The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Freshwater: The main briefs in the appeal

Posted 20 January 2012 by Richard B. Hoppe

Update: The Dennis family's amicus brief is now up on NCSE.com. The two main briefs in John Freshwater's appeal of the Knox County Court of Common Pleas' decision to uphold Freshwater's termination by the Mt. Vernon Board of Education are now up on NCSE's site. The two amicus briefs, from NCSE and the Dennis family, have not yet been accepted by the court. NCSE's brief is on the site linked above; the Dennis' brief is not yet available online, though I've read a copy. I'll briefly (!) summarize what I see as the core arguments of the briefs here, and go into more detail below the fold. Freshwater's appeal brief: Basically argues that (a) Freshwater only taught "alternative scientific theories", (b) there are good pedagogical reasons to do so, and (c) he has free speech and academic freedom rights to do so. Also argues that the moves against Freshwater are motivated by religious animus, though it's silent about specifically who feels that animus. Board's response brief: Argues that because student attendance is required and the public school has an interest in protecting itself against the consequences of illegal actions by teachers, Freshwater, as an agent and employee of the public school, does not have unfettered free speech or academic freedom rights. Also argues that the Common Pleas court did not abuse its discretion when it elected to not hold public hearings in view of the extensive record generated by the administrative hearing. NCSE amicus brief: Puts Freshwater's behavior in the context of the history of attempts to teach creationism in the public schools, and argues that his teaching was both pedagogically and scientifically unsound. Dennis family brief: Reviews Freshwater's impermissible injection of religion into his teaching, and disputes his de-emphasis of the Tesla coil incident, pointing out the inconsistencies in Freshwater's stories about the incident. The case is not yet scheduled for oral arguments. I'm told that Freshwater requested an expedited hearing, which I understand means that there will be no back-and-forth, no rebuttals and rejoinders, in the paperwork. What's there now is what the appeals court will use to make its decision. Some remarks and elaborations below the fold Freshwater's brief claims that teaching about "alternative scientific theories" is pedagogically appropriate and he has free speech and academic freedom rights to do so. As I wrote earlier,
Throughout this argument, the brief refers to multiple "theories"-it refers to "popular alternative theories" (p. v); "various alternative theories" (p. 10); "competing theories" (twice on p. 10); "alternative theories" (p. 12, p. 14); "alternative origins of life theories" (p. 14); and "widely-accepted theories on the origins of life" (referred to as consistent with "the views of multiple world religions" on p. 14). All the references are attempts to represent Freshwater's presentation of creationist materials as "a permissible and valuable pedagogical exercise" (p. 15) in a [public] middle school science classroom.
Of course, Freshwater did not in fact teach about "alternative scientific theories," and no evidence was ever introduced to suggest that he did. His handouts, videos, and remarks were from creationist web sites, and were not evidence in support of "alternative scientific theories" but rather embodied the traditional creationist "two models" approach pioneered by the Institute for Creation Research and now most strongly advocated by Answers in Genesis. Knock down evolution and creationism wins by default. Freshwater's brief argues that he is permitted to teach about alternative scientific theories in public schools, and the brief claims that's all Freshwater did. This is a new claim in the Freshwater saga: previously in both public statements and sworn testimony Freshwater has denied teaching creationism or intelligent design. (See also here for a summary of an interview of Freshwater on Fox News; the original clip is apparently no longer available on the web.) So like Freshwater's mutually contradictory stories about whether he used the Tesla coil to make an "X" on Zach Dennis' arm or no mark at all (summarized here), Freshwater's story has...erm...evolved. Apparently he (or more likely, his Rutherford Institute handlers) have implicitly conceded that they cannot rebut the testimony and evidence about Freshwater's use of creationist handouts and videos and are now attempting to alter the interpretation of that behavior. This new Freshwater claim made its first appearance to my knowledge in a recent radio interview Freshwater did with David Barton, the notorious quote faker, where Freshwater claimed that he taught "robust evolution." By that, Freshwater explained, he meant that
I showed what was the evidence for evolution, I showed evidence that was opposed to evolution. I showed all sides. ... You need to study it all, especially in a public school. You need to see all the evidence. And there's some great evidence for, and there's some great evidence that goes against it. And I think the kids need to see all evidence rather than indoctrinating them only on one side or the other.
He taught the evidence for evolution? One wonders how much comparative genomics and molecular genetics Freshwater, with his Associate's degree in Wildlife and Recreation and his Bachelor's degree in education, taught in his 8th grade class. Did he mention the phylogenetics of pseudogenes or that of endogenous retroviruses? I'm fully aware that undergraduate degrees are not the sole determinant of one's knowledge, but Freshwater has given us no evidence at all that he actually knows much about the evidence for evolution or that he's competent to assess what "great evidence" is. Freshwater further argued in his appeals court brief that he has a First Amendment free speech right to teach those alternative theories. This is again a new claim for Freshwater, and reflects the current generation of creationist tactics in state legislatures (see here for an early (1999) account of that tactic, and here for the Disco 'Tute's "Free Speech on Evolution Campaign.") Board's response brief As noted above, Freshwater's brief claims that he was only teaching "alternative scientific theories." That, of course, is knee-deep horse manure: Freshwater used a range of creationist materials in an attempt to cast doubt on various scientific findings and science's strongly corroborated theories--common descent, evolution by natural selection, the reliability of physics in radiometric dating, the reliability of geology in its finding of an old earth, and so on. Further, he argued that he had both the free speech right and the academic freedom to do so. The Board's brief rebuts both the free speech and academic freedom claims, citing case law to show that the courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently ruled that when public school teachers are operating in their role as teachers they do not have the right to teach any damn fool notion they please. The Board's brief argues that the school has a clear interest in what speech teachers utter in their classrooms, and that the Board can regulate that speech so as to not bring the Board into legal jeopardy. The brief argues that "The Board's decision [to terminate Freshwater] was appropriately affirmed by the trial court because it has a right to control its own speech. The Board exercised control of its speech by preventing [Freshwater] from continuing to improperly teach religion in class." The argument is that a teacher is an agent of the Board, and that improper behavior--e.g. impermissible speech--by a teacher exposes the Board to legal jeopardy. It therefore has the right to govern that speech. Freshwater's injection of creationism into his class was "...made pursuant to his duties as an employee," and was not made in his capacity as a private individual, which would be protected speech. The Board "...took legitimate and appropriate steps to ensure that one of its teachers did not distort its teaching of science to impressionable eight graders by endorsing Christian religious beliefs" (p. 13). Further, the Board's brief argues that the Court of Common Pleas did not abuse its discretion when it denied Freshwater's request for a public hearing in that court, arguing that the extensive administrative hearing record (38 days of hearings, more than 80 witnesses generating 6,344 pages of transcript, and 350 exhibits) was sufficient basis for the Common Pleas judge to choose not to hold additional hearings and make his decision on the basis of his review of that record. NCSE's amicus brief puts Freshwater's approach into the context of the history of attempts to attack the teaching of evolution. NCSE's brief reviews the history of creationist attempts to subvert the teaching of science, and identifies Freshwater's approach as being in the "third generation" of such attempts, the two-prong 'teach the controversy and push intelligent design' generation. The entire brief is well worth reading for its succinct review of the history of the issue. Dennis family's amicus brief reviews the evidence bearing on Freshwater's injection of religion into his classroom and his teaching of science, and argues that the minimization of the Tesla coil incident in his appeals brief is inappropriate. It also points out the inconsistencies in Freshwater's sworn statements about that incident, which are similar to his inconsistency in his statements about whether he taught creationism, sometimes denying it (e.g. in sworn testimony in the administrative hearing) and sometimes affirming it (e.g., in his radio interview on Nov 30, 2011). As noted above, the same sort of inconsistencies are found in his varying claims about whether he taught creationism and intelligent design.

139 Comments

eric · 20 January 2012

Freshwater’s brief argues that he is permitted to teach about alternative scientific theories in public schools, and the brief claims that’s all Freshwater did. This is a new claim in the Freshwater saga: previously in both public statements and sworn testimony Freshwater has denied teaching creationism or intelligent design.
IANAL, but I thought appeals courts only considered whether prior courts acted correctly; they did not (typically?) consider new arguments or new evidence. If Freshwater is making a new claim to the appeals court, rather than giving an argument on why the original court made a legal error and should be overturned, isn't Freshwater's appeal DOA?

cmb · 20 January 2012

Thanks for all of the info Richard. I read the NCSE's brief you linked to and it was very informative.
It does seem as though the creationist/ID people believe that if they tell the same lies enough times eventually they will find a sympathetic venue. Hopefully the court will slam Freshwater and The
Rutherford Institute hard. I imagine that when Freshwater loses this attempt that he will seek other avenues of appeal.

Richard B. Hoppe · 20 January 2012

eric said: IANAL, but I thought appeals courts only considered whether prior courts acted correctly; they did not (typically?) consider new arguments or new evidence. If Freshwater is making a new claim to the appeals court, rather than giving an argument on why the original court made a legal error and should be overturned, isn't Freshwater's appeal DOA?
IANAL, either, but the argument seems to be that (a) Freshwater only taught "alternative scientific theories," (b) the administrative hearing referee ignored that, and (c) the Common Pleas judge ignored that, so the Common Pleas judge abused his discretion in denying a hearing in his court where that could have been argued and therefore his decision should be reversed. At least that seems to be the implicit argument.

SensuousCurmudgeon · 20 January 2012

An excellent post, Richard. Very informative. I suspect that the Rutherford Institute would like to take this to the Supreme Court. The creationists have been beating the drum for "academic freedom" to teach the "controversy," and this case is probably as good as any other for that purpose.

Chris Lawson · 20 January 2012

cmb,

I'm not sure it's the same lies all over again since Freshwater seems to be admitting now that he was teaching creationism after all. Isn't it more like "well that lie didn't work; let's try the next one"?

cmb · 21 January 2012

Chris Lawson said: cmb, I'm not sure it's the same lies all over again since Freshwater seems to be admitting now that he was teaching creationism after all. Isn't it more like "well that lie didn't work; let's try the next one"?
True- I guess "same group of lies" would be more accurate. It will be interesting to see what Freshwater & The Rutherford Institute try next after this attempt fails.

harold · 21 January 2012

I suspect that the Rutherford Institute would like to take this to the Supreme Court.
Given that at least one of the five SCOTUS justices who is not a right wing ideologue is in poor health, the timing could be ideal. If Romney wins the 2012 election, he could get a fifth right wing ideologue on the court in short order (assuming a retirement), either by simply appointing one and waiting to lickspittle Democrats in the senate to prove their "bipartisanship" by not protesting, or, if he was concerned about token opposition, using the old "Harriet Miers" ruse - first suggesting a totally unacceptable candidate as a sacrifice bunt maneuver, and then following up with a superficially more qualified hard line rigth wing ideologue, arguing in the propaganda press that failure of the senate to immediately ratify the second one would mean that they were "refusing all of his nominations for partisan reasons". Then a Freshwater case could be decided 5-4 in favor of declaring post-modern sectarian right wing Christian science denial as "an alternate scientific theory". Ideally (from creationist perspective), the next step after that would be to require the teaching of creationism as part of "national standards". I certainly think that there is still an excellent chance that this type of scenario can be avoided, but it is uncomfortably possible.

Mike Elzinga · 21 January 2012

harold said: Ideally (from creationist perspective), the next step after that would be to require the teaching of creationism as part of "national standards". I certainly think that there is still an excellent chance that this type of scenario can be avoided, but it is uncomfortably possible.
If such a scenario were to happen, teachers can introduce the really damning history of ID/creationism along with devastating critiques of ID/creationist pseudo-science. By the time a well-informed teacher got done with it, creationists would be petitioning the administration to cut the embarrassment of ID/creationism from the curriculum. And those of us who have kept up with the history and the misconceptions of ID/creationism stand ready to instruct the current teaching community on what we have learned. Many of the current science teachers are already aware of the hoax of ID/creationism, but are not skilled in wielding the devastating critiques that would make ID/creationists wish they had kept their mouths shut. Those teaching physics and chemistry would also have to step up and take responsibility for defending the biologists while pointing out why ID/creationism mangles all of science, not just biology. I hope current political trends don’t go in that direction; but our political system is nuts enough that it can’t be ruled out.

Richard B. Hoppe · 21 January 2012

SensuousCurmudgeon said: An excellent post, Richard. Very informative. I suspect that the Rutherford Institute would like to take this to the Supreme Court. The creationists have been beating the drum for "academic freedom" to teach the "controversy," and this case is probably as good as any other for that purpose.
That'd be tough, I think. The appeal is in the state court system and could go as high as the state supreme court; it's not in the federal courts. Freshwater has already had his federal suit, in which he made at least one of the same allegations (religious discrimination) that was his state appeals court brief, dismissed with prejudice, so it's doubtful whether he can revive it in the federal courts again.

SensuousCurmudgeon · 21 January 2012

Richard B. Hoppe said:
Freshwater has already had his federal suit, in which he made at least one of the same allegations (religious discrimination) that was his state appeals court brief, dismissed with prejudice, so it's doubtful whether he can revive it in the federal courts again.
Yes, but if his current case seems to have slightly different issues, so if it goes all the way to his state supreme court, he might try to take their decision (assuming it's against him) to the US Supreme Court. They probably wouldn't accept the case, although I think they could if they want to.

Pierce R. Butler · 21 January 2012

The Board “…took legitimate and appropriate steps to ensure that one of its teachers did not distort its teaching of science to impressionable eight graders by endorsing Christian religious beliefs” (p. 13).

The Board just took careful aim at its own foot and pulled the trigger by equating some sects' biblical literalism with across-the-board Christianism.

harold · 21 January 2012

Pierce R. Butler said: The Board “…took legitimate and appropriate steps to ensure that one of its teachers did not distort its teaching of science to impressionable eight graders by endorsing Christian religious beliefs” (p. 13). The Board just took careful aim at its own foot and pulled the trigger by equating some sects' biblical literalism with across-the-board Christianism.
I don't see how you came to this interpretation. The anti-scientific beliefs he endorsed as science were of a sectarian Christian nature. No-one said that all Christians believe the same things. He was still endorsing Christian beliefs. I would prefer stronger language, reflecting the narrow sectarian nature and deceptive quality of the sectarian dogma he illegally foisted on a captive audience of school children, at taxpayer expense, but the statement is accurate as it stands.

harold · 21 January 2012

Yes, but if his current case seems to have slightly different issues, so if it goes all the way to his state supreme court, he might try to take their decision (assuming it’s against him) to the US Supreme Court. They probably wouldn’t accept the case, although I think they could if they want to.
I can't comment on whether he can legally get this thing to the stage of being considered for acceptance by the US Supreme Court. I can remind everyone that at least four current members of SCOTUS probably would, if given the opportunity, vote for acceptance, and then very likely find in favor of Freshwater. At least one of the most prominent members of SCOTUS has a long public record of supporting the teaching of creationism. http://www.belcherfoundation.org/edwards_v_aguillard_dissent.htm Scalia is ostensibly and ostentatiously a Catholic. The Catholic Church does not even deny evolution, let alone endorse post-modern fundamentalist Protestant creationism. Scalia's words here remind us that doing a favor to members of one's preferred ideological group can trump all ethical considerations. A great deal of freedom seems to have been lost in the last ten or twelve years, probably permanently, since both corrupt "major parties" support this trend. However, outright forcing tax-paying citizens and residents of the United States to fund not only the teaching of sectarian propaganda, but of sectarian propaganda which blatantly denies scientific reality and insults numerous other religious traditions, as "science", to children in American public schools, in blatant violation of what are now accepted constitutional rights, would truly be outrageous. It is extremely sobering that the struggle to prevent such really obvious and blatant abuse is so constant.

Pierce R. Butler · 21 January 2012

harold said: I don't see how you came to this interpretation. The anti-scientific beliefs he endorsed as science were of a sectarian Christian nature.... the statement is accurate as it stands.
And if he'd pushed, say, the Jews4Jesus line that pork and shellfish are intrinsically unclean, or some other sectarian doctrine, that would still be a "Christian belief" so long as any group with "Christ" in its name professes it. But the Board's language puts them in direct opposition to "Christian religious beliefs", when they could have dodged that accusation by stating more precisely that they opposed one particular component within some church creeds, rather than conceding Freshwater's claim that creationism = christianism. I predict that more than one of the bible-bangers certain to challenge incumbent School Board members in future elections will use this tactical misstep to paint them as Myers-class howling infidels.

