This should be of broad interest: a symposium at Stanford School of Law on the 1987 Supreme Court decision
Edwards v. Aguillard. This is the decision that ruled "creation science" to be a sham devised to promote religion in the classroom. And, of course, the decision led directly to the decision to drop creationist terminology and adopt "intelligent design" terminology.
Science and Religion in the Classroom: Edwards v. Aguillard at 25
2012 is the 25th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creationism in the public schools
violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
Constitution, and the National Center for Science Education, the
Stanford Constitutional Law Center, and the Stanford Center for Law
and the Biosciences are sponsoring a symposium on the historic case.
The symposium, to be held in Room 290 of the law school at Stanford,
starting at 12:30 p.m. on May 11, is free and open to the public;
those attending are asked to RSVP in advance.
The schedule for the symposium:
INTRODUCTION - 12:30
Michael W. McConnell (Stanford)
THE HISTORY OF THE CREATION-SCIENCE MOVEMENT AND LEGAL CONTROVERSIES - 12:45
Lawrence Friedman (Stanford, moderator)
Ronald Numbers (Wisconsin)
Ed Larson (Stanford, visiting)
Michael Ruse (Florida State)
Patricia Bowers (former Louisiana AG Office)
EDWARDS'S CONSTITUTIONAL LEGACY - 2:30
Eugene Volokh (UCLA, moderator)
Kent Greenawalt (Columbia)
Eugenie Scott (NCSE Director)
Nadine Strossen (N.Y. Law School)
Steven D. Smith (San Diego)
DOES THE DEBATE MATTER? - 4:15
Ed Larson (Stanford, moderator)
Nathan Chapman (Stanford)
Michael McConnell (Stanford)
Hank Greely (Stanford)
Ronald Numbers (Wisconsin)
Eugenie Scott (NCSE)
CLOSING REMARKS - 5:00
Ed Larson (Stanford)
For further details, and a link to RSVP, visit:
http://www.law.stanford.edu/calendar/details/6114/Science%20and%20Religion%20in%20the%20Classroom%3A%20Edwards%20v.%20Aguillard%20at%2025/
HT: NCSE
336 Comments
Flint · 30 April 2012
Hopefully, the seminal paper Is It Science Yet is required reading for the first part of this course.
Gary_Hurd · 30 April 2012
I am not a lawyer, but I'd really enjoy attending. Any sponsors?
erpease · 30 April 2012
The event website indicates that the event starts at 8am? The NCSE website indicates the same at http://ncse.com/node/7316
Do you perhaps have more up-to-date info?
Joe Felsenstein · 30 April 2012
Who? Here, with a bonus.
Cogito Sum · 30 April 2012
Does anyone know if the proceedings be available later via the web, or, through perhaps DVD purchase?
Nick Matzke · 1 May 2012
The times came from an email that NCSE sent out, but I'll double-check.
Nick Matzke · 1 May 2012
Proceedings -- based on the schedule, it looks like almost certainly there will be a special issue of a law review journal. But yeah, I hope they record it.
Nick Matzke · 1 May 2012
NCSE has updated the webpage, it also says 12:30... http://ncse.com/node/7316
Karen S. · 1 May 2012
Will Phillip Johnson be in attendance?
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk_0TMmSlssJWvOjHx1SrQLkXt31SfSgtk · 1 May 2012
Will there be any discussion of how we prevent them from making any scientific discoveries based upon design/creation?
I've always been curious about such magical powers conferred by "Darwinism."
Glen Davidson
Karen S. · 1 May 2012
Henry J · 1 May 2012
Robert Byers · 2 May 2012
Time has come today for a new trial!!!
May i as a YEC creationist and so representing YEC/ID creationists suggest some boundaries about law and origin teaching in public institutions1?
Since its a constitutional issue then who made up the constitution and did these demographics demonstrate in notes and general discussions the understanding they are not said now to have banned God and Genesis in public school teaching on origin issues?
Was this the intent of the delegates of the people or even the few serious debaters in the 1770's.?
Is the censorship of creationism indicating the state is in fact not neutral but by this censorship is in fact giving a opinion that creationism is false? Not just have their hands tied but since conclusions on origins are being taught in the schools and the object of schools is to teach the knowledge or truth of things then not teaching creationism, directly, is a state opinion on its merits.
Therefore state opinion on what is proclaimed religion is itself here breaking the law?!
Further if the state can pronounce on the truth of "religion" it can not censor any religious truths in schools!
In short banning something is the same as saying its not true.
The state saying RELIGION origins are not true is the state making a opinion on religion!!!
Yet the law "discovered" in the constitution is about the state having no right to talk about religion.
Even shorter the state censorship is breaking its own law that it invokes for the censorship.
In order to convince the 70% of americans that they should not agree with both sides being taught in origin issues this assembly must demonstrate the sure legal foundation for why creationism must be censored!
Of coarse I don't think they can but i'm trying here to show why you must address these things so when new exciting cases on these things come up we all we have advanced to higher concepts about law and origin teaching.
Dave Lovell · 2 May 2012
TomS · 2 May 2012
Let us keep in mind that it is the social/political movement of "Intelligent Design" which advocates not speaking of the Who, What, Where, When, Why or How.
Karen S. · 2 May 2012
Byers, do you have any objection to teaching science in the science classroom? Comparative religions can be taught in philosophy class.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 2 May 2012
Robert Byers
"Banning" the teaching of creationism in high school science classes is perfectly reasonable, because it is not the job of public schools to teach sectarian religious dogma, yours or anyone else's, in science classes. Whilst I wouldn't advocate it being taught in science classes, my personal preference would be for the teaching of Gilgamesh, the Enuma Elish, Hesiod and Job 38-39; others will no doubt have different preferences.
Seriously, why should the pathetic confabulation of the reported deeds of God as outlined in Genesis 1-2 take precedence over the direct speech of God that we have in Job 38-39?
The current legal issues surrounding the teaching of science in public schools in the US are the culmination of a process that began in the 1920's with challenges to some states that foolishly banned the teaching of science - notably the theory of evolution - in high school science classes. That said, there is no bar on discussing non-scientific theories of origins in the appropriate venue - such as religious studies, history, literature or philosophy classes - so it's stupid to assert that this is an issue of censorship. Why are you so determined that Genesis should be discussed as science, when there is clearly no bar to being it discussed in the appropriate venue?
Public school science classes also don't discuss alchemy, astrology, allegorical medicine based on medieval theories of correspondence, geocentrism and magic - do you object to that on the basis of censorship? Or are you willing to accept that it is not the job of public school science classes to discuss theories that have no scientific merit and are incorrect? Can you please explain to me why your particular scientifically meritless pet should be privileged over other equally meritless theories? Do you really think it is the job of high school science classes to discuss extra-natural, metaphysical questions, when they can just as readily be discussed in high school history, literature or philosophy classes?
C'mon Robert, don't darken my day with your usual cloud of thoughtless words, man-up and answer my questions.
Dave Luckett · 2 May 2012
Byers, of course, will not read this, but for the fiftieth time, here's how his "censorship" argument is addressed:
The doctrine that all living things were created by God in roughly their present forms relatively recently is ipso facto a religious belief.
The Constitution of the United States, First Amendment, states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion".
The Supreme Court has ruled that this means the State may not devote any of the resources it controls to any measure mainly intended to further or support any religion or religious doctrine, nor to any measure that has that effect.
The public schools, funded by taxes, are among the resources controlled by the State. Hence, creationism may not be taught in the schools.
It's as simple as that, in essence.
Byers, of course, won't even read this. He'll blather about the intentions of the Founders, as if he knew them, (which he doesn't) and as if what he thinks they intended, rather than what they wrote in the Constitution, is what matters.
Well, what Byers thinks the Founders intended doesn't matter a hoot. Come to think of it, what Byers thinks about what anything doesn't matter a hoot.
eric · 2 May 2012
Robert B.,
If there IS a new trial, I'll recommend to TMLC or Rutherford or whomever represents the creationist side that they call on you as an expert witness. Also FL, IBIG, and Steve P.
prongs · 2 May 2012
harold · 2 May 2012
eric said:
Robert B.,
If there IS a new trial, I'll recommend to TMLC or Rutherford or whomever represents the creationist side that they call on you as an expert witness. Also FL, IBIG, and Steve P.
Twisted minds think alike.
However, I was going to recommend that the plaintiffs bring him in as an exhibit, illustrating the tragic damage creationism can do.
JimboK · 2 May 2012
I just read Byers' post. Now my head hurts.
SLC · 2 May 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk_0TMmSlssJWvOjHx1SrQLkXt31SfSgtk · 2 May 2012
Biology labs for creationism/ID would be what, looking at organisms and saying "It looks designed," and praying for miracles?
I suppose you could always do some evolution labs complete with fake IDiot calculations (are there any others?), but that's definitely not doing creation science, it's evolutionary pseudoscience.
Glen Davidson
John_S · 2 May 2012
Scott F · 2 May 2012
Karen S. · 2 May 2012
Scott F · 2 May 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 2 May 2012
Scott F
Don't forget verse 4: "When I founded the Earth, where were you then?".
I always think of this when the "were you there?" line gets trotted out. It's just a shame that they omit to continue with the rest of the chapter, which explicitly reveals God to be a conventional Babylonian flat-earther.
Henry J · 2 May 2012
cwjolley · 2 May 2012
Ray Martinez · 2 May 2012
John_S · 2 May 2012
Just Bob · 2 May 2012
Scott F · 2 May 2012
FL · 2 May 2012
co · 2 May 2012
Gary_Hurd · 2 May 2012
eric · 2 May 2012
W. H. Heydt · 2 May 2012
Just Bob · 2 May 2012
"Does the phrase “dismissed for lack of standing” mean anything to you?"
To him? No.
John_S · 2 May 2012
harold · 2 May 2012
dalehusband · 2 May 2012
harold · 2 May 2012
I'd like to note briefly that there is nothing remotely "originalist" about the idea of taxpayer funded science denial favoring a narrow sectarian religious interpretation.
In fact, it's obviously the opposite. The founding fathers strong encouraged early science. Benjamin Franklin was a fairly important eighteenth century scientist and inventor. Thomas Jefferson re-wrote the Bible to show his non-literal, non-superstitious interpretation of Christianity (this statement is intended to point out Jefferson's views, not to endorse Bible re-writing projects).
The term "originalist" is merely code. Roe v. Wade and some state decisions about contraceptives made mention of a right to privacy. "Originalist" is merely dog whistle code, meaning "I'd like to restrict contraceptives if given the chance".
When the blatantly obvious original intention of the Founding Fathers is at odds with right wing ideology, however, amoral right wing ideologues instantly become anti-originalists.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk_0TMmSlssJWvOjHx1SrQLkXt31SfSgtk · 2 May 2012
harold · 2 May 2012
apokryltaros · 2 May 2012
apokryltaros · 2 May 2012
fnxtr · 2 May 2012
Matt G · 2 May 2012
Robert Byers · 2 May 2012
garystar1 · 2 May 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk_0TMmSlssJWvOjHx1SrQLkXt31SfSgtk · 2 May 2012
Robert Byers · 2 May 2012
Matt G · 2 May 2012
Robert Byers · 2 May 2012
Matt G · 2 May 2012
Robert Byers · 2 May 2012
garystar1 · 2 May 2012
apokryltaros · 2 May 2012
apokryltaros · 2 May 2012
phhht · 2 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 2 May 2012
Creationism, defined as Byers defines it, (ie, the belief that the Universe was created by God in six literal days about six thousand years ago, and all living things by fiat roughly in their present forms, ditto) is simply factually wrong.
But proceeding as Byers proceeds is at least honest. He calls it what it is, doesn't dissemble what he wants and why he wants it, and says where he gets it from. Reading him, anyone outside the lunatic fringe will see at once that the man is a fruitcake. It's a bonus that he can't articulate two grammatical English sentences together. It lends point to how miserably incapable he is, generally.
So Byers is no threat. The same for FL or Biggy, although not quite so much. FL's monumental hubris extends to his belief in his own powers, and he is totally blind to how much of a fool he's making of himself. Lord, the thought of him on a stage with Barbara Forrest or Eugenie Scott! I'd pay good money to see that. Just not to him.
Biggy is, or Biggies are, dumb as a box of rocks and as original as a parrot, and it isn't half obvious. But still, they're no sort of threat.
No, the problem really lies in clever liars like the boys at the DI and Ham and the AiG crowd. Frank J points out that they're in the big tent, and we should be trying to exploit the obvious incompatibilities between them. He's right, but there is a limit to how effective that will be when they simply ignore that.
They can ignore it because they're con men, and they're playing the marks. They're not going to engage with people who don't buy the shell game they're running. They have a shrewd understanding of the political reality: so long as they can keep on talking - saying nothing or anything, it doesn't matter - they can con people who don't know otherwise into thinking that there's a controversy. "The jury is still out", that sort of nonsense.
What they want is close to what Byers wants. They want their religious doctrines taught as if they were science in the public schools. Byers is honest - actually, stupid - enough to say that they're religious doctrines. The DI pretends that they're not. So far, they've had some success. Not much, but some.
Of course, as soon as their talking points are rigorously investigated, like in court, they're seen as the lies that they are. But legislaters and legislatures don't necessarily do rigorous investigation. They do politics. The DI is rather good at politics.
I think science supporters had better get as good.
dalehusband · 2 May 2012
FL · 2 May 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk_0TMmSlssJWvOjHx1SrQLkXt31SfSgtk · 2 May 2012
apokryltaros · 2 May 2012
apokryltaros · 2 May 2012
Scott F · 2 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 3 May 2012
SteveP. · 3 May 2012
You all really ought to invite Stephen Myers to this sym(pose)ium. He's already put paid to the silly notion that ID is an off-shoot of creation science.
So when one of you strays into that territory, he can take the wheel and steer you back to reality; if of course reality is the pic you're planning to paint.
Which one of you have the cajones to make the call?
Dave Luckett · 3 May 2012
Would that be Stephen C Meyer, by any chance, Steve?
Perhaps you might learn to spell his name before you pontificate on what he's put paid to. Because you're wrong about that, too.
Dave Lovell · 3 May 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 3 May 2012
Robert Byers
I'm very disappointed that you've neglected to answer any of my questions.
So, here we go again. As a Canadian, don't you think that there should be, at the very least, equal time for First Nations explanations of origins? Why are you so insistent on Genesis, when you have a perfectly good explanation, for example, in the form of Napi creating the earth from the mud that the muskrat brought back from beneath the waters, then moulding man from the earth and breathing life into him? Why shouldn't that be taught as a reasonable alternative to evolutionary theory in high school science classes? Why is the mythopoetical explanation of cosmic and human origins as outlined in Genesis to be favoured over ALL other mythopoetical explanations that we could reference? Do you understand the difference between a mythopoetical explanation and a scientific theory?
Going on from that, you've neglected to respond to the question about teaching alchemy, astrology and other forms of non-scientific, or pseudo-scientific or mythopoetic explanation in science classes. I insist that you answer this: is it ok to teach alchemy as part of high school chemistry classes? If not, why not? After all, I'm sure that many kids would be very excited about the prospect of making gold out of base metal if they got to keep a share of the proceeds.
At the risk of repeating myself, why are you so insistent on the Genesis account being taught over the account in Job? After all, Genesis is only a second-hand report, whilst in Job, God himslef turns up, speaks directly, and gives us a great deal of information - we can even tell that it's God speaking because the language is WAAAAAAY better than in Genesis. Tell me Robert, what have you got against Job? Why does your preference for Genesis take precedence over my preference for Job?
Is it the job of high school science classes to teach theology? If so, why is your particular sectarian theology - The Umpteenth Church of Young Earth Creationism? The Latter Day Church of Omphalos? - to be privileged over all other sectarian theologies, including those that have absolutely no issue whatsoever with the teaching of science in science classes?
Frank J · 3 May 2012
apokryltaros · 3 May 2012
Karen S. · 3 May 2012
Bobsie · 3 May 2012
Let’s get to the root of the problem here. Clearly, once you fall for that first falsehood hook, line and sinker - namely that Christian scripture is the complete literal historical and scientific fact from cover to cover - you are doomed to a lifetime of perpetrating lies, deceit, distortion and misrepresentations.
Actually these folks deserve pity, remediation and de-programming to restore their lives to some semblance of intellectual authenticity before their whole lives get wasted on a wholly avoidable initial but life altering misunderstanding.
harold · 3 May 2012
eric · 3 May 2012
eric · 3 May 2012
FL · 3 May 2012
eric · 3 May 2012
bbennett1968 · 3 May 2012
Just Bob · 3 May 2012
And of course the operative words are "in all areas of science." You know, like software design, nutrition, civil engineering. Relevant fields like that.
Paul Burnett · 3 May 2012
John · 3 May 2012
John · 3 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 3 May 2012
Kevin B · 3 May 2012
John_S · 3 May 2012
apokryltaros · 3 May 2012
harold · 3 May 2012
Scott F · 3 May 2012
Ray Martinez · 3 May 2012
Henry J · 3 May 2012
Bobsie · 3 May 2012
Just Bob · 3 May 2012
John_S · 3 May 2012
Frank J · 3 May 2012
FL · 3 May 2012
Henry J · 3 May 2012
What I imagine is that somebody in his time period would not have known about the evidence collected since then.
Mike Elzinga · 3 May 2012
harold · 3 May 2012
John_S · 3 May 2012
harold · 3 May 2012
Frank J. -
To continue this line of thought...I think many honest people have a tendency to mistake ruthless pursuit of a (perceived to be) self-serving agenda with tenacious defense of sincere principles.
These things are superficially similar, but one feature helps distinguish them.
People who hold tenaciously to sincere principles tend to willingly pay a cost.
I don't know any creationist who's ever paid a cost except Freshwater, and he's paying a cost for hubris and overconfidence. In fact he repeatedly shows a tendency not to pay honest costs. He could have taught at a religious school, and he changes his story whenever he thinks it will help him get a payoff.
Being creationist mainly either pays (Behe) or doesn't cost a thing (trolls who post here).
Karen S. · 3 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 3 May 2012
It's not only that they don't believe what's actually there, either. They're also perfectly willing to put stuff in that isn't. FL telling us that Jesus said that Adam and Eve were two literal actual historical characters, for instance.
After some consideration about this, I've come to the conclusion that what they call "believing the Bible", this idea of "Biblical inerrancy", is not only no such thing - that's obvious - but that it's is not actually religious in essence at all, except in the sense of religion being an expression of culture.
apokryltaros · 3 May 2012
apokryltaros · 3 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 3 May 2012
FL affects not to understand the difference between the principles Augustine enunciated and the state of Augustine's knowledge. FL is, of course, perfectly well aware of that difference, having been advised about it repeatedly, but it's convenient to him to act as though he weren't.
Never say that ingenuous ignorance is not useful. In FL's hands, it becomes a sure shield and defence. Against stupidity, even the gods rage in vain, and this is so even when the stupidity is merely assumed.
Robert Byers · 4 May 2012
Robert Byers · 4 May 2012
Robert Byers · 4 May 2012
bbennett1968 · 4 May 2012
mandrellian · 4 May 2012
mandrellian · 4 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 4 May 2012
Byers does very well here. "This is your brain on fundamental religion," we say, laughing and pointing.
Dave Lovell · 4 May 2012
TomS · 4 May 2012
Paul Burnett · 4 May 2012
I give up - Panda's commenting software is as dumb as Byers. Unlike Byers, it can possibly be fixed...or can it?
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 4 May 2012
Robert Byers
Plenty of people erroneously think that speculative astrology has predictive merit; if enough people were in favour of it being taught in high school science classes, would that be ok? If not, why not? If enough people think that astrology is true then surely it should be given equal time too.
I've no doubt that if they thought they could get away with it, Utah state legislators would happily mandate, with popular support, the teaching of Mormon creationism - eternally pre-existent matter, God as universal organiser and not creator ex-nihilo, divine fathers and mothers - in their public school science classes. Would you be happy with that? If not, why not?
Given that you accept that with alchemy there is at least some sort of standard that has to be met, and that you understand that teaching nonsense in science classes would be near-universally unpopular, can you explain to me why creationist nonsense pseudo-science should get any different treatment? Can you show me the advances in baraminological medicine that are currently combatting diseases? Can you show me the young earth geological techniques that are leading to the discovery of coal, oil and gas deposits? Can you show me any actual creation science that has been done that meets even the most basic scientific criteria? Can you show me anything beyond Goddidit, nowt left to say, and if your granny is laid up with an evolved form of MRSA, well tough, call an exorcist or lay on hands, 'cos there's no such thing as evolution, and we don't have any solutions for you.
I think that you vastly overestimate people's willingness to have their kids time being wasted by being taught useless nihilism in science classes. Biblical creationism, in keeping with all mythopoesy, is not a scientific account of the world, and most people understand that it is not a description of scientific truth, and was never intended to be taken as such. Most Christians have no difficulty with this, and are perfectly happy for Genesis/creation/whatever to be discussed in the appropriate venue - such as literature, history, philosophy or religious studies classes. Why are you so desperate for Genesis to be acknowledged as scientifically fruitful, when history shows the absolute opposite?
I get that you prefer Genesis to Job. But, just for the purposes of clarification, do you believe that the words from Job Chapter 38 onwards are the actual, literal words of God talking about his creation, as opposed to the second-hand reportage of Genesis, and therefore must be given their due weight, mistakes and all? Or are you really a selective, amnesiac inerrant literalist?
It's not the job of science classes to pander to your, or anyone else's, pet sectarian theology.
eric · 4 May 2012
Just Bob · 4 May 2012
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 4 May 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 4 May 2012
Eric
Robert isn't interested in science or the teaching thereof - as far as I can tell he's on a one-way search and destroy mission that leaves no school building intact and no classroom unburnt; the only thing that matters to him is the preservation of an utterly bankrupt, minoritarian theo-politics constructed around the literal inviolability of Genesis.
bbennett1968 · 4 May 2012
Tenncrain · 4 May 2012
Robert, there's a possible way to get your views into science classes. This method doesn't involve misusing the political process by having creationism skip the science peer-review process and go directly to classrooms.
Strongly encourage your ‘scientists’ to start doing real science experiments, to routinely publish their results in mainstream science peer-review journals, to routinely show up at mainstream science meetings/seminars. As you may be aware, all science facts/theories/laws are tentative and thus can always be revised or even rejected. Therefore, if your scientists show real evidence and this evidence is accepted by the scientific consensus, your views could supplement or perhaps even replace evolution in another decade or two.
Oh, we are still waiting for you to give detailed rebuttals on the Gordon Glover (link here)
and Glenn Morton material. It's been over two months, isn't this more than enough time?
Dave Luckett · 4 May 2012
"They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed."
St Augustine, The City of God, Book XII, chapter 10
"As to those who are always asking why man was not created during these countless ages of the infinitely extended past, and came into being so lately that, according to Scripture, less than 6000 years have elapsed since He began to be, I would reply to them regarding the creation of man, just as I replied regarding the origin of the world to those who will not believe that it is not eternal, but had a beginning, which even Plato himself most plainly declares, though some think his statement was not consistent with his real opinion."
St Augustine, The City of God, Book XII, Chapter 12.
This is, I think, the closest that Augustine ever came to saying that "less than 6000 years" had elapsed since the creation of man - but note that he doesn't actually say that in so many words. He only says that this "reckoning" is "according to Scripture".
It's interesting that he relies upon the recorded words of a pagan philosopher for support, and he adds a very odd codicil, that Plato's written statement might not have been his own real opinion. Could it be that Augustine was hinting that the implications of scripture might not have been his, Augustine's, own opinion?
At any rate, Augustine could not have been expected to know anything of the physical evidence for the age of the Earth, nor would it have occurred to him to investigate to find such evidence. He was a scholastic theologian and moral philosopher, writing more than a thousand years before the first stirrings of science. He was also very much in the mainstream of a Christian church that was already moving to shut down what it thought of as pagan enquiry into Nature. The Church fathers had a strong suspicion that it amounted to pantheism.
Augustine was of a more liberal view, and clearly had respect for the great Greek intellectual flowering, but to many of his conteporary divines, Nature, as the work of God, was to be understood by reading his Word, not by looking under rocks. FL is still of this opinion, which puts him a fair bit behind Augustine.
It took the Church fathers another seven hundred years or so to allow the reading of Aristotle. And of course, they were right. It was all very well so long as people simply accepted his ideas, but some started testing them, and finding they were sometimes right and sometimes wrong, and before you knew it they were doing the same to Holy Writ with the same results. And look where that led!
Kevin B · 4 May 2012
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 4 May 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 4 May 2012
Kevin B
I'm not sure that he's thought through any of his positions in enough detail, or with enough care; it's just crush, kill, destroy.
Karen S. · 4 May 2012
Frank J · 4 May 2012
Tenncrain · 4 May 2012
harold · 4 May 2012
Frank J · 4 May 2012
harold · 4 May 2012
harold · 4 May 2012
eric · 4 May 2012
John · 4 May 2012
John · 4 May 2012
John · 4 May 2012
QED · 4 May 2012
It's clear by now that more than half the SCOTUS will vote on the side of right-wing extremist ideology, completely ignoring precedent if it hoists another pole under the GOP big tent. Who would have ever predicted that our high court would be motivated by revenge rather than law and reason?
It's astounding to me that men and women intelligent enough to become attorneys, and rise to a position on the highest court of the land can be so willfully blind to reason and fairness as they essentially rule the most powerful country on earth. But then I sometimes forget how they achieved their position back then, appointed by an Alzeheimers patient and a 60 IQ Texan. And that I now believe with certainty that authoritarian extremists (both religious and political) are born, not made.
I hope more than anything it won't come to pass, but I firmly believe that the present court would overturn Edwards vs. Aguillard, and that future right-wing courts would do the same with increased vengeance. Please let me be wrong...
Scott F · 4 May 2012
SteveP. · 4 May 2012
apokryltaros · 4 May 2012
apokryltaros · 4 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 4 May 2012
Ah, yes, indeed, the Institute for Creation Research. SteveP finally admits his sources.
The DI is indeed the more formidable opponent, for one reason and one reason only: they're careful not