced free market capitalism. I was asking you to provide some back up in the form of speech transcripts (not soundbites) for your post of 11/11, which read in its entirety...

By the way, have you noticed Obama’s constant class warfare speeches?

You derailed us into health care waivers. Of course, as usual, you couldn't back up your assertions, this time about class warfare speeches, so derailing us was to be expected. But, since we're now the subject... Let's actually talk healthcare... One of the places where America actually does - unquestionably - have socialized medicine is the emergency room. Patients that arrive at a hospital in dire need of medical treatment must by law be treated, at least to the point of "stabilization", regardless of their ability to pay. Emergency rooms are expensive. A "simple" heart attack might cost a hospital $10,000 in care, a young person in a bad accident, with a poor prognosis, who goes downhill and is subsequently placed on life support could cost millions (not a fantasy example - think Terry Schaivo). Hospitals - which by and large are privately run institutions in the states - are required to provide help to all comers, and they loose immense amounts of money on it every year. Their resources are, in fact, confiscated and given to the indigent, the proletariat, if you will. This, Henry is actual socialized medicine. So there's your shining example of the socialism monster at work. Now, let's posit for a moment that you, Henry, win the 2012 election on a write-in vote. What are you, president Henry going to do about it? You have, as far as I can see, exactly four choices; 1) Allow hospitals to turn away ambulances with indigent patients 2) continue to tell hospitals that they must redistribute their wealth 3) force people to maintain insurance, or 4) wink and provide government subsidies so that hospitals don't go bankrupt. Solutions 2) and 4) are clearly socialist-communist-pinko solutions, but they're the ones we currently use. What would President Henry do about it? _{(Hint: The smart money says "President Henry" immediately changes the subject to some other Fox News talking point)}

stevaroni · 13 November 2011

Henry said: I'll be delighted to vote for Herman Cain, the second black American POTUS.

And while we're talking about healthcare, Henry, does Godfather's Pizza offer health insurance to its employees? If so, under what terms? I suspect most employees of Godfather's are probably working close to the minimum wage, which for a company the size of Godfather's, would dip as low as $7.25/hr. If Godfather's is typical, only management gets insurance, the rank-and file are left to buy it on their own (though in many large companies they can buy it from a company source). After mandated witholding minimum wage employees end up with about $6.50/hr (yes, Henry, the poor do pay taxes. Even though they might not meet the federal income tax threshold, they still pay FICA, SSI, and the similar state and local taxes from the first dollar) A bare-bones family insurance plan will set you back about $3000/year, which correlates to about $1.50/hr. That means that a minimum family health care policy costs about 1/4th of the take home pay of a minimum-wage worker - assuming that they have a healthy family that has no particular health-care issues that exempt them from coverage. If they had, say, a kid with down's syndrome, like Sarah Palin does, they simply couldn't get health care at any price int he private market. Since Herman Cain (and President Henry) don't believe in socialized medicine, what do you guys propose to do about that?

Mike Elzinga · 13 November 2011

stevaroni said: Since Herman Cain (and President Henry) don't believe in socialized medicine, what do you guys propose to do about that?

Audience at the Republican Presidential candidate debates: “Let ‘em die; YEAH!”

Shebardigan · 13 November 2011

Dave Luckett said: My nation has basic, but universal one-provider compulsory health insurance paid directly from a tax levy.

Yeah, during our four years as expats in the Land of Oz, we were victims of this dreadful system. We were forced to choose our own physician! There was no helpful list of in-plan providers. Our physician was forced to make her own medical decisions! There was no helpful-but-anonymous claims department clerk to tell her which procedures or medications she could not perform or prescribe. Unlike our present situation, where my wife (the only employed member of the family) pays a modest 30% of her pre-tax income for an excellent $4,000-deductible plan, we had an onerous 4% of our income confiscated to fund a system in which we had to wait up to three minutes for emergency services at the local hospital, and paid a horrifying A$175 out-of-pocket for an overnight stay. Wretched Socialism. They even have the atrocious custom of providing public toilets and decent public transportation. Fortunately, American corporations have been helpfully changing the cultural landscape with encouraging rapidity.

Richard B. Hoppe · 13 November 2011

Folks, this thread has wandered far off topic, so I'm going to shut it down. Thanks for participating!