Dave Luckett · 21 January 2012

But the School Board doesn't and can't disallow teaching only a particular Christian sect's religious beliefs, or Christian religious beliefs in general. They have to disallow teaching all religious beliefs of any stripe whatsoever. The reason given for the dismissal should have been stated in those general terms. No particular reference should have been made to Christian religious beliefs.

Freshwater was teaching his religion and refusing to teach science where it was in conflict with his religion. He was acting in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as has been made painfully clear to all teachers in all public schools throughout the nation, AND ALSO failing by deliberate intent to perform the legitimate duties of his position. He was doing BOTH. EITHER is grounds for dismissal. The former is also grounds for suit; suit that was finally brought, forcing the school board and the other authorities into (reluctant) action.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/EBuqgDwH1NA.VVkvEwxcx9SF6Gmmy_Y-#47eea · 21 January 2012

harold said:
I suspect that the Rutherford Institute would like to take this to the Supreme Court.
Given that at least one of the five SCOTUS justices who is not a right wing ideologue is in poor health, the timing could be ideal. If Romney wins the 2012 election, he could get a fifth right wing ideologue on the court in short order (assuming a retirement), either by simply appointing one and waiting to lickspittle Democrats in the senate to prove their "bipartisanship" by not protesting, or, if he was concerned about token opposition, using the old "Harriet Miers" ruse - first suggesting a totally unacceptable candidate as a sacrifice bunt maneuver, and then following up with a superficially more qualified hard line rigth wing ideologue, arguing in the propaganda press that failure of the senate to immediately ratify the second one would mean that they were "refusing all of his nominations for partisan reasons". Then a Freshwater case could be decided 5-4 in favor of declaring post-modern sectarian right wing Christian science denial as "an alternate scientific theory". Ideally (from creationist perspective), the next step after that would be to require the teaching of creationism as part of "national standards". I certainly think that there is still an excellent chance that this type of scenario can be avoided, but it is uncomfortably possible.
Please consider that the same kind of calculation was done prior to the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, relative to how Judge Jones was a Dubya appointee, etc. That calculation was spectacularly wrong.

David vun Kannon · 21 January 2012

Previous comment was mine, not MP's. Not sure why the system thought I was Masked Panda when I signed in with my Yahoo address.

Flint · 21 January 2012

Pierce R. Butler said:
harold said: I don't see how you came to this interpretation. The anti-scientific beliefs he endorsed as science were of a sectarian Christian nature.... the statement is accurate as it stands.
And if he'd pushed, say, the Jews4Jesus line that pork and shellfish are intrinsically unclean, or some other sectarian doctrine, that would still be a "Christian belief" so long as any group with "Christ" in its name professes it. But the Board's language puts them in direct opposition to "Christian religious beliefs", when they could have dodged that accusation by stating more precisely that they opposed one particular component within some church creeds, rather than conceding Freshwater's claim that creationism = christianism. I predict that more than one of the bible-bangers certain to challenge incumbent School Board members in future elections will use this tactical misstep to paint them as Myers-class howling infidels.
I think this is a misunderstanding. Butler seems to be arguing that HIS religious faith, not being a fringe faith, CAN be taught as science, probably because Butler thinks his faith is scientifically true. But the way the Constitution reads and is interpreted, the State cannot preach in class, which is to say, it cannot endorse (explicitly or implicitly regard as "true") ANY religious faith whatsoever. This is illegal even if every single member of the community including the entire school faculty are of that same faith, and take its tenets for granted. The board is opposing the representation of ANY religious faith as "truth", regardless of sect, because that's illegal. It may well be the case that the board is in a bind, because following the law with respect to religion is unpopular with the voters, who wish to see their particular faith preached in EVERY public school classroom.

ksplawn · 21 January 2012

Pierce R. Butler said: The Board “…took legitimate and appropriate steps to ensure that one of its teachers did not distort its teaching of science to impressionable eight graders by endorsing Christian religious beliefs” (p. 13). The Board just took careful aim at its own foot and pulled the trigger by equating some sects' biblical literalism with across-the-board Christianism.
They're both verboten for public school teachers for the exact same reason (separation of church and state), so I don't see why this would affect any change in the outcome. And like it or not, Freshwater's Creationist material is endorsing a Christian religious belief. It's not one that's universal among Christians, but it's not a Hindu one either. If Freshwater were a devout Muslim and was pushing Harun Yahya books on the students the Board would be accurate in describing his material as endorsing Muslim religious beliefs. -Wheels

https://me.yahoo.com/a/qB10dxoimPr54sWQGhUjAdQ1VLcubg--#f5b2f · 21 January 2012

to the evolutionist on this website. i have a question for you which still has not been answered yet by you evolutionist. how do you add more information to the DNA?

Mike Elzinga · 21 January 2012

https://me.yahoo.com/a/qB10dxoimPr54sWQGhUjAdQ1VLcubg--#f5b2f said: to the evolutionist on this website. i have a question for you which still has not been answered yet by you evolutionist. how do you add more information to the DNA?
You instruct it as you would any student. But the bigger question is how does anyone add information to an ID/creationist?

phhht · 21 January 2012

https://me.yahoo.com/a/qB10dxoimPr54sWQGhUjAdQ1VLcubg--#f5b2f said: to the evolutionist on this website. i have a question for you which still has not been answered yet by you evolutionist. how do you add more information to the DNA?
Like this. You change the DNA in a random way. If it's good, you keep it. If it's bad, you throw it away. Then you do that over and over again. See?

apokryltaros · 21 January 2012

https://me.yahoo.com/a/EBuqgDwH1NA.VVkvEwxcx9SF6Gmmy_Y-#47eea said:
harold said:
I suspect that the Rutherford Institute would like to take this to the Supreme Court.
Given that at least one of the five SCOTUS justices who is not a right wing ideologue is in poor health, the timing could be ideal. If Romney wins the 2012 election, he could get a fifth right wing ideologue on the court in short order (assuming a retirement), either by simply appointing one and waiting to lickspittle Democrats in the senate to prove their "bipartisanship" by not protesting, or, if he was concerned about token opposition, using the old "Harriet Miers" ruse - first suggesting a totally unacceptable candidate as a sacrifice bunt maneuver, and then following up with a superficially more qualified hard line rigth wing ideologue, arguing in the propaganda press that failure of the senate to immediately ratify the second one would mean that they were "refusing all of his nominations for partisan reasons". Then a Freshwater case could be decided 5-4 in favor of declaring post-modern sectarian right wing Christian science denial as "an alternate scientific theory". Ideally (from creationist perspective), the next step after that would be to require the teaching of creationism as part of "national standards". I certainly think that there is still an excellent chance that this type of scenario can be avoided, but it is uncomfortably possible.
Please consider that the same kind of calculation was done prior to the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, relative to how Judge Jones was a Dubya appointee, etc. That calculation was spectacularly wrong.
Hence a lot of Christians screeching and threatening to try and harm/kill Judge Jones for his alleged "treachery."

DavidK · 21 January 2012

harold said:
I can remind everyone that at least four current members of SCOTUS probably would, if given the opportunity, vote for acceptance, and then very likely find in favor of Freshwater. At least one of the most prominent members of SCOTUS has a long public record of supporting the teaching of creationism. http://www.belcherfoundation.org/edwards_v_aguillard_dissent.htm Scalia is ostensibly and ostentatiously a Catholic. The Catholic Church does not even deny evolution, let alone endorse post-modern fundamentalist Protestant creationism. Scalia's words here remind us that doing a favor to members of one's preferred ideological group can trump all ethical considerations. However, outright forcing tax-paying citizens and residents of the United States to fund not only the teaching of sectarian propaganda, but of sectarian propaganda which blatantly denies scientific reality and insults numerous other religious traditions, as "science", to children in American public schools, in blatant violation of what are now accepted constitutional rights, would truly be outrageous.
Let's also not forget the Catholic Santorum and his Santorum amendment to Bush's NCLB. He also wrote the forward to the ID book "Darwin's Nemesis" which praises Phillip Johnson's efforts in trashing evolution. I think Gingerich and Romney are not far behind in this category as well. New efforts are also underway in Indiana and New Hampshire to teach alternate theories to evolution. And I'm sure the dishonesty institute I'm sure is behind these efforts as part of their wedge strategy.

DS · 22 January 2012

https://me.yahoo.com/a/qB10dxoimPr54sWQGhUjAdQ1VLcubg--#f5b2f said: to the evolutionist on this website. i have a question for you which still has not been answered yet by you evolutionist. how do you add more information to the DNA?
Well the way i do it is called site directed mutagenesis. Or You could do some other type of genetic engineering. The way nature does it is called random mutations and natural selection. Look it up on the internets. Now i have a question for creationist posting nonsense on science sites, why is you so ignorant?

harold · 22 January 2012

Please consider that the same kind of calculation was done prior to the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, relative to how Judge Jones was a Dubya appointee, etc. That calculation was spectacularly wrong.
By extraordinary good fortune, Judge Jones turned out to be honest and competent. Since he was appointed to what was probably assumed to be a minor, sleepy, rural circuit, Judge Jones may not have been vetted very intensely by the Bush administration. Judge Scalia, on the other hand, has a less surprising take. http://www.belcherfoundation.org/edwards_v_aguillard_dissent.htm

harold · 22 January 2012

https://me.yahoo.com/a/qB10dxoimPr54sWQGhUjAdQ1VLcubg--#f5b2f said: to the evolutionist on this website. i have a question for you which still has not been answered yet by you evolutionist. how do you add more information to the DNA?
Others have already answered this, but I'd be delighted to add more. However, first I have a few questions for you. 1) This site has a "preview" function, yet your very short comment is riddled with spelling and grammar errors. Did you deliberately intend an informal tone? Are you dyslexic? Is English a second language? Or have you simply not learned to write standard English? The reason I ask is that, if deliberate informality, dyslexia, or second language is the issue, it makes sense to proceed. On the other hand, if English is your native language and you were trying to write it correctly, it might make sense for you to work on remedial reading and writing before jumping to molecular biology. 2) Even if deliberate informality, dyslexia, or second language is the issue, it would not make sense to proceed unless we are using the term "information" in the same way. Standard treatment is good enough for me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory. In fact, I'd say that if you don't accept the standard usage of the term "information", there wouldn't be any point in talking about "information" with you. Could you state whether or not you accept the standard science/engineering/computing treatment of information? 3) It also wouldn't make much sense to engage with you if you don't know anything about DNA and are just mindlessly parroting a propaganda phrase. Could you summarize some knowledge of DNA/molecular biology? Just enough for people to be sure you have some slight clue what you are talking about? Make sure to use citations if indicated. 4) "i have a question for you which still has not been answered yet by you evolutionist". Actually, this question has been brought up and dealt with many, many times on this site alone. Therefore there are only three possible explanations for this statement - sheer ignorance, bald-faced lying, or parody. Which of these three is it - sheer ignorance, bald-faced lying, or parody? 5) Your comment seems to imply that if mainstream science can't explain something, your particular religious sect must be the default answer (you incorrectly identify something that science easily explains as unexplained, yet your question does seem to imply this underlying logical structure). Yet this is a non sequitur. Even if science can't currently explain something, there may be an answer forthcoming in the future. Indeed, even if we were to throw up our hands and declare something to be magical in nature, why should your particular sectarian ideology be the correct magical answer? How do YOU answer your own question? How do YOU think that "information is added to DNA"? Please answer in as much mechanistic detail as possible.

Paul Burnett · 22 January 2012

Flint said: ...the way the Constitution reads and is interpreted, the State cannot preach in class, which is to say, it cannot endorse (explicitly or implicitly regard as "true") ANY religious faith whatsoever.
...which is why creationists occasionally try to convince others that evolution is a religion, or that evolution are so closely associated with atheism, and since atheism is a religion (?), evolution cannot be taught in public schools. The ignorance of creationists knows no bounds.

Paul Burnett · 22 January 2012

https://me.yahoo.com/a/qB10dxoimPr54sWQGhUjAdQ1VLcubg--#f5b2f said: to the evolutionist on this website. i have a question for you which still has not been answered yet by you evolutionist. how do you add more information to the DNA?
Random mutation and genetic (or allelic) drift - then natural selection comes into play. Or do any of those terms mean anything to you?

Pierce R. Butler · 22 January 2012

Flint said: I think this is a misunderstanding. Butler seems to be arguing that HIS religious faith, not being a fringe faith, CAN be taught as science, probably because Butler thinks his faith is scientifically true.
You got the "misunderstanding" part right. Pls note I use the phrase "bible-bangers" - not part of the regular vocabulary of believers. I understand and agree with your point that public schools need to keep all religious doctrines out of curricula. However, I still maintain that it was politically unwise and factually false to say that, in rejecting Freshwater's creationism, such creationism is the same thing as Christianity.

Pierce R. Butler · 22 January 2012

ksplawn said: They're both verboten for public school teachers for the exact same reason (separation of church and state), so I don't see why this would affect any change in the outcome. And like it or not, Freshwater's Creationist material is endorsing a Christian religious belief. It's not one that's universal among Christians, but it's not a Hindu one either. If Freshwater were a devout Muslim and was pushing Harun Yahya books on the students the Board would be accurate in describing his material as endorsing Muslim religious beliefs.
Again, I wasn't talking about the outcome for Freshwater, but for the school board itself. They're picking a fight they could have avoided, and making a factually false implication. If, say, I disagree with string theory (I don't; I lack the knowledge to make such critiques), you might say I have a quarrel with astrophysics, with cosmology, or with science in general - and you'd be just as (in)accurate as the Board's claim that creationism, without further qualification, IS "Christian religious belief". Must I quote the renowned ontologist W.J. Clinton about what "is" is?

apokryltaros · 22 January 2012

Paul Burnett said:
Flint said: ...the way the Constitution reads and is interpreted, the State cannot preach in class, which is to say, it cannot endorse (explicitly or implicitly regard as "true") ANY religious faith whatsoever.
...which is why creationists occasionally try to convince others that evolution is a religion, or that evolution are so closely associated with atheism, and since atheism is a religion (?), evolution cannot be taught in public schools. The ignorance of creationists knows no bounds.
Their hypocrisy is equally limitless, what them also simultaneously making up all sorts of nonsensical word lawyering to justify teaching Creationism in place of science, in that, to them, Creationism is somehow both is and is not religious in nature (only when legally necessarily, apparently), but Evolution is solely religious in nature because it offends their bigoted sensibilities.

fnxtr · 22 January 2012

Pierce R. Butler said:
ksplawn said: They're both verboten for public school teachers for the exact same reason (separation of church and state), so I don't see why this would affect any change in the outcome. And like it or not, Freshwater's Creationist material is endorsing a Christian religious belief. It's not one that's universal among Christians, but it's not a Hindu one either. If Freshwater were a devout Muslim and was pushing Harun Yahya books on the students the Board would be accurate in describing his material as endorsing Muslim religious beliefs.
Again, I wasn't talking about the outcome for Freshwater, but for the school board itself. They're picking a fight they could have avoided, and making a factually false implication. If, say, I disagree with string theory (I don't; I lack the knowledge to make such critiques), you might say I have a quarrel with astrophysics, with cosmology, or with science in general - and you'd be just as (in)accurate as the Board's claim that creationism, without further qualification, IS "Christian religious belief". Must I quote the renowned ontologist W.J. Clinton about what "is" is?
And if you had no scientific basis for your quarrel, you should still keep it out of the science class you were hired to teach. ksplawn also made it clear that it was Freshwater's creationist material that was endorsing Christian religious belief.

fnxtr · 22 January 2012

https://me.yahoo.com/a/qB10dxoimPr54sWQGhUjAdQ1VLcubg--#f5b2f said: to the evolutionist on this website. i have a question for you which still has not been answered yet by you evolutionist. how do you add more information to the DNA?
Define "information". Length of string? easy: duplication and insertion happens all the time. I suspect your definition of "information" is slightly more slippery than that, though. And, as has been pointed out: change the string randomly. Either it'll increase your chances of living long enough to get laid, or it won't. If it does, that string is passed on to more offspring. Simple.

fnxtr · 22 January 2012

Pierce R. Butler said:
ksplawn said: They're both verboten for public school teachers for the exact same reason (separation of church and state), so I don't see why this would affect any change in the outcome. And like it or not, Freshwater's Creationist material is endorsing a Christian religious belief. It's not one that's universal among Christians, but it's not a Hindu one either. If Freshwater were a devout Muslim and was pushing Harun Yahya books on the students the Board would be accurate in describing his material as endorsing Muslim religious beliefs.
Again, I wasn't talking about the outcome for Freshwater, but for the school board itself. They're picking a fight they could have avoided, and making a factually false implication. If, say, I disagree with string theory (I don't; I lack the knowledge to make such critiques), you might say I have a quarrel with astrophysics, with cosmology, or with science in general - and you'd be just as (in)accurate as the Board's claim that creationism, without further qualification, IS "Christian religious belief". Must I quote the renowned ontologist W.J. Clinton about what "is" is?
Upon rereading I see your argument more clearly. But in the context of the board's "fight", it is clear that it's Freshwater's religious belief, insofar as it denies the science he was hired to teach, is at issue.

Pierce R. Butler · 22 January 2012

fnxtr said: Upon rereading I see your argument more clearly. But in the context of the board's "fight", it is clear that it's Freshwater's religious belief, insofar as it denies the science he was hired to teach, is at issue.
fnxtr - thanks for taking the time to see what I'm trying to say. While your point about "the context of the board's 'fight'" makes sense, in the political context of any board member seeking reelection mere "sense" is likely to be the first casualty. To put it another way, the metonymy of conflating Freshwater's creationism with all of Christian beliefs offers hyperchristians a minor fallacy from which they may prove capable of constructing a much larger monument to their own (exaggerated sense of) persecution.

Mike Elzinga · 22 January 2012

fnxtr said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/qB10dxoimPr54sWQGhUjAdQ1VLcubg--#f5b2f said: to the evolutionist on this website. i have a question for you which still has not been answered yet by you evolutionist. how do you add more information to the DNA?
Define "information". Length of string? easy: duplication and insertion happens all the time. I suspect your definition of "information" is slightly more slippery than that, though. And, as has been pointed out: change the string randomly. Either it'll increase your chances of living long enough to get laid, or it won't. If it does, that string is passed on to more offspring. Simple.
The grotesque mangling of the laws of physics and chemistry as well as the hopelessly muddled confusions about “information” among the ID/creationists is highlighted even more by the hexagon on Saturn.” ID/creationists refuse to believe any of this kind of organization and coordinated behavior exists. This phenomenon is also reported in more detail here and at some of the links given at the Astronomy Picture of the Day website. In the coming months there will be lots of people attempting to explain the shape and stability of this structure. As a condensed matter physicist, I can already think of a number of mechanisms that lead to this structure; but further details and calculations are required to verify which of a number of possible mechanisms turn out to be the main contributors. The emergence of highly structured patterns out of seemingly chaotic systems is common at all levels of complexity. In this pattern on Saturn, there is also organization and coordinated activity taking place. This is not unusual; and again we see it at all levels of complexity. No matter how many examples of this kind of stuff we show ID/creationists, just as with Behe, it is sneeringly brushed aside as ID/creationist constantly ask where “information” comes from. Just noting the discussions taking place over on Unimaginably Dense is sufficient to see the hopeless confusions that recycle and echo among that bunch as they puff and pontificate their pseudo-science. The intense marketing of this crap by the Discovery Institute will very likely continue to cause confusion and court costs for school districts and their school boards. As stupid as this pseudo-science is, it takes familiarity with physics and chemistry as well as biology to see through the hoax. Demolishing rigorous science requirements in the public schools would only add to the difficulties in fighting this crap.

harold · 22 January 2012

Pierce R. Butler -

Your argument is that the board implied that Freshwater was endorsing beliefs that are shared by all Christians.

Had he done this, it still would have been illegal. Taking time out of science class to say something like "the teachings of Jesus, as recorded in the canonical gospels, provide a guide to spiritual development" is still technically illegal, even though this statement is probably agreeable to almost all Christians and many non-Christians, and does not contradict physical reality in a direct way. It is still illegal to preach sectarian religion during the time when taxpayers are paying you to teach public school science.

I do agree that the board's statement is too weak, and fails to adequately address the fact that he didn't just endorse Christianity, he falsely presented the narrow, science-denying dogma of a particular cult of Christianity as "science".

Having said that, we'll have to agree to disagree with regard to your more fundamental objection. "Endorsed Christian beliefs" does not mean the same thing "endorsed beliefs shared by all Christians". At least to me it does not. If it does to you, well, that's your interpretation.

prongs · 22 January 2012

fnxtr said: Either it'll {random mutation will} increase your chances of living long enough to get laid, or it won't. If it does, that string is passed on to more offspring. Simple.
Thanks for putting it into terms even an IDiot can understand. (If I can understand it why can't they? What is wrong with these people?)

rossum · 22 January 2012

Yahoomess (Masked Panda)-#f5b2f said: to the evolutionist on this website. i have a question for you which still has not been answered yet by you evolutionist. how do you add more information to the DNA?
Step 1) Start with some DNA: "The cat sat on the mat." Step 2) Duplicate that DNA: "The cat sat on the mat. The cat sat on the mat." On some measures that alone has increased the information, but for the moment I will allow that there is no information increase. Step 3) Mutate one copy: "The cat sat on the mat. The hat sat on the mat." This is an increase in information by all measures. We now know more about what is on the mat than we did before. QED. rossum

Pierce R. Butler · 22 January 2012

harold said: Pierce R. Butler - Your argument is that the board implied that Freshwater was endorsing beliefs that are shared by all Christians. Had he done this, it still would have been illegal.
Agreed (as with all the rest of yr paragraph).
I do agree that the board's statement is too weak, and fails to adequately address the fact that he didn't just endorse Christianity, he falsely presented the narrow, science-denying dogma of a particular cult of Christianity as "science".
Yes - but the board compounded this by implying the narrow, science-denying dogma of a particular cult of Christianity is "Christian". If you don't like, say, Los Angeles, why create more antagonism by rejecting all "California"?
"Endorsed Christian beliefs" does not mean the same thing "endorsed beliefs shared by all Christians". At least to me it does not. If it does to you, well, that's your interpretation.
My interpretation is that the ambiguity we both see here can and will be exploited by some Mini-Rove for sheer demagoguery, and that the board should've seen that coming and not created this vulnerability for its members, attorneys, et al.

harold · 22 January 2012

My interpretation is that the ambiguity we both see here can and will be exploited by some Mini-Rove for sheer demagoguery, and that the board should’ve seen that coming and not created this vulnerability for its members, attorneys, et al.
I guess in the end we more or less agree. The board statement is somewhat ambiguous, ambiguity can be exploited by the dishonest, and there was no reason that greater specificity and clarity could not have been used.

Flint · 22 January 2012

The board statement is somewhat ambiguous, ambiguity can be exploited by the dishonest, and there was no reason that greater specificity and clarity could not have been used.

The problem may be that language is itself sufficiently ambiguous so that any sufficiently devious and determined party can find SOME interpretation other than the one intended, that might be at least remotely plausible. Against dedicated opposition, approaching 'clarity' is like approaching the horizon. I'd tend to move away from specificity, and just address preaching (teaching as Truth) religions doctrines in science class. ANY part of ANY religion.

tomh · 22 January 2012

https://me.yahoo.com/a/EBuqgDwH1NA.VVkvEwxcx9SF6Gmmy_Y-#47eea said: Please consider that the same kind of calculation was done prior to the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, relative to how Judge Jones was a Dubya appointee, etc. That calculation was spectacularly wrong.
Which has nothing to do with the situation on the Supreme Court. Harold is exactly right that the situation on the Court is extremely risky for the next evolution case to reach it, and indeed for church-state cases in general. It's entirely possible that the next president will have two appointments, Ginsburg, almost for sure, (78, in ill health), and possibly Breyer, (73). I don't think the Freshwater case will get there, but there have been creationism/evolution cases about every 20 years, so we're a little overdue (the last one being 1987). One or two appointments from a Republican president could easily spell the difference.

prongs · 22 January 2012

tomh said: One or two appointments from a Republican president could easily spell the difference.
If I recall correctly, Jones was a Bush appointee, so yes, a Republican president could easily spell the difference.

Flint · 22 January 2012

prongs said:
tomh said: One or two appointments from a Republican president could easily spell the difference.
If I recall correctly, Jones was a Bush appointee, so yes, a Republican president could easily spell the difference.
This is important, because Jones was NOT debated in the Senate. I read somewhere that the number of unfilled judicial positions is at an all-time high for the same reason Congress can't pass anything. It's not much noted, but the number of judges nominated by Obama but not approved by Congress is so large that many jurisdictions are pretty crippled and backlogs are becoming long enough so more and more cases expire for lack of speedy trial. Part of the reason for this is, as usual, the Republicans are willing to do whatever damage to the nation is required to make Obama look bad. But much of the problem is also ideological. If Ginsberg should die and Obama be re-elected, there's a good chance that her position simply could not be filled due to the current polarization. Republicans would vote unanimously against anyone with certain social views, and Democrats would vote unanimously against anyone without such views. With old-school mainline Protestant denominations steadily losing membership in the US while evangelical and fundamentalist denominations are growing like weeds, it's only a matter of time before the pattern of elected politicians follows suit, and from there it's not too long before the judiciary they appoint and approve follows accordingly.

Shebardigan · 22 January 2012

Alphabet Soup said: to the evolutionist on this website. i have a question for you which still has not been answered yet by you evolutionist. how do you add more information to the DNA?
That is becoming more easily done with each new release of DNA. If you have DNA that is the latest production release ("Narwhal") or the beta release ("Smilodon"), you can plug in to the ultra-sub-micro-pico-miniature USB connector on any genetic unit and use one of the open source DNA Information Addition applications. The cable can be obtained from your friendly local Dick Smith's or Fry's. The software is available for download in freeware versions for Windows, OS X, Linux, iOS and Android. Have at it with our blessings. HTH.

eric · 23 January 2012

Pierce R. Butler said: Yes - but the board compounded this by implying the narrow, science-denying dogma of a particular cult of Christianity is "Christian". If you don't like, say, Los Angeles, why create more antagonism by rejecting all "California"?
Pierce, I have to say that I think you are, at best, making a mountain out of a molehill. And you might just be misreading what they say. I just read the BOE's 11 Jan brief pages 12-17, and it seems very clear they are talking about Freshwater's imposition of "religion," creationism, and ID in the classroom. Not "Christianity" writ large. They constantly refer to religion, creationism, and ID. They note that applicant thinks teaching evolution is hostile to "the Fundamentalist Christian beliefs in the literal interpretation of the Bible" (caps in original) - note they don't broadly attack Christianity. They mention the fact that these are Fundamentalist Christian (caps in original) beliefs several other times, too. I'd say that, IMO, throughout the section the BOE does a pretty good job of communicating that they are not targeting Christianity per se. Near as I could tell, there is exactly one sentence in that entire 5-page section which might be construed as overbroad, but even then, a reasonable reader would probably not interpret it that way. Here it is, I'll let other pandas decide whether they think you are right to be worried or overreacting (assume all typos are mine): "Appellee took legitimate and appropriate steps to ensure that one of its teachers did not distort its teaching of science to impressionable eigth graders by endorsing Christian religious beliefs." There. That's it. Is that what you are worried about?

harold · 23 January 2012

prongs said:
tomh said: One or two appointments from a Republican president could easily spell the difference.
If I recall correctly, Jones was a Bush appointee, so yes, a Republican president could easily spell the difference.
If you want to support Republicans do so, but please be honest with yourself and others about what you are supporting. As at least two other people have pointed out, comparing Judge Jones of the Dover trial to Republican SCOTUS justices is absurd. Judge Jones was an offhand appointment to a sleepy rural district court. His appointment was not debated in the Senate, as Flint notes immediately above. Republican nominees for SCOTUS are a different matter. They are intensely researched and vetted for hard loyalty to the current Republican ideology. I've already pointed out the unequivocal historical FACT that Justice Scalia wrote the dissent for Edwards vs Aguillard, in which he was joined by then-justice Rehnquist. Please recall that this case dealt with blatant teaching of outright YEC "creation science". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_vs_Aguillard Justice Scalia, the influential unofficial leader of the conservative branch of SCOTUS, is on record as strongly supporting the teaching of YEC creationism as science in US public schools. If Justice Scalia had decided the Dover case, all available evidence suggests that he would have found in favor of the defendants and supported the teaching of "ID". The main available evidence being, of course, his decisions in prior, related cases. None of the other ideological conservatives were on the court in 1987, so we don't know exactly what their thinking is. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are well known for siding with Scalia in a vast percentage of cases; often deliberately forming a "bloc" of four to defend the "conservatively correct" side of a case, and perceived by many to be at least as influenced by post-modern "conservative movement" ideology as by constitutional interpretation. Justice Kennedy often sides with them as well. Any appointment by any of the current Republican primary candidates, should such become president, is virtually certain to be vetted for loyalty to current ideology, with Federalist Society membership likely to be a necessary condition, and association with right wing think tanks likely to be viewed as a plus. Republicans are likely to have a majority in the Senate, and the well known tendencies for some Democrats to roll over and surrender to Republicans, and for the Senate to feel that it can only reject one appointment per seat (so that the crude ruse of merely "appointing" a sacrifice candidate first, so that the "real" appointment, no matter how extreme, will be rubber-stamped, always works) are likely to be in operation.

harold · 23 January 2012

prongs said:
tomh said: One or two appointments from a Republican president could easily spell the difference.
If I recall correctly, Jones was a Bush appointee, so yes, a Republican president could easily spell the difference.
To put it another way, ID/creationists thought Judge Jones would side with them because Jones had been appointed by GWB. They were wrong. But they weren't wrong because the current Republican party doesn't try to nominate justices who will, in fact, support the conservative ideology no matter what (with authoritarian fundamentalism being part of modern conservative ideology). They were wrong because the relatively obscure Judge Jones, an appointment to a backwoods circuit court, simply was not vetted as extensively as a SCOTUS appointment would be. Judge Jones deliberately wrote a decision that anticipated and headed off any efforts to appeal to a higher court. Some knowledgeable people here suggest that Freshwater may have a hard time appealing higher if he loses his latest case; maybe so, the Rutherford Institute doesn't seem to think so, but they are not the most sophisticated legal scholars in the world. Nevertheless, a fifth hard core, Republican-appointed ideologue on SCOTUS, given the nature of current Republican candidates for president and current Republican senators, would be an alarming development, with respect to the issue of students being coerced into regurgitating narrow sectarian ID/creationist dogma as "science", in taxpayer funded public schools.

eric · 23 January 2012

harold said: They were wrong because the relatively obscure Judge Jones, an appointment to a backwoods circuit court, simply was not vetted as extensively as a SCOTUS appointment would be.
I don't think is right. Prior to being nominated for his Judgeship, Jones had run for local office (possibly more than once) on the Republican ticket. So even outside the judicial nomination process, the party had vetted him and he had likely made some formal or at least informal agreement to commit to a lot of the GOP's ideological positions. Where they made a mistake was in thinking that he would rule in favor of his chosen party's political allies despite the evidence. In a way, the fundies were victims of their own propaganda. They think secularism is diametrically opposed to Christianity. As a good conservative Christian, they assumed Jones couldn't possibly be a secularist. They were wrong. In fact most mainstream Christians are secularists, because its entirely possible to be religious yet think government should not endorse one's religion an the same time.

harold · 23 January 2012

eric said:
harold said: They were wrong because the relatively obscure Judge Jones, an appointment to a backwoods circuit court, simply was not vetted as extensively as a SCOTUS appointment would be.
I don't think is right. Prior to being nominated for his Judgeship, Jones had run for local office (possibly more than once) on the Republican ticket. So even outside the judicial nomination process, the party had vetted him and he had likely made some formal or at least informal agreement to commit to a lot of the GOP's ideological positions. Where they made a mistake was in thinking that he would rule in favor of his chosen party's political allies despite the evidence. In a way, the fundies were victims of their own propaganda. They think secularism is diametrically opposed to Christianity. As a good conservative Christian, they assumed Jones couldn't possibly be a secularist. They were wrong. In fact most mainstream Christians are secularists, because its entirely possible to be religious yet think government should not endorse one's religion an the same time.
Critical feedback accepted, he may have been vetted more than I realized, although arguably, still less than a SCOTUS nominee. My broader point remains. At least one of the most prominent SCOTUS justices, although nominally a Catholic (i.e. nominally a member of a group that was once discriminated against by the presence of Protestant religious material in taxpayer funded schools), wrote the dissent in Edwards vs Aguillard. I can't emphasize this enough. Edwards involved the outright teaching of Young Earth Creationist "creationism science". The defendants wanted to teach narrow sectarian science-denying ideology that isn't even accepted fully by some very strict sects. I grew up in a church that frowned heavily (albeit in a locally good-humored and forgiving way) on such activities as drinking a beer, dancing, playing a game of chance even if not for money, listening to secular music, drinking coffee (suspect for some odd reason even though tea was highly accepted), etc, and we were not told that we had to believe that the earth was 6000 years old, that evolution doesn't occur, or the like. Justice Scalia is a prominent conservative on SCOTUS, he often takes the lead in writing conservative side opinions, and he openly favors the position that the US Constitution favors coercing students into memorizing the narrow, science-denying dogma of a government favored sect, as "science", while forcing the tax-paying public to foot the bill for this. That is a FACT, FACT, FACT, FACT, FACT, he PERSONALLY WROTE THE FERSHLUGGINER DISSENT TO THE EDWARDS DECISION, and he has never indicated a change of opinion. Incidentally, the co-signature of Rehnquist on this dissent can be interpreted as a more or less endorsing it as a position that is "respectable" for conservatives to take. We simply don't know how the other conservatives, including Kennedy for that matter, would react. They have no strong record of either endorsing creationism, nor of defending secularism in public schools, at least in well known cases, so all we can say is that we don't know, but we do, of course, unless we are complete idiots or bald-faced liars, admit that we know that they are highly influenced by Justice Scalia, the "senior statesman" of the conservative side of the court. I'd love to proven wrong here by being shown a strong pro-science, pro-first amendment decision by one of them, but I'm pessimistic about that. We can also deduce that any appointment by a potential 2012 Republican administration, whether it be a hypothetical Santorum/Gingrich administration, or "merely" a hypothetical Romney administration, will be of a nominee who has been vetted for intense ideological loyalty. To claim to expect otherwise would be the height or either naivete, hypocrisy, or both. Therefore, the "Judge Jones was a Republican, therefore Republican appointments to SCOTUS aren't a potential threat to the teaching of science, yuk, yuk, yuk" line of reasoning is invalid. This is an area of very valid concern.

harold · 23 January 2012

I want to make it clear -

Of course I am not saying that all people who identify as Republicans or conservatives support teaching creationism in public schools. Judge Jones and a number of pro-science commenters here prove that this is not the case.

Of course I am not saying that I know that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, or hypothetical future Republican appointees to SCOTUS, would decide in favor of teaching ID/creationism, if given the chance.

What I am saying is that -

1) We do know that this is how Scalia and Rehnquist decided.

2) We do know that Thomas, Alito, and Roberts frequently agree with Scalia.

3) If the others have a definitive track record on this issue, I am not aware of it, so what I see is one definitive creationist and three unknowns (or four if you count Kennedy as a potential unknown).

4) Therefore we should be concerned.

harold · 23 January 2012

Sorry, that should be -

"3) If the others have a definitive track record on this issue, I am not aware of it, so what I see is one definitive creationist supporter of teaching creationism as "science" in taxpayer funded schools, and three unknowns (or four if you count Kennedy as a potential unknown)."

prongs · 23 January 2012

harold said: To put it another way, ID/creationists thought Judge Jones would side with them because Jones had been appointed by GWB. They were wrong.
I do not mean to offend your sensibilites but you are wrong to stereotype Republican appointees as mindless robots. It does not become you. (Offending intentionally dishonest IDiots and creationists is perfectly acceptable, however.)

harold · 23 January 2012

I do not mean to offend your sensibilites but you are wrong to stereotype Republican appointees as mindless robots. It does not become you.
I don't, and that's why I said -
Of course I am not saying that all people who identify as Republicans or conservatives support teaching creationism in public schools. Judge Jones and a number of pro-science commenters here prove that this is not the case.
I agree with this...
(Offending intentionally dishonest IDiots and creationists is perfectly acceptable, however.)

tomh · 23 January 2012

harold said: We simply don't know how the other conservatives, including Kennedy for that matter, would react. They have no strong record of either endorsing creationism, nor of defending secularism in public schools, at least in well known cases, so all we can say is that we don't know,
Well, we do know that Thomas has made clear his desire to do away with the barriers that have kept religion and government separated in public life. He has written or joined opinions in a raft of cases that set forth an unmistakably narrow view of the Establishment Clause. He has advocated the idea that nothing less than the presence of legal coercion by the government in advancing religion should be the “touchstone” for an Establishment Clause violation. Justice Alito, as a Third Circuit judge, wrote a major opinion upholding a claim by a religious organization for access to school space in a New Jersey public school for after school activities, as well as access to school bulletin boards and help from teachers to distribute flyers to students to bring home. Also, in interviews with senators after his Supreme Court nomination, he indicated his belief that the Court’s precedents were too heavily weighted toward separating church and state. Roberts has been more circumspect, but considering that, in the last term, Roberts and Alito voted together 96% of the time, it's obviously a consideration. Kennedy is an unknown; in some cases, such as a National Prayer Day, he has no problem blending religion with government while in other cases he objects. Of course, no one can predict a vote with certainty, (well, except for Scalia), but Thomas would seem a given, and Alito and Roberts a strong possibility. Also, lest we forget, in Edwards, legal arguments in favor of the Louisiana statute were not only accepted by two Justices of the Supreme Court, but also by seven judges of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A more subtly written statute could easily pass legal muster for a conservative justice who was inclined that way.

Mike Elzinga · 23 January 2012

tomh said: Also, lest we forget, in Edwards, legal arguments in favor of the Louisiana statute were not only accepted by two Justices of the Supreme Court, but also by seven judges of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A more subtly written statute could easily pass legal muster for a conservative justice who was inclined that way.
Given the politics in this country, it is not very clear what the Supreme Court judges will do in any given case. Stacking the courts has been a persistent goal of ideologues. My own feeling about this is that science teachers and the science community should not count on the courts, despite the fact that the courts have generally sided with the secular science. Political winds change dramatically for very unpredictable reasons. It would be better for the science community at all levels of education to be well prepared to thoroughly expose the embarrassing hoax of ID/creationism to the point that ID/creationists will squeal to keep these sectarian pillars of dogma out of the classroom. Such an approach can be easily done if members of the science community became thoroughly familiar with the hoax and its history. The physics and chemistry communities have tended to let the biologists carry most of the burden of the fight for nearly 50 years now. That needs to change. And teachers need to be able to gain access to professional development activities that give them thorough training in the misconceptions and tricks of ID/creationist “arguments.” This means that the professional societies need to ramp up their support as well, and put together materials that pinpoint the misconceptions and misrepresentations of science that ID/creationists have habitually used to disrupt and derail public education in the sciences. It is not as difficult as it seems. In the very rare cases where I have had to deal with it in the classroom, I was prepared; and the ID/creationists were so thoroughly embarrassed that we never heard from them again. But memories are short. Victories in one era do not translate to victories forever. So instructors at all levels need to be prepared. As I have mentioned before, as nauseating as persistent ID/creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations are, they can be useful in helping an instructor recognize and deal with misconceptions. Use of that fact helps take the nauseating edge off studying that crap.

Marilyn · 24 January 2012

If you can't say there is God in science class why should you be able to say there is not God and at what point could you say there is or is not God.

stevaroni · 24 January 2012

Marilyn said: If you can't say there is God in science class why should you be able to say there is not God and at what point could you say there is or is not God.
Well, you shouldn't teach anything about God, one way or the other, in science class. Pretty much like you shouldn't teach anything about God in trigonometry class or map skills. What you should teach are the known facts about the rules of nature or math or maps. As far as evolution goes, there are mountains of fossils, DNA and morphological data that all indicate that life on earth works a certain way and there are fairly straightforward rules. Whether or not you want to read divine influence or divine insult into that statement is not the issue, just like it's not the issue whether or not you think the hand of God influences the speed of light or the angles in a triangle. Maybe He does. Maybe He doesn't. That's religion. Regardless, it's possible to measure this stuff objectively and that's what science does. It was a while ago, but as far as I can tell all my undergrad biology was heavy with things like mitochondria and the Krebbs cycle, but God didn't come up even once. He didn't come up in calculus, either. The fact that you want to assign theological implication to objective observation is kind of a personal issue. Myself, I grew up in a Roman Catholic household and the RC church takes the position "Eh. That's how it works. Evolution exists. Nobody knows why He does it that way, but it looks like He does. Go figure."

Dave Luckett · 24 January 2012

Marilyn asked: If you can’t say there is God in science class why should you be able to say there is not God and at what point could you say there is or is not God.
You can't say there is no God in science class in a public school. You can't say it anywhere in a public school or on the taxpayers' dime, any more than you can say there is one. The State can't take sides. Simple, isn't it?

Paul Burnett · 24 January 2012

Marilyn said: If you can't say there is God in science class why should you be able to say there is not God and at what point could you say there is or is not God.
Fundagelicals, in their monumental ignorance, think that saying "there is evolution" is the same thing as saying "there is not god." Right, Marilyn?

apokryltaros · 24 January 2012

Dave Luckett said:
Marilyn asked: If you can’t say there is God in science class why should you be able to say there is not God and at what point could you say there is or is not God.
You can't say there is no God in science class in a public school. You can't say it anywhere in a public school or on the taxpayers' dime, any more than you can say there is one. The State can't take sides. Simple, isn't it?
In other words, public school teachers are specifically paid by the government to teach the students the subject matter, and not to engage in proselytism.

eric · 24 January 2012

Paul Burnett said: Fundagelicals, in their monumental ignorance, think that saying "there is evolution" is the same thing as saying "there is not god." Right, Marilyn?
I'd say ignorance, but not monumental. Its probably worth explaining/repeating that the first amendment allows teachers to say things that may relate to (and refute) individual religious claims. It has to be that way, otherwise any individual believer could exercise veto power over the entire state curriculum by claiming something taught is at odds with their belief. When such a conflict occurs, a good history or science teacher should probably stick to telling the kids what historians or scientists conclude, and why. I.e., what methods the disciplines of history and science use to arrive at their conclusions. Two examples of how a teacher might respond to a conflict-question from a mormon or biblical literalist student. #1: "Using new world archaeological evidence and historical methods, historians conclude that the first Jews and Christians to permanently settle in the new world arrived after about 1492." E.g. #2, "Using empirical evidence and the scientific method, science concludes that the earth is 4.5 billion years old." What teachers are NOT supposed to do is then editorialize about 'what this means' for some religion. They are not supposed to go "...and therefore, Mormonism is untrue" or "...but because the bible is infallible, we must rejct the scence as flawed." They should leave the "what this means for my religion" questions up to the believer and their familiy. All IMO, of course.

Pierce R. Butler · 24 January 2012

eric said: Pierce, I have to say that I think you are, at best, making a mountain out of a molehill.
I had mistakenly thought my original one-liner made the point adequately. Having to clarify what didn't come through the first time put more bulk on what was intended as a smaller statement.
Near as I could tell, there is exactly one sentence in that entire 5-page section which might be construed as overbroad, but even then, a reasonable reader would probably not interpret it that way.
Pls remember, I was looking at what an unreasonable opponent might do with this statement. We are talking about creo hyperchristians here, no?

DS · 24 January 2012

Marilyn said: If you can't say there is God in science class why should you be able to say there is not God and at what point could you say there is or is not God.
What he said. Look Marilyn, I don't know anybody, certainly no real scientist, who advocates teaching that there is no god in science class. Science is mute on that point, it has to be. How could science possibly demonstrate that there is no god if there is an all powerful all knowing eternal being that doesn't want puny humans to know of her existence? Science would be incapable of detecting such a being. Of course if she didn't want to be detected, she would hardly have dictated her memos to ancient sheep herders now would she? That having been said, there are a great many things than science can address. For example, we can determine the age of the earth. We can determine the orbits of the planets. We can determine the origin of species. If religion wants to stick it's neck out and make proclamations about holy revelations and they turn out to be wrong about these things, too bad. That doesn't prove that god doesn't exist, it just proves that the religion was wrong. You would think they would get the hint after being shown to be wrong every time for the last two thousand years. And of course we can conclude from science that there is no evidence for any gods nor any necessity for any gods. The natural world has apparently arisen by natural means and no supernatural explanations are required. You can choose not to believe it if you want. You can choose to deny it if you want, but that is what science has found. As Stevaroni says, it's a personal issue. If your existential angst is so extreme that you need to make stuff up to deal with it, fine. But don't be surprised if everyone can see that the emperor has no clothes. You can't force your personal beliefs on others at tax payer expense. That's a good thing you know, it works both ways. If people like Freshwater are allowed to violate the Constitution, there is absolutely nothing preventing someone from preaching Satanism in class. Would you want that?

harold · 24 January 2012

Marilyn - As DS said, but emphasis mine -
You can’t force your personal beliefs on others at tax payer expense. That’s a good thing you know, it works both ways.
US law forbids, and I completely oppose on a personal level, any teaching of or against sectarian theology as "science". Science class should consist of a grade-appropriate discussion of mainstream, evidence-based, scientific reality. Some people choose, in their personal lives, to deny various aspects of that reality. I strongly support their right to do so. But we can't let that interfere with the teaching of science. After all, someone could declare tomorrow that his particular religion declares the earth to be flat, or not to revolve around the sun, and in fact, some people do make those very claims. But we can still teach that the scientific method shows the earth to be shaped in way similar to a sphere, and to revolve around the sun. People whose beliefs contradict this don't need to "believe" that the earth is round. They have two good choices. They can simply learn and understand correctly the evidence for a round earth, and deal with their conflict at a personal level. Or, if they lack the character to do that, well, school attendance up to a certain age is mandatory, but academic success is not. They can choose to fail their science courses and not achieve a high school diploma, that's their perfect right. An alternate way of achieving the same thing is home-schooling that doesn't meet the criteria for high school graduation or university acceptance. I strongly support the right of creationists to live as creationists. All I ask is for them to respect my rights. They seem to find that difficult.

Richard B. Hoppe · 24 January 2012

A very good summary. Thanks!
eric said:
Paul Burnett said: Fundagelicals, in their monumental ignorance, think that saying "there is evolution" is the same thing as saying "there is not god." Right, Marilyn?
I'd say ignorance, but not monumental. Its probably worth explaining/repeating that the first amendment allows teachers to say things that may relate to (and refute) individual religious claims. It has to be that way, otherwise any individual believer could exercise veto power over the entire state curriculum by claiming something taught is at odds with their belief. When such a conflict occurs, a good history or science teacher should probably stick to telling the kids what historians or scientists conclude, and why. I.e., what methods the disciplines of history and science use to arrive at their conclusions. Two examples of how a teacher might respond to a conflict-question from a mormon or biblical literalist student. #1: "Using new world archaeological evidence and historical methods, historians conclude that the first Jews and Christians to permanently settle in the new world arrived after about 1492." E.g. #2, "Using empirical evidence and the scientific method, science concludes that the earth is 4.5 billion years old." What teachers are NOT supposed to do is then editorialize about 'what this means' for some religion. They are not supposed to go "...and therefore, Mormonism is untrue" or "...but because the bible is infallible, we must rejct the scence as flawed." They should leave the "what this means for my religion" questions up to the believer and their familiy. All IMO, of course.

tomh · 24 January 2012

Marilyn said: If you can't say there is God in science class why should you be able to say there is not God and at what point could you say there is or is not God.
The problem is, that although in theory neither of those things are allowed, in practice that's not the way it is. There may be a rare case of a teacher promoting atheism, but there are around 15% of high school biology teachers who explicitly advocate creationism, and spend at least an hour of class time presenting it in a positive light. And not just in the South - the New York Times story points out that at least 25 percent of high school teachers in Minnesota explicitly teach creationism. The law is very clear - the problem is getting religionists to follow the law.

Flint · 24 January 2012

Marilyn is telling us something important - to the True Believer, there is no such thing as neutral. Omitting her god IS denying her god. Presenting facts, observations, and evidence without relating all of these to her god, IS denying her god, saying her god does not exist.

What teachers are NOT supposed to do is then editorialize about ‘what this means’ for some religion.

In Marilyn's world, all possible observations mean something immediately important to her religion. Her religion requires this. And if this meaning is ignored, this is a subtle and permicious form of editorializing that her god doesn't exist. To the fundagelical, if you're not part of the solution you are part of the problem. There is no neutral. In omitting her god, the State is taking a very real, obvious religious position. The law might demand "neutrality" or religion-blindness, but Marilyn knows that such a thing is a sham, her religion preaches that it's a sham. In her world, a biology class that doesn't mention her god is like a meteorology class that doesn't mention weather. The omission is so glaring as to be preposterous. And it is most emphatically taking a theological stand, like it or not.

DS · 24 January 2012

Flint said: Marilyn is telling us something important - to the True Believer, there is no such thing as neutral. Omitting her god IS denying her god. Presenting facts, observations, and evidence without relating all of these to her god, IS denying her god, saying her god does not exist.

What teachers are NOT supposed to do is then editorialize about ‘what this means’ for some religion.

In Marilyn's world, all possible observations mean something immediately important to her religion. Her religion requires this. And if this meaning is ignored, this is a subtle and permicious form of editorializing that her god doesn't exist. To the fundagelical, if you're not part of the solution you are part of the problem. There is no neutral. In omitting her god, the State is taking a very real, obvious religious position. The law might demand "neutrality" or religion-blindness, but Marilyn knows that such a thing is a sham, her religion preaches that it's a sham. In her world, a biology class that doesn't mention her god is like a meteorology class that doesn't mention weather. The omission is so glaring as to be preposterous. And it is most emphatically taking a theological stand, like it or not.
Very well , then what would said fundagelical suggest? If god is mentioned, which god? If just your god, why? Your god is not going to look too good in science class. If all gods, no science is taught. Is that the future they really want? If so, why aren't they all Amish already? Exactly what would they like to happen? You would think that they would realize that this is the best of all possible worlds. You would think that they would be content and STFU already. Instead, if they incessantly whine until they get their way, they will eventually be overwhelmed by all of the other religious fanatics. Not mentioning god in science class is no more an endorsement of atheism that not mentioning brownies in music appreciation class is an endorsement of dieting. Only the truly deluded and myopic would even attempt to claim this. If you don't want people to think that they have to check their brain at the door in order to enter your church, quit make such ridiculous arguments. Enjoy the religious freedom granted you by the Constitution and quit trying to destroy it.

dalehusband · 24 January 2012

Flint said: Marilyn is telling us something important - to the True Believer, there is no such thing as neutral. Omitting her god IS denying her god. Presenting facts, observations, and evidence without relating all of these to her god, IS denying her god, saying her god does not exist.
Which makes God look either very weak or very much an egomaniac, or both. To the True Atheist, finding that science does not clearly prove God exists justifies their saying "THERE IS NO GOD". Same arrogance. Damn both of them, I say.

harold · 24 January 2012

Marilyn is telling us something important - to the True Believer, there is no such thing as neutral. Omitting her god IS denying her god. Presenting facts, observations, and evidence without relating all of these to her god, IS denying her god, saying her god does not exist.
Well, then, if this is the case, and I didn't hear Marilyn herself say it, but it is the case for many people, she has several choices. She doesn't have the choice of making public schools teach her arbitrarily preferred mythology as "science", of course. Beyond being utterly illegal, that's also pragmatically impossible. If constitutional protections broke down, she would find it impossible to sustain her right to believe in her way, unmolested. Not scientists, but equally fanatic members of other sects, would coerce the teaching of their arbitrary whims as "science". A general cycle of anarchic violence and oppression would emerge. This has been tried before, quite a few times in different places, and this is what always happens. Eventually, either one exact mythology would be elevated by an order-restoring strong man to the position of "official truth" (with severe punishments for claiming otherwise), or a beleaguered populace would give up and protect one another's right to freedom of religion. Either way, the "true believer" simply can't have their fantasy. However, again, they have all of the following honest choices - 1) Learn science correctly and honestly admit the evidence, while dealing sincerely with a personal dilemma of beliefs that are at odds with the evidence, e.g. http://toddcwood.blogspot.com (this is not intended as an endorsement of Tod Wood and his mental gyrations, but he is either an example of this, or close). 2) Refuse to learn the science. School attendance is required, academic achievement is not. Not everyone needs a high school diploma; the frozen chicken wings at your local chain restaurant aren't going to fry themselves.

eric · 24 January 2012

Flint said: Marilyn is telling us something important - to the True Believer, there is no such thing as neutral.
Maybe. Or maybe she just wants to know why science classes can teach claims that contradict her beliefs, and phrased that question poorly. Claims about the age of the earth etc. do not violate the 1st amendment's establishment clause because the teachers are teaching "what science says," not "what atheism says." Sometimes those two things overlap...just as sometimes "what science says" overlaps with "what religion A says." But overlap or non-overlap does not disqualify something from being taught. What disqualifies it is how you got to that claim. If you got there by the method of science, you can teach it in science class. This is the mature adult view of neutrality; you teach the best science regardless of whether it agrees or disagrees with some religion. You do not base the decision on what to teach on whether it has religious implications or not.

Flint · 24 January 2012

This is the mature adult view of neutrality; you teach the best science regardless of whether it agrees or disagrees with some religion. You do not base the decision on what to teach on whether it has religious implications or not.

And if you sincerely believe that there is nothing, and CAN be nothing, without religious implications? I asked, what if there is no such thing as neutral? And you answer, well, science is neutral and we teach science! As I interpret Marilyn and others making this claim, her religion cannot be extracted or separated from anything whatsoever under any circumstances. EVERYTHING is religious. I don't know how to make it clearer.

If god is mentioned, which god? If just your god, why? Your god is not going to look too good in science class. If all gods, no science is taught. Is that the future they really want?

Again, as I read it, the goal of these people is to deploy the civil powers of the state to enforce the One True Religion, whatever it takes. Religious people, especially the fanatical fringe, raise intolerance to an art form. Sure, it would kill science. Look what's happened to the entire Middle East over the last thousand years or so, and is still happening. After the Arab Spring uprisings deposed a few rulers, new ones are being voted in - and the voters are heavily in favor of more rigid and intolerant theocracy. So raising them from infancy into the One True Religion actually works. I wonder, if you were to point to gravity and tell a devout Muslim "This can be investigated without reference to Allah", whether it would make any sense to the Muslim at all. Somehow I doubt it. Gravity is the Will Of Allah! So is everything else. There is nothing you can test or measure about gravity WITHOUT testing or measuring the Will Of Allah. Absurd to pretend otherwise.

eric · 24 January 2012

Flint said: And if you sincerely believe that there is nothing, and CAN be nothing, without religious implications?
But that's the point - religious implications should not matter. If every single observation, hypothesis, and theory of science has a religious implication, you still teach them.
I asked, what if there is no such thing as neutral? And you answer, well, science is neutral and we teach!
I suspect you and I (or are you trying to channel Marilyn?) have different ideas of neutral teaching. To me, it means teaching the best science and letting the chips fall where they may in terms of philosophical implications. To you (or you channeling her), it seems to mean trying to not say anything that may favor any one philosophy over others.
As I interpret Marilyn and others making this claim, her religion cannot be extracted or separated from anything whatsoever under any circumstances. EVERYTHING is religious. I don't know how to make it clearer.
This is precisely why neutrality must be understood as not considering the implications, rather than trying to navigate among them. My way, whether everything is religious or not is irrelevant and doesn't prevent teaching good science. The other way, you essentially get pedagogical paralysis and every believer having a heckler's veto.
Again, as I read it, the goal of these people is to deploy the civil powers of the state to enforce the One True Religion, whatever it takes.
You got all that from Marilyn's 3-line question? I'm being somewhat facetious. Yes a lot of disingenuous creationists show up on PT, and you have a reasonable basis for assuming that's what this is. I just personally prefer to take the first question per lurker at face value.

Flint · 25 January 2012

eric said: But that's the point - religious implications should not matter. If every single observation, hypothesis, and theory of science has a religious implication, you still teach them.

Yes, I know what you're saying and I agree with you. But to those like Marilyn (and related creationsts who post here), the religious implications are ALL that matters. All observations and evidence MUST be filtered through theololgical models, or else they simply are not evidence. It simply makes no theological sense to say "gravity makes apples fall". This statement fails to explain WHY God MAKES apples fall. And without that, the statement is meaningless.

I suspect you and I (or are you trying to channel Marilyn?) have different ideas of neutral teaching. To me, it means teaching the best science and letting the chips fall where they may in terms of philosophical implications. To you (or you channeling her), it seems to mean trying to not say anything that may favor any one philosophy over others.

Well, I'm trying to see things through a creationist's eyes. And through those eyes, there is no neutral. If you teach that apples fall and omit why God makes them fall, you are deliberately leaving out the only aspect of falling apples that really matters. And if you loved God, you surely wouldn't leave Him out when His Will controls all reality, and His purposes are all that matter! And that means you are deliberately anti-God. And so the lesson creationists draw from your approach is that you must hate God, who is everywhere and causes everything.

This is precisely why neutrality must be understood as not considering the implications, rather than trying to navigate among them.

I'm trying to say that there is no navigating to be done here. There is only one implication of any conceivable observation - we are observing God's Will in action. It is either dishonest, perverse, or wicked not to SAY so, when we all know it's true. If the child asks if God wanted that apple to fall, the only permitted answers are Yes and No. To deny that God was involved (or to evade a clear yes or no answer) is to deny God.

My way, whether everything is religious or not is irrelevant and doesn't prevent teaching good science. The other way, you essentially get pedagogical paralysis and every believer having a heckler's veto.

You're looking at it from an administrative perspective, not from a creationist perspective. God is never irrelevant. If you say so, you are anti-God. And you certainly don't get pedagogical paralysis, so long as every student shares your religious views. Which means they must be MADE to share those views. Which is what public education is all about. As I read it, the creationist dreams of a world where all believe as he does, where all group activities from classrooms to meals to being stopped for speeding, begin with a mandatory prayer, and where their god is omitted from nothing in life. And to the extent that our secular society violates this vision, it is WRONG and anti-God. Even the theistic evolutionist feels compelled to regard biology and evolution as God's tool for achieving His will. Otherwise, what's it FOR? It's kind of like Alice in Wonderland, where Alice says she lost her way, and the Queen of Hearts rises up and says that's impossible, ALL the ways in Wonderland are HER ways. To the creationist, all the ways are God's ways. It's absurd to try to claim you are dealing strictly with science and not addressing religion, when science is God's Way, or that science is in the business of studying God's Works, or that the enterprise of science is the Will of God Himself. How do you decouple religion from what is regarded as an inherently religious process? It's like explaining what causes rain while being neutral about whether it's weather. Hey, you are discussing weather. To the creationist, you can't omit his god and still teach good science (or good math, or good civics, etc.) Not mentioning God's role in His Creation IS a religious stance. It's unavoidable. (Oh, and Marilyn has been somewhat of a regular around here, though she never engages in any substantive discussions. What's to discuss? She's one of our drive-by preachers).

Paul Burnett · 25 January 2012

eric said: Claims about the age of the earth etc. do not violate the 1st amendment's establishment clause because the teachers are teaching "what science says," not "what atheism says."
But the fundagelical churches are telling their sheep that "science = atheism" so (in their willfully ignorant / artfully misled minds) any teaching about evolution or the age of the earth is a violation of the first amendment's establishment clause. That why Marilyn and Floyd and Byers and Casey Luskin and other creationists are so upset with us.

mjcross42 · 25 January 2012

wordpress.com
dalehusband said:
Flint said: Marilyn is telling us something important - to the True Believer, there is no such thing as neutral. Omitting her god IS denying her god. Presenting facts, observations, and evidence without relating all of these to her god, IS denying her god, saying her god does not exist.
Which makes God look either very weak or very much an egomaniac, or both. To the True Atheist, finding that science does not clearly prove God exists justifies their saying "THERE IS NO GOD". Same arrogance. Damn both of them, I say.
Dale, you don't get to define atheism or atheists. Very few of us ever say, categorically, "there is no god". Most of us say "show me the evidence". Take your pathetic strawman and stick it in the cornfield. The only arrogance in evidence is your own. Many atheists, myself included, came to our beliefs from a position of being devout, being intellectually curious, and delving into the scriptures and their construction. Scientific knowledge is not at all a necessary or precursor state for disbelief.

DS · 25 January 2012

Paul Burnett said:
eric said: Claims about the age of the earth etc. do not violate the 1st amendment's establishment clause because the teachers are teaching "what science says," not "what atheism says."
But the fundagelical churches are telling their sheep that "science = atheism" so (in their willfully ignorant / artfully misled minds) any teaching about evolution or the age of the earth is a violation of the first amendment's establishment clause. That why Marilyn and Floyd and Byers and Casey Luskin and other creationists are so upset with us.Not mentioning god in science class is no more an endorsement of atheism that not mentioning brownies in music appreciation class is an endorsement of dieting. Only the truly deluded and myopic would even attempt to claim this. If you don’t want people to think that they have to check their brain at the door in order to enter your church, quit make such ridiculous arguments. Enjoy the religious freedom granted you by the Constitution and quit trying to destroy it.
Already dealt with. Remember this: Not mentioning god in science class is no more an endorsement of atheism that not mentioning brownies in music appreciation class is an endorsement of dieting. Only the truly deluded and myopic would even attempt to claim this. If you don’t want people to think that they have to check their brain at the door in order to enter your church, quit make such ridiculous arguments. Enjoy the religious freedom granted you by the Constitution and quit trying to destroy it.

Kevin B · 25 January 2012

mjcross42 said: wordpress.com
dalehusband said:
Flint said: Marilyn is telling us something important - to the True Believer, there is no such thing as neutral. Omitting her god IS denying her god. Presenting facts, observations, and evidence without relating all of these to her god, IS denying her god, saying her god does not exist.
Which makes God look either very weak or very much an egomaniac, or both. To the True Atheist, finding that science does not clearly prove God exists justifies their saying "THERE IS NO GOD". Same arrogance. Damn both of them, I say.
Dale, you don't get to define atheism or atheists. Very few of us ever say, categorically, "there is no god". Most of us say "show me the evidence". Take your pathetic strawman and stick it in the cornfield. The only arrogance in evidence is your own. Many atheists, myself included, came to our beliefs from a position of being devout, being intellectually curious, and delving into the scriptures and their construction. Scientific knowledge is not at all a necessary or precursor state for disbelief.
You have not read Dale's statement carefully enough. He is not defining "atheist", but rather "True Atheist", representing a standpoint as unsound as that of "True Believer". Both TB and TA think that absence of evidence of God constitutes proof of the non-existence of God. They are, of course, both wrong. Science holds merely that absence of evidence means that there is no evidence. Both TB and TA are trying to bolster their belief (and active disbelief is itself a sort of belief) with a spurious appeal to "scientific knowledge". Both TB and TA are clutching at straws. If anything the "True Believer" is in the worse case. Christians are enjoined by the Bible to "believe". A faith that requires proof of the existence of God is no faith at all, which is why Biblical Literalism and Creationism are a theological disaster zone.

dalehusband · 25 January 2012

Kevin B said: You have not read Dale's statement carefully enough. He is not defining "atheist", but rather "True Atheist", representing a standpoint as unsound as that of "True Believer". Both TB and TA think that absence of evidence of God constitutes proof of the non-existence of God. They are, of course, both wrong. Science holds merely that absence of evidence means that there is no evidence. Both TB and TA are trying to bolster their belief (and active disbelief is itself a sort of belief) with a spurious appeal to "scientific knowledge". Both TB and TA are clutching at straws. If anything the "True Believer" is in the worse case. Christians are enjoined by the Bible to "believe". A faith that requires proof of the existence of God is no faith at all, which is why Biblical Literalism and Creationism are a theological disaster zone.
Thank you for getting it. For the record, I see people right here who act like True Atheists all the time asserting as dogma that "There is no God," as if it is already a fact proven beyond any doubt. I am content to say, "There is no unquestionable evidence for gods of any kind," and only deny anything if it can be disproven empirically. I have argued before with people about how atheism should be defined. I find such arguments unproductive because people clearly have a vested interest in seeing atheism defined as "lacking belief in God" to bolster the appearant ranks of atheists, including many agnostics like myself. The problem is that the True Believers who accept that standard too will go right back to asserting that to not believe in God is the same as denying him, therefore EVERYONE MUST BELIEVE AS THEY DO OR BE CALLED INFIDELS. You simply cannot win with such fanatics using rhetorical stunts, so don't bother.

Mike Elzinga · 25 January 2012

dalehusband said: The problem is that the True Believers who accept that standard too will go right back to asserting that to not believe in God is the same as denying him, therefore EVERYONE MUST BELIEVE AS THEY DO OR BE CALLED INFIDELS. You simply cannot win with such fanatics using rhetorical stunts, so don't bother.
I suspect that there is a more pragmatic approach to this that acknowledges human history and the multifaceted and conflicting roles that religion has played in that history. It is simply a fact that many people look to religion as a template for the conduct of their lives. Given what we know of human history, religions have been but one of the repositories of “rules for living” that have been discovered by many generations of people from widely differing backgrounds. So we can’t just disapprove of people for finding churches and their religions as supplying the social and emotional ties to a community. Churches have performed this function when secular governments did not yet exist in the New World for example. On the other hand, since the Enlightenment, we have learned a lot about rationality and objective knowledge; and we have learned that no humans can demonstrate that they know all about deities. We have seen the atrocities of sectarian warfare and killing. We recognize that morality does not come from some holy book despite the fact that some holy books contain advice for living. It is also a fact that many people will not have enough time during their entire life to grapple with all the intricate questions involving science, ontology, epistemology, theology and comparative religions. They have to get on with their lives within a community of others they can trust and from whom they can get social support when they need it. So those of us who don’t adhere to any religious beliefs or dogma need to at least recognize that others may have perfectly legitimate reasons for belonging to a religion. However, we all can recognize those cults that engage in the atrocities of fear, hatred, tribalism, threats, and paranoid demonizing of “outsiders.” There is little question that these are bad kinds of “religions” that enslave people to the biddings of sociopaths. There are so many attempts at defining atheism that I don’t think I can add anything to them other than the fact that perhaps an atheist is one who recognizes that no human being has ever provided any evidence of deities; and that trend continues to this very day. But it is also the case that one cannot know all the internal and deeply personal social, psychological, and historical facts that are involved in another’s adherence to a religion. You just have to allow others the freedom to work things out for themselves in the time they have in their own lives. You only need to get involved if you have no choice when they attack you for being some kind of infidel. Unfortunately, some sectarians are compelled from within their own belief systems to attack and condemn others and meddle in their affairs.

phhht · 25 January 2012

dalehusband said:
Kevin B said: You have not read Dale's statement carefully enough. He is not defining "atheist", but rather "True Atheist", representing a standpoint as unsound as that of "True Believer". Both TB and TA think that absence of evidence of God constitutes proof of the non-existence of God. They are, of course, both wrong. Science holds merely that absence of evidence means that there is no evidence. Both TB and TA are trying to bolster their belief (and active disbelief is itself a sort of belief) with a spurious appeal to "scientific knowledge". Both TB and TA are clutching at straws. If anything the "True Believer" is in the worse case. Christians are enjoined by the Bible to "believe". A faith that requires proof of the existence of God is no faith at all, which is why Biblical Literalism and Creationism are a theological disaster zone.
Thank you for getting it. For the record, I see people right here who act like True Atheists all the time asserting as dogma that "There is no God," as if it is already a fact proven beyond any doubt. I am content to say, "There is no unquestionable evidence for gods of any kind," and only deny anything if it can be disproven empirically. I have argued before with people about how atheism should be defined. I find such arguments unproductive because people clearly have a vested interest in seeing atheism defined as "lacking belief in God" to bolster the apparent ranks of atheists, including many agnostics like myself. The problem is that the True Believers who accept that standard too will go right back to asserting that to not believe in God is the same as denying him, therefore EVERYONE MUST BELIEVE AS THEY DO OR BE CALLED INFIDELS. You simply cannot win with such fanatics using rhetorical stunts, so don't bother.
As a True Atheist (because I think it's reasonable to say that there are no gods), I can't prevent you from reading whatever you like (dogmatism, unjustified certainty, faith, etc) into what I say. I CAN say that in the case of gods, the absence of evidence strikes me as very strong evidence of absence. After all, such evidence comprises most of what we know about the world, for everything from apples to zebras, from cosmic background radiation to evolutionary theory. Why should gods be an exception? Why should gods not be like apples and zebras, but instead be like unicorns and leprechauns? And there is Laplace's Retort: there is simply no need for gods to explain and understand the world. They are superfluous. From these considerations and others, I CONCLUDE - I do not believe, I conclude, tentatively, with ongoing consideration of the issue - that gods don't exist. I feel completely justified in making that a statement of fact. Those who assert the existence of invisible, immortal superbeings who hear your thoughts and grant your wishes are the ones who must provide evidence for their claims.

cwjolley · 25 January 2012

phhht said: ... I CONCLUDE - I do not believe, I conclude, tentatively, with ongoing consideration of the issue - that gods don't exist. ...
Isn't that the definition of agnostic, not atheist? Once you stick "tentatively" and "ongoing consideration" your beliefs are simply not symmetrical with creationism as a belief. Of course I suppose that depends on whether one defines Atheism as a lack of belief in God or a rejection of God's existence.

phhht · 25 January 2012

cwjolley said:
phhht said: ... I CONCLUDE - I do not believe, I conclude, tentatively, with ongoing consideration of the issue - that gods don't exist. ...
But I have no qualms about asserting that there are no gods. As far as I can tell, that's a fact. Technically, like Dawkins, I am an agnostic. I was wrong once before. What a revolting development that was! Isn't that the definition of agnostic, not atheist? Once you stick "tentatively" and "ongoing consideration" your beliefs are simply not symmetrical with creationism as a belief. Of course I suppose that depends on whether one defines Atheism as a lack of belief in God or a rejection of God's existence.

phhht · 25 January 2012

phhht said:
cwjolley said:
phhht said: ... I CONCLUDE - I do not believe, I conclude, tentatively, with ongoing consideration of the issue - that gods don't exist. ...
Isn't that the definition of agnostic, not atheist? Once you stick "tentatively" and "ongoing consideration" your beliefs are simply not symmetrical with creationism as a belief. Of course I suppose that depends on whether one defines Atheism as a lack of belief in God or a rejection of God's existence.
Sorry about that unintended interpolation. I meant to say But I have no qualms about asserting that there are no gods. As far as I can tell, that's a fact. Technically, like Dawkins, I am an agnostic. I was wrong once before. What a revolting development that was!

cwjolley · 25 January 2012

phhht said: ... Technically, like Dawkins, I am an agnostic. I was wrong once before. What a revolting development that was!
You'll see a Creationist describe their beliefs like that the day pigs evolve functioning wings.

christopher.denney · 26 January 2012

Paul Burnett said:
eric said: Claims about the age of the earth etc. do not violate the 1st amendment's establishment clause because the teachers are teaching "what science says," not "what atheism says."
But the fundagelical churches are telling their sheep that "science = atheism" so (in their willfully ignorant / artfully misled minds) any teaching about evolution or the age of the earth is a violation of the first amendment's establishment clause. That why Marilyn and Floyd and Byers and Casey Luskin and other creationists are so upset with us.

We should all remember the ACC quote about any sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic.

The problem here is that TODAY technology is indistinguishable from magic to many of our coworkers and neighbors.

It's no wonder they cannot understand that science is not some competing religion.

The only way we can "cure" this misapprehension is through education; which is, of course, what they fight the most.

SLC · 26 January 2012

eric said:
harold said: They were wrong because the relatively obscure Judge Jones, an appointment to a backwoods circuit court, simply was not vetted as extensively as a SCOTUS appointment would be.
I don't think is right. Prior to being nominated for his Judgeship, Jones had run for local office (possibly more than once) on the Republican ticket. So even outside the judicial nomination process, the party had vetted him and he had likely made some formal or at least informal agreement to commit to a lot of the GOP's ideological positions. Where they made a mistake was in thinking that he would rule in favor of his chosen party's political allies despite the evidence. In a way, the fundies were victims of their own propaganda. They think secularism is diametrically opposed to Christianity. As a good conservative Christian, they assumed Jones couldn't possibly be a secularist. They were wrong. In fact most mainstream Christians are secularists, because its entirely possible to be religious yet think government should not endorse one's religion an the same time.
Excuse me, Judge Jones belongs to a mainline Lutheran Church which has no problem with evolution. Therefore characterizing him as a "Conservative Christian" is seriously in error.

SLC · 26 January 2012

Marilyn said: If you can't say there is God in science class why should you be able to say there is not God and at what point could you say there is or is not God.
As a matter of fact, it is just as illegal to say that there is no god in science classes as it is to say there is a god in science classes.

apokryltaros · 26 January 2012

SLC said:
eric said:
harold said: They were wrong because the relatively obscure Judge Jones, an appointment to a backwoods circuit court, simply was not vetted as extensively as a SCOTUS appointment would be.
I don't think is right. Prior to being nominated for his Judgeship, Jones had run for local office (possibly more than once) on the Republican ticket. So even outside the judicial nomination process, the party had vetted him and he had likely made some formal or at least informal agreement to commit to a lot of the GOP's ideological positions. Where they made a mistake was in thinking that he would rule in favor of his chosen party's political allies despite the evidence. In a way, the fundies were victims of their own propaganda. They think secularism is diametrically opposed to Christianity. As a good conservative Christian, they assumed Jones couldn't possibly be a secularist. They were wrong. In fact most mainstream Christians are secularists, because its entirely possible to be religious yet think government should not endorse one's religion an the same time.
Excuse me, Judge Jones belongs to a mainline Lutheran Church which has no problem with evolution. Therefore characterizing him as a "Conservative Christian" is seriously in error.
Why? Not all "Conservative Christians" automatically reject evolution out of hand. (Like John Kwok, for example) Contrary to what some bigots may say about it, but "Conservative Christian" =/= "Fundamentalist Christian"

dalehusband · 26 January 2012

apokryltaros said: Why? Not all "Conservative Christians" automatically reject evolution out of hand. (Like John Kwok, for example) Contrary to what some bigots may say about it, but "Conservative Christian" =/= "Fundamentalist Christian"
John Kwok is not even a Christian. He is a Deist. Deism totally rejects God as an active participant in the working of the universe, but affirms the belief that some sort of higher power made the universe in the beginning. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Voltaire were Deists too. As for me, I am a non-theist agnostic. Not an atheist since to be an atheist I would have to completely rule out the existence of any god. I have not reached that point. But I know I believe in no god either.

SLC · 26 January 2012

dalehusband said:
apokryltaros said: Why? Not all "Conservative Christians" automatically reject evolution out of hand. (Like John Kwok, for example) Contrary to what some bigots may say about it, but "Conservative Christian" =/= "Fundamentalist Christian"
John Kwok is not even a Christian. He is a Deist. Deism totally rejects God as an active participant in the working of the universe, but affirms the belief that some sort of higher power made the universe in the beginning. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Voltaire were Deists too. As for me, I am a non-theist agnostic. Not an atheist since to be an atheist I would have to completely rule out the existence of any god. I have not reached that point. But I know I believe in no god either.
Jefferson was not a Deist because he believed in an intervening deity. He would best be described as a non-Christian Theist. This subject has been discussed on many occasions on Ed Brayton's blog. On the other hand, Mr. Kwok, who is politically conservative and a very disputatious Rethuglican, does describe himself as a Deist.

SLC · 26 January 2012

apokryltaros said:
SLC said:
eric said:
harold said: They were wrong because the relatively obscure Judge Jones, an appointment to a backwoods circuit court, simply was not vetted as extensively as a SCOTUS appointment would be.
I don't think is right. Prior to being nominated for his Judgeship, Jones had run for local office (possibly more than once) on the Republican ticket. So even outside the judicial nomination process, the party had vetted him and he had likely made some formal or at least informal agreement to commit to a lot of the GOP's ideological positions. Where they made a mistake was in thinking that he would rule in favor of his chosen party's political allies despite the evidence. In a way, the fundies were victims of their own propaganda. They think secularism is diametrically opposed to Christianity. As a good conservative Christian, they assumed Jones couldn't possibly be a secularist. They were wrong. In fact most mainstream Christians are secularists, because its entirely possible to be religious yet think government should not endorse one's religion an the same time.
Excuse me, Judge Jones belongs to a mainline Lutheran Church which has no problem with evolution. Therefore characterizing him as a "Conservative Christian" is seriously in error.
Why? Not all "Conservative Christians" automatically reject evolution out of hand. (Like John Kwok, for example) Contrary to what some bigots may say about it, but "Conservative Christian" =/= "Fundamentalist Christian"
Judge Jones, as a member of a mainline Protestant church (I believe he is a communicant in the Evangelical Lutheran Church which is a fusion of what was previously the American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America, both very much mainline churches) is unlikely to be particularly theologically conservative. As to whether he would be considered politically conservative, it should be pointed out that he is a protegee of former Pennsylvania Tom Ridge, who was generally considered a moderate Rethuglican, a breed that has all but disappeared these days.

tomh · 26 January 2012

dalehusband said: As for me, I am a non-theist agnostic. Not an atheist since to be an atheist I would have to completely rule out the existence of any god.
Why would you have to do that? Other atheists don't have to do that.

Chris Lawson · 26 January 2012

dale,

Feel free to use whatever label you want for yourself. I really don't care if you call yourself agnostic, atheist, freethinker, or whatever, but most of us who identify as atheists don't feel the need for your equivocation and feel rather insulted that you apply the word in that -- let's be frank here -- stupidly narrow way. There's a big difference between saying "I don't believe in god or gods", which is atheism, and saying "I have incontrovertible proof that there are no gods", which is a strawman usually applied by religious apologists in the same way that "evolution is just another religion" is.

You said that these comment boards are full of atheists "all the time asserting as dogma that 'There is no God,' as if it is already a fact proven beyond any doubt." As someone who has been reading these comments for a very long time, I am finding it hard to recall a single example of any atheist here (or anywhere else) claiming anything like that. I'm sure you could search through the archives and find a few examples, but you claimed it happens "all the time." I'm calling it BS.

Then you say, "I have argued before with people about how atheism should be defined. I find such arguments unproductive because people clearly have a vested interest in seeing atheism defined as 'lacking belief in God' to bolster the appearant ranks of atheists, including many agnostics like myself." To which I would reply, the reason you find these arguments about definition unproductive is because (i) you want to redefine atheism to exclude the vast majority of people who identify as atheists -- which seems to me even worse than what you're complaining of having done to you (funny, isn't it, how people have "a vested interest" in the way they describe themselves?) -- and (ii) judging for the tone of your comments, the reason you want to force your definition of atheism down people's throats is so that you can claim all the philosophical accoutrements of atheism while maintaining your own smug superiority over the rest of us.

Dave Luckett · 27 January 2012

Chris Lawson,

There are atheists who assert as dogma that there is no God or gods. You say there aren't many of them. I have seen no hard statistics. They exist, however small their numbers.

Dale does not take that position, and wishes to signal that difference by describing himself as agnostic. He has every right to do that, although he needs to explain what exactly he means by the word, as he has done. True, his usage is different from the classical, and also somewhat more specific than the more modern definition, viz lack of knowledge as to whether there is a God or gods, but it is not unreasonably divergent. Words change their meanings, and they should not hold us prisoner.

Therefore, people who do not believe in God or gods, but who do not assert as dogma that there is no God or gods, may call themselves "agostics", as they choose. People who wish to describe that position as "atheism" may do that, as they choose. I see no reason to become heated over that.

If dale were to agree that the word "agnostic" should not be used of any person who would rather self-describe as "atheist", would that answer your objection? I think he would agree to that. Would you agree that any person who would rather self-describe as "agnostic" should be allowed to do so, without being accused of being smug or of asserting superiority over anyone?

Chris Lawson · 27 January 2012

Dave,

I appreciate you trying to be the peacemaker, but I would like to be given some examples of atheists who "assert as dogma that there is no god or gods." I am sure you can find a few cases because every movement has its idiots, but they certainly don't describe any of the famous atheists like Dawkins or Myers or Dennett, and dale said these "True Atheists" write on Panda's Thumb comment boards "all the time." That's bullshit.

dale also claims that he does not assert as dogma that there is no god or gods. Fine, but neither does anyone else, so his insistence that this is the big point of difference between himself and atheists is in error. If he wants to call himself agnostic because he doesn't feel comfortable with the word atheist, that's his prerogative -- and I don't think it's smug or superior to do so. But dale said that people who say atheism means "not believing in god" are WRONG, that atheism means a belief that one can "completely rule out the existence of any god", and that atheists are playing word games to artificially inflate their numbers. I do not believe in god or gods; I understand that there is no conclusive disproof of god or gods; I describe myself as atheist. dale has just told us that the word atheist doesn't describe my beliefs, and if I use the word to describe myself I am only doing so for rhetorical reasons to increase the apparent cohort size of a belief that I don't even hold.

If he wants someone to defend his choice to call himself agnostic, I'll be there to help. But what he said was self-satisfied, insulting bullshit and he deserves some heated replies.

cwjolley · 27 January 2012

tomh said:
dalehusband said: As for me, I am a non-theist agnostic. Not an atheist since to be an atheist I would have to completely rule out the existence of any god.
Why would you have to do that? Other atheists don't have to do that.
What is the distinction between agnostic and atheist then?

Kevin B · 27 January 2012

cwjolley said:
tomh said:
dalehusband said: As for me, I am a non-theist agnostic. Not an atheist since to be an atheist I would have to completely rule out the existence of any god.
Why would you have to do that? Other atheists don't have to do that.
What is the distinction between agnostic and atheist then?
I think that the distinction is, apporximately, that an atheist is sure that there is no god, while an agnostic remains unconvinced either way. What is, perhaps, missing is an effective term to distinguish between the sort of atheist who is content to let other people have their own opinions on the matter, and (at the other end of the spectrum) the sort of atheist who would, given the chance, have all believers burnt at the stake for heresy....

TomS · 27 January 2012

In the 18th century, to be a "deist" meant to believe in only natural reasoning for knowledge about god, and to deny revelation as a source of knowledge. Deists like Jefferson and Voltaire accepted providence, divine action in the contemporary world.

The meaning of "deism" has gradually shifted so that today it is generally understood to deny providence.

Mary H · 27 January 2012

Just to toss in another point of view. When asked I tell people I'm a philosophical agnostic, practical atheist. I'm open to the evidence for the existence of a god/gods but I don't live my life as if there is one and until such evidence is supplied I don't believe in them. This,despite the fact that I was raised Catholic. I guess after all those years of indoctrination it didn't take "Thank god!" ;)

Richard B. Hoppe · 27 January 2012

Kevin B said: I think that the distinction is, apporximately, that an atheist is sure that there is no god, while an agnostic remains unconvinced either way.
I see the difference between "agnostic"and "atheist" as being rooted in knowledge vs. belief. Agnostic refers to whether one can know there are no gods-- whether we can know (i.e., have definitive evidence) that any and all potential supernatural beings do not exist. I'm an agnostic in that respect: I don't rule out the possibility that someday we might be able to conclude (reliably, verifiably) that one or another god or gods exist. However, I am an atheist with respect to the gods currently and historically on offer. I deem the evidence for the existence such gods--e.g., Jehovah or Zeus or Odin or Allah--to be so unreliable and untestable--nay, non-existent--that I am willing to say, with high confidence, that I believe that they do not exist--I'm a 6.5 on the Dawkins scale. Hence I am an agnostic atheist.

tomh · 27 January 2012

cwjolley said: What is the distinction between agnostic and atheist then?
I have no idea, but dalehusband's final sentence, "But I know I believe in no god either," would describe my position on the matter - I believe in no god. That is my entire position on the matter and I would call myself an atheist. In fact, I would wager that if dalehusband went to 100 people and said, "I believe in no god," 100 people would describe him as an atheist. That's simply how the word is used. It's all well and good to say that the definition of words change, but dalehusband would change them by fiat and excoriate anyone who did not accept his idiosyncratic definition of atheist.

dalehusband · 27 January 2012

cwjolley said:
dalehusband said: As for me, I am a non-theist agnostic. Not an atheist since to be an atheist I would have to completely rule out the existence of any god.
What is the distinction between agnostic and atheist then?
When I was younger, all the printed sources I read about religion and atheism, including some dictionaries, indicated that atheism was the BELIEF that there is no God, while agnosticism was the neutral position between dogmatic theism and dogmatic atheism. Atheism (all kinds) and agnosticism (all kinds) were also grouped together under the lable "non-theism". There was no such thing as a Christian agnostic because in order to be a Christian, you had to be a Theist. So I was absolutely floored when someone asserted to me in these PT boards that atheism really meant "lacking belief in God". That only makes the term "atheist" itself useless as something to apply to people, since we are born with NO beliefs at all. Does that mean we are all born atheists? THAT I see as dogmatic bull$#it, not what I have said. If atheism can be passive, then there is no merit or demerit to being one and we might as well just throw that lable out altogether. If positions about religion are not based on conscious choice, they are pointless. A baby is a blank slate; he cannot follow any religion or reject one either. That requires some education and intellectual capacity. And yes, I have seen atheists assert their beliefs as dogma! P Z Myers did it on his blog: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/louisiana_gives_up_on_the_gulf.php And I WILL call atheists out if they do that and then assert out the other side of their mouths that atheists are not dogmatic. That simply will not stand with me. Like it or not, there is a difference between "Lacking belief in any god" and "believing there is no God" and we need different terms to distinguish them. That is why I say I am a non-theist and agnostic, but not an atheist. If some of you need a course in Logic 101 to understand this, go take one! Dale Husband

Mike Elzinga · 27 January 2012

There is a peculiar issue with saying that there are no deities versus saying there is no evidence for deities.

If deities are defined as being supernatural – i.e., outside of the natural world – how can there be any evidence for or against deities?

If one day some kind of evidence for deities turned up, wouldn’t that mean deities were part of the natural universe?

An analogy might be with neutrinos. These things are so ephemeral that it took years to actually detect them; and doubts remained about their reality. Now we detect them routinely and use them for imaging parts of the universe; they are part of the natural world.

So saying that there are no deities suggests that there is some positive evidence for their non-existence. Yet such positive evidence comes from (into?) the natural universe. So how do we know what this is evidence of?

On the other hand, if we say there is no evidence for deities, just what kind of evidence are we expecting if there were deities?

Do boojums exist?

Dave Luckett · 27 January 2012

Oh, God, and that isn't an invocation or an avowal. It's a more or less blasphemous exclamation that indicates stress. Please forgive it, everyone involved, including any and all named parties, if present and functioning.

"Atheist" means "one who does not believe in God, a god, or gods". That's it. That's all it means. "Belief" is in this sense usually taken to mean something like "tentative intellectual acceptance of a proposition, despite lack of rigorous demonstration". This is not quite the same as "faith", which is more like "certainty despite lack of rigorous demonstration". Trust me on this, or we'll be here all month, and it'll end in tears.

"Agnostic" is more fraught. In classic theology, it means or meant "one who denies that God is knowable". It is actually not exactly opposite to "gnostic": "one who believes that God may be known (only?) through personal revelation (mostly of a pretty out-there kind)". Both positions were abjured at Nicea (and elsewhere), which basically said that damn straight God may be known, but we, the official Church, are the only way to know Him (and anybody who says otherwise is a heretic). This position is more or less that of modern Christianity, all 30K-odd sects of it. (Some of them extremely odd.) (No, let's not go there.)

The idea that God exists, and may be known by reason rather than (necessarily) through the Church, is, as TomS says, classic deism, but would be described today as a form of theism, which is the belief that God exists, may be known by some means, and is present. "Deism" today is more or less what agnosticism used to mean, except that it seems to actually posit the existence of some kind of god, albeit unknowable, impersonal, (and detached), which old-style agnosticism did not, in strict logic, necessarily do. (Although the agnostics whom the Council of Nicea jerked into line were in fact theists. They believed in God, they just thought that those mostly Egyptian guys over there with their talk of personal gnosis were blowing smoke.)

As used since Huxley, (although from memory it may not be his coinage) "agnostic" usually means "one who denies knowing whether there is a God or gods". Note that it is possible to be agnostic by either definition and atheist, both at once, or, more rarely, agnostic and theist (modern style). Specifically, one may disavow knowledge of the existence of God or any gods and yet believe or not believe in Him or them. (The syntax of that last sentence is enough to make me stop believing in the usefulness of English as a medium of expression.)

At that point we trudge off into the interminable bogs of what knowledge is, and how it may be acquired, if it can be acquired at all.

As may be imagined from this very potted summary, I have severe doubts about whether it is useful to argue about whether atheists are agnostics or vice-versa. You can be both, in either or both senses of "agnostic". You can be neither. You can be either without being the other.

But not even that is the point. This is the point:

We're under attack by people who don't give a rat's about fine distinctions like that. To them, if you don't believe in their God, the exact same way that they do, then you're the Enemy, and they're out to get you. "Get you" in this case means "destroy you, if possible". The "you" in that last sentence is us.

So can we please not fire on each other?

Mike Elzinga · 27 January 2012

Dave Luckett said: But not even that is the point. This is the point: We're under attack by people who don't give a rat's about fine distinctions like that. To them, if you don't believe in their God, the exact same way that they do, then you're the Enemy, and they're out to get you. "Get you" in this case means "destroy you, if possible". The "you" in that last sentence is us. So can we please not fire on each other?
There you go; an atheist is someone sectarians definitely want to destroy.

Richard B. Hoppe · 27 January 2012

Mike Elzinga said: There is a peculiar issue with saying that there are no deities versus saying there is no evidence for deities. If deities are defined as being supernatural – i.e., outside of the natural world – how can there be any evidence for or against deities?
The deities I reject are those who are purported to intervene in the natural universe. Those interventions are at least potentially detectable and might produce reliable (ah, there's the rub: a whimsical deity wouldn't produce reliable data) indirect evidence of a deity's existence. Of course, a deity that both exists outside the natural universe and doesn't intervene in the matter-and-energy universe is immune to testing against evidence, but it would also be operationally non-existent.
On the other hand, if we say there is no evidence for deities, just what kind of evidence are we expecting if there were deities? Do boojums exist?
See above: intervene. There's also the problem of how a deity that is 'outside' the matter and energy universe could actually intervene, moving matter/energy around. I'm still entranced by Dembski's suggestion that a non-material entity could "impart" information to a matter/energy universe via a zero-energy, infinite wavelength signal. Of course, the channel capacity of such a signal is zero, so once again, such a deity would be operationally non-existent.

Kevin B · 27 January 2012

Mike Elzinga said: There is a peculiar issue with saying that there are no deities versus saying there is no evidence for deities. If deities are defined as being supernatural – i.e., outside of the natural world – how can there be any evidence for or against deities? If one day some kind of evidence for deities turned up, wouldn’t that mean deities were part of the natural universe?
This is, of course, why Intelligent Design is theologically unsound. The idea that there is a Creator who tweaks matter into configurations that cannot arise by chance leads eventually to the position that said Creator is part of the the created world, rather than its creator - a gross heresy. It all follows on from a sectarian "faith" that cannot believe, but must have "proof".

Kevin B · 27 January 2012

Richard B. Hoppe said: There's also the problem of how a deity that is 'outside' the matter and energy universe could actually intervene, moving matter/energy around.
This is not a problem for a supernatural entity that is not constrained by "Nature". It is a problem if you're pretending to do science.
I'm still entranced by Dembski's suggestion that a non-material entity could "impart" information to a matter/energy universe via a zero-energy, infinite wavelength signal. Of course, the channel capacity of such a signal is zero, so once again, such a deity would be operationally non-existent.
Why not call it Dembski's Paradox. He's trying to transfer energy without transferring energy......

Mike Elzinga · 27 January 2012

Richard B. Hoppe said: There's also the problem of how a deity that is 'outside' the matter and energy universe could actually intervene, moving matter/energy around. I'm still entranced by Dembski's suggestion that a non-material entity could "impart" information to a matter/energy universe via a zero-energy, infinite wavelength signal. Of course, the channel capacity of such a signal is zero, so once again, such a deity would be operationally non-existent.
Yes indeed! We already know that living organisms, as we know them, exist within the energy window of liquid water. We know that action potentials are on the order of 100 mV. We know that hypothermia takes place when core body temperatures drop to somewhere around 60 Fahrenheit. Hyperthermia sets in at sustained temperatures above 104 Fahrenheit. That temperature range encompasses an energy window of less than 0.001 eV, an easily measurable window of energy. And supernatural intervention that tweaks matter around at these levels is easily detectable and would definitely violate the laws of thermodynamics. But we don’t see it. Yet we can detect the energy in the cosmic microwave background (something like 0.0002 eV). So just how does a “zero energy, infinite wavelength” signal tinker with matter in the universe? To paraphrase Yosemite Sam’s characterization of dragons, “Dembski pseudo-science is soo stupid!”

SWT · 27 January 2012

Mike Elzinga said:
Dave Luckett said: But not even that is the point. This is the point: We're under attack by people who don't give a rat's about fine distinctions like that. To them, if you don't believe in their God, the exact same way that they do, then you're the Enemy, and they're out to get you. "Get you" in this case means "destroy you, if possible". The "you" in that last sentence is us. So can we please not fire on each other?
There you go; an atheist is someone sectarians definitely want to destroy.
Just remember that I'm probably on the hit list too ...

tomh · 27 January 2012

Dave Luckett said: "Atheist" means "one who does not believe in God, a god, or gods". That's it.
Not according to dalehusband.

Marilyn · 27 January 2012

"You got all that from a three lined question"

**Amazing**

Biology is a celebration of Gods work. Once biology has finished going this way or that way it is what we do with it what matters and a lot of what God requires is that you look after yourself and fellow man, snatch him out of harms way so to speek, and certainly zapping a fellow is dangerous and not on. There is natural biology where nature takes it course and then there are goats that produce silk where man has intervened, it's if things get out of containment when creationist as you call them start to put the rains on, I think so would a scientist.

tomh · 27 January 2012

dalehusband said: And yes, I have seen atheists assert their beliefs as dogma! P Z Myers did it on his blog
So your evidence for the statement, "I see people right here who act like True Atheists all the time asserting as dogma that “There is no God,” is that you saw PZ Myers do it on a different blog? But you said people do it "all the time" right here. You were just making that up, weren't you.
And I WILL call atheists out if they do that and then assert out the other side of their mouths that atheists are not dogmatic. That simply will not stand with me.
So have you done that on PZ Myers' blog, where you actually saw it? Because it seems like you do it here, where you haven't actually seen it.
Like it or not, there is a difference between "Lacking belief in any god" and "believing there is no God" and we need different terms to distinguish them.
You actually see this as a pressing need. How odd. For myself, not only do I lack belief in any god, but I believe there is no god - just like you claim to.

DS · 27 January 2012

Marilyn said: "You got all that from a three lined question" **Amazing** Biology is a celebration of Gods work. Once biology has finished going this way or that way it is what we do with it what matters and a lot of what God requires is that you look after yourself and fellow man, snatch him out of harms way so to speek, and certainly zapping a fellow is dangerous and not on. There is natural biology where nature takes it course and then there are goats that produce silk where man has intervened, it's if things get out of containment when creationist as you call them start to put the rains on, I think so would a scientist.
Robert, is that you?

Mike Elzinga · 27 January 2012

SWT said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Dave Luckett said: But not even that is the point. This is the point: We're under attack by people who don't give a rat's about fine distinctions like that. To them, if you don't believe in their God, the exact same way that they do, then you're the Enemy, and they're out to get you. "Get you" in this case means "destroy you, if possible". The "you" in that last sentence is us. So can we please not fire on each other?
There you go; an atheist is someone sectarians definitely want to destroy.
Just remember that I'm probably on the hit list too ...
Ironic isn’t it? Given the facts of human history and religion, I can understand religious traditions as templates for community and conduct of one’s life. But I find it difficult to fathom the murderous tribalism the springs up in so many of these fundamentalist bastardizations of religion. Even worse, we now see the justifications of these bastardizations emerging out of deliberately constructed bastardizations of science. I guess bastards can bastardize just about anything.

phhht · 27 January 2012

Marilyn said: "You got all that from a three lined question" **Amazing** Biology is a celebration of Gods work. Once biology has finished going this way or that way it is what we do with it what matters and a lot of what God requires is that you look after yourself and fellow man, snatch him out of harms way so to speek, and certainly zapping a fellow is dangerous and not on. There is natural biology where nature takes it course and then there are goats that produce silk where man has intervened, it's if things get out of containment when creationist as you call them start to put the rains on, I think so would a scientist.
No, Marilyn, biology is not a celebration of God's work. If you look into biology, you'll find that there are no gods involved at all. This is equally true for physics, cosmology, computer science, topology, and all the myriad fields of empirical focus. For me, that is one very large reason to conclude that there is no God to require anything of me. Otherwise, I agree with you. We must look after one another. Your remark about the potential dangers of biological technology recalls the recent controversy about bird flu research. But Marilyn, it wasn't creationists who expressed alarm about possible consequences. It wasn't creationists who reined in the spread of potentially dangerous information. It was scientists.

Chris Lawson · 27 January 2012

Dave,

While dale and I might throw some sternly worded disagreements at each other, when it comes to matters like keeping creationism out of schools we'll be on the same side. The fact that we can have open conflict without resorting to threats of violence (either by directly or in the afterlife), SLAPP-type lawsuits, or unconstitutional efforts to force our opinions onto schoolchildren is one of the things I like about skeptics/freethinkers. A little bit of heated identity politics is nothing to worry about.

dalehusband · 27 January 2012

tomh said: So your evidence for the statement, "I see people right here who act like True Atheists all the time asserting as dogma that “There is no God,” is that you saw PZ Myers do it on a different blog?
Uh, no, but that was just one example I had on file that I could provide to prove my point that there ARE dogmatic atheists like him. Besides, P Z is a frequent contributer here too.
But you said people do it "all the time" right here. You were just making that up, weren't you.
And I WILL call atheists out if they do that and then assert out the other side of their mouths that atheists are not dogmatic. That simply will not stand with me.
So have you done that on PZ Myers' blog, where you actually saw it? Because it seems like you do it here, where you haven't actually seen it.
Like it or not, there is a difference between "Lacking belief in any god" and "believing there is no God" and we need different terms to distinguish them.
You actually see this as a pressing need. How odd. For myself, not only do I lack belief in any god, but I believe there is no god - just like you claim to.

dalehusband · 27 January 2012

tomh said: So your evidence for the statement, "I see people right here who act like True Atheists all the time asserting as dogma that “There is no God,” is that you saw PZ Myers do it on a different blog? But you said people do it "all the time" right here. You were just making that up, weren't you.
More to the point, since I've known you to have commented on this blog for a long time, I am amazed that you would deny or even question what I said. I thought it was simply obvious. Do you even read what some of your fellow atheists write as comments here?

Scott F · 27 January 2012

Flint said: Yes, I know what you're saying and I agree with you. But to those like Marilyn (and related creationsts who post here), the religious implications are ALL that matters. All observations and evidence MUST be filtered through theololgical models, or else they simply are not evidence. It simply makes no theological sense to say "gravity makes apples fall". This statement fails to explain WHY God MAKES apples fall. And without that, the statement is meaningless.
Well, I'm trying to see things through a creationist's eyes. And through those eyes, there is no neutral. If you teach that apples fall and omit why God makes them fall, you are deliberately leaving out the only aspect of falling apples that really matters. And if you loved God, you surely wouldn't leave Him out when His Will controls all reality, and His purposes are all that matter! And that means you are deliberately anti-God. And so the lesson creationists draw from your approach is that you must hate God, who is everywhere and causes everything.
My wife is a K-12 teacher. One of her tasks is to evaluate new curricula, new text books, often for home-schooled children. There are several publishers that have both a line of secular texts (often quite good), and a parallel track of creationist texts. (Okay, not exactly "parallel". More like, somewhat going in a similar direction.) Occasionally they will send her the wrong set, or just send the creationist set just because they want to. Flint is absolutely right, in this case. In these text books, no matter what the subject matter, not a single page goes by without referring to why God did this, or how this shows the glory of God or God's love for you, his child, or how humans have twisted God's creation to their own sinful ends. Every. Single. Page. The moon shows God's love for his Creation, lighting our way at night. Electricity, magnetism, and gravity are all examples of God acting in mysterious ways. You know, spooky action at a distance? It's all a mystery that humans can sometimes harness, but have no explanation for. So, yes. To a true Creationist, not mentioning God in every school lesson is *by definition* denying God. God *is* Creation, and Creation *is* God. To the True Creationist(tm), there can be no "neutral" position. Even to imply that there *might* be a neutral position is to deny Creation, and therefore to deny God. [Yes, not every theist is a True Creationist(tm), but we're not talking about your mainstream milquetoast theist here. We're talking about the ones who are arguing to change the meanings of science and knowledge.]

Dave Luckett · 28 January 2012

Chris,

It seems that you're not sore at dale because you actually differ from his position on the existence of God - neither of you believes in one. It's not because he does not completely rule out the existence of one, either - you say that's the usual atheist position, and your own. Fine.

It's also not because he says that some atheists do dogmatically rule out the existence of God, because you agree that there are some who do that, only you don't think there are many of them, while he thinks that they are a significant presence (FWIW, on that, I think he's right, AND ALSO that the two statements are not really mutually contradictory, but the point is very nearly moot because nobody has provided any hard numbers, only the opinion that they aren't often seen here. Dale might have gone too far by saying that they are. Does it really matter how many there are, or where they are found?)

You're also not offended by dale not wanting to be called an atheist because he doesn't want to be mistaken for one of the latter group (which I will refer to as "hard-liners"). You have said that he may call himself whatever he likes. Fine.

No, you're offended because you think dale is trying to redefine "atheist". On that point, I think it would be reasonable to ask dale if he really is trying to force his definition of "atheist" on to you, or is demanding that you not describe yourself as one, before you assume that he is doing either. Me, I think he is defining himself, not the word.

A secondary source of your indignation is apparently his suggestion that the "hard-liners" (as defined above) include other atheists with themselves so as to inflate their numbers. That suggestion is, I agree, unwarranted, although it is not illogical. Personally, I very much doubt that there is any such intention. But on that particular point, your indignation is not for yourself, but on behalf of a group that you say hardly exists.

On the basis of this indignation, you are ready to use words like 'smug' and 'self-satisfied' and 'bullshit'. You say that "some heated replies" are to be expected, although you rule out actual threats of violence.

Uh-huh. Well, let's be thankful for that.

To change the subject completely, have you ever read the history of the controversy about whether Jesus was of the same substance as God, or of a like substance to God? Scary stuff, this theology.

Paul Burnett · 28 January 2012

Marilyn said: There is natural biology where nature takes it course and then there are goats that produce silk where man has intervened...
Goats have been genetically modified to produce spider web "silk" protein - not "silk" fibers or fabric and not silkworm silk - see http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/science_nation/spidersilk.jsp - they're also working on how to get alfalfa plants to produce silk protein. By the way, Marilyn, have you seen GloFish? - http://www.glofish.com/

harold · 28 January 2012

Marilyn said -
Biology is a celebration of Gods work.
I have absolutely no problem with this statement whatsoever. I am not personally religious, but for whatever reason, many of my fellow humans have the emotional experience of feelings that they describe as "religious" or "spiritual". I do not see this as being the same as authoritarianism and/or outright reality denial. I even agree with the statement on a purely emotional level, because I love learning about biology as something worthwhile in its own right, and the statement implies a similar sentiment.
Once biology has finished going this way or that way it is what we do with it what matters and a lot of what God requires is that you look after yourself and fellow man, snatch him out of harms way so to speek, and certainly zapping a fellow is dangerous and not on.
I also agree with the ethical statement here; I am not religious but a fair number of religious people have ethical codes that I completely agree with; in fact, many of the people whom I admire for their ethical lives, for example Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, etc, were religious. If you're religious and I'm not, but we agree on how to act, that's fine with me. Of course, agreeing on how to act would include agreeing to respect one another's right to hold and express our particular beliefs, agreeing not to lie about science, etc.
There is natural biology where nature takes it course and then there are goats that produce silk where man has intervened, it’s if things get out of containment when creationist as you call them start to put the rains on, I think so would a scientist.
Here there are a couple of things I disagree with. First of all, I strongly agree that science and technology can be used to do evil, and that scientists should resist that. It's tempting to say that they greatly enhance our potential to harm our fellow humans, but I must point out that history shows that incredibly brutal acts of mass violence don't necessarily require much techology. I strongly disagree that goats who can produce silk proteins in their milk are an example of a harmful activity; I see this as an example of useful research. All agriculture is and has always been characterized by genetic engineering; selective breeding was the usual mechanism. Application of additional genetic techniques is not, in and of itself, unethical. (*Note to the person who will now falsely accuse me of endorsing all use of genetic techniques, without ethical or environmental controls - first of all, you lack reading comprehension for having formed that interpretation, and second of all, I will copy and paste this sentence as a reply to your inevitable comment*.) And most importantly, I VERY, VERY strongly disagree that creationism has anything whatsoever to do with putting ethical reins on scientific activity. Creationism is a social/political/religious authoritarian movement that seeks to force people to deny scientific reality and kowtow to a particular narrow sectarian ideology, whatever the actual evidence or the actual religious or cultural beliefs of the victims. The behavior of creationists is itself unethical.

W. H. Heydt · 28 January 2012

On the whole issue of who is or isn't what kind of atheist, one is reminded of the joke set in N. Ireland, where the punchline is:

But are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

patrickmay.myopenid.com · 28 January 2012

The atheism/agnostic distinction is not simply a matter of common usage. The roots of the words themselves demonstrate that one is about belief while the other is about knowledge. They are not two different points on the same continuum.

This has been demonstrated on a number of charts available online, such as this one: http://bit.ly/zTc4TJ

People lacking belief in gods are atheists, just as people lacking hair are bald. It doesn't matter whether or not someone who lacks such belief also holds a positive belief that no gods exist. The bottom line is that bald is not a hair color.

Chris Lawson · 28 January 2012

Dave,

I too am running out of enthusiasm for this subthread. I would make two observations, though, before I bow out. The first is that I strongly disagree that "dogmatic atheism" happens "all the time" here at PT. Unless you and dale can show examples of lots and lots of threads being overrun by people saying the equivalent of "there is no god and I can prove it", then I will continue to think that you are mistaking assertive atheism for dogmatic atheism.

Secondly, I am trying to understand why dale can use othering techniques (inventing the pejorative "True Atheist"), false equivalence (saying that a large amount of atheist commentary on PT threads is equivalent to religious dogmatism/creationism), using insulting language like "arrogance" and "damn both of them", imputing bad motive (atheists misdefine atheism to swell their ranks dishonestly), without giving a single specific example of any of this, and doing so on a thread that had nothing to do with the subject...and the most you will say against all that is that maybe the imputation of bad motive is "unwarranted, but not illogical." Meanwhile, I use words in response like "smug", "self-satisfied", and "bullshit" referring to one person's specific statements without generalising to others, all the while defending his choice of words to describe himself...and that's unacceptable.

Anyway, yes I have a read a lot about historical theological disputes. They make for amusing reading until they get to the parts about the massacres.

TomS · 29 January 2012

Just to add to the confusion, there is the term "adevism", which can mean disbelief in nature gods, or disbelief in the gods of Hinduism, or disbelief in all gods (as distinguished from disbelief in the God of the Bible).

Marilyn · 29 January 2012

Harold,

"I strongly disagree that goats who can produce silk proteins in their milk are an example of a harmful activity; I see this as an example of useful research. All agriculture is and has always been characterized by genetic engineering; selective breeding was the usual mechanism. Application of additional genetic techniques is not, in and of itself, unethical."

I didn't mean to imply it was harmful activity as no harm seems to have been done, it is useful and an incredible achievement if there is a great need for the strong material developed.

"And most importantly, I VERY, VERY strongly disagree that creationism has anything whatsoever to do with putting ethical reins on scientific activity. Creationism is a social/political/religious authoritarian movement that seeks to force people to deny scientific reality and kowtow to a particular narrow sectarian ideology, whatever the actual evidence or the actual religious or cultural beliefs of the victims. The behavior of creationists is itself unethical."

It doesn't have to be a creationist, so who is to say enough is enough - A creationist follows a blue print as to how things should be, you could even call it a thin blue line that leads to a broad scope of something better. One should not overstep the mark. An underachievement is a place to begin development towards better. A creationist doesn't put the reins on making things better.

DS · 29 January 2012

Marilyn said: A creationist doesn't put the reins on making things better.
Neither do any contribute anything positive to any scientific discovery. Oh to be sure, they used to, when they didn't let their religious preconceptions blind them to the evidence. But today they seem to be more concerned about just saying no to science than actually doing any. No sectarian group should be given exclusive rights to control either morality of scientific discovery in a free and democratic society. If they can't argue persuasively on rational and scientific grounds, they should be rightly ignored. If they can't legally force people to come to their churches, they shouldn't have the right to demand that everyone live by their rules. If they can't respect the rights and opinions of others, they should be shown the exact same consideration. Of course that doesn't mean that we should create huge goat spiders that go around encasing people in silk and sucking their blood. But then again, anyone could make that case.

apokryltaros · 29 January 2012

DS said: Of course that doesn't mean that we should create huge goat spiders that go around encasing people in silk and sucking their blood.
Are you some sort of silk-hating prude?

SWT · 29 January 2012

apokryltaros said:
DS said: Of course that doesn't mean that we should create huge goat spiders that go around encasing people in silk and sucking their blood.
Are you some sort of silk-hating prude?
Yeah, what's the problem with a few vampire spider-goats?

phhht · 29 January 2012

SWT said:
apokryltaros said:
DS said: Of course that doesn't mean that we should create huge goat spiders that go around encasing people in silk and sucking their blood.
Are you some sort of silk-hating prude?
Yeah, what's the problem with a few vampire spider-goats?
You guys are so NAIVE! The DANGER is what happens after Chupacabra feasts!

harold · 29 January 2012

Marilyn -
A creationist doesn’t put the reins on making things better.
Yes, they do. I will use an example to illustrate how. The Ptolmeic model of astrophysics modeled the earth as the center of the universe. However, one gets a better, more useful model if one accepts that the earth revolves around the sun and rotates around its own axis. Someone who attempts to enforce a Ptolmeic model, for ideological reasons, would prevent not only targeted space travel and accurate prediction of astronomical events, but would even hamper marine navigation at a seventeenth century level of technology. Forcing people to deny a major central theory in biology would greatly hamper biomedical research. I have no interest in arguing with anyone's religion. I have no problem even with people choosing to personally deny scientific reality for religious reasons. However, science education must teach evidence supported science. Whether people choose to "believe" the evidence is their business. Science education cannot include science-denying religious dogma. In the US, it is illegal for the government to promote one religion over others anyway. In other countries, it may or may not be, and in a fair number of countries, there may be an official church (many of which do not deny science anyway, e.g. Church of England, Swedish Reformed Church, etc), but it still makes sense to concentrate science education on science. To do otherwise hampers society's ability to produce scientifically knowledgeable citizens.

JimboK · 29 January 2012

"The Board’s brief rebuts both the free speech and academic freedom claims, citing case law to show that the courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently ruled that when public school teachers are operating in their role as teachers, they do not have the right to teach any damn fool notion they please."

I really hope that phrasing is in the actual brief...

eric · 30 January 2012

Marilyn said: A creationist follows a blue print as to how things should be, you could even call it a thin blue line that leads to a broad scope of something better.
Unfortunately, they think teaching Christian theology as legitimate science and not teaching anything inconsistent with Christian theology is 'how things should be.'
A creationist doesn't put the reins on making things better.
Yes, in fact they do. Teaching kids creation science or intelligent design as science is making things worse. Teaching kids poorly reasoned, decades-refuted objections to evolutionary theory is putting the reins on making things better. Trying to prevent the teaching of evolution at all is putting the reins of making things better. These activities pretty much define modern creationism. At least, IMO. If you can show me some significant group of "secular creationists" - i.e. YECs who nevertheless support sound science education because they agree with separation of church and state - I'll take back this claim. But we can probably count those folks on one hand; they are the exception, not the rule. Until you can show me some big group of secular creationists, I'll stick with my claim that the social/educational activism is a defining trait of the creationist movement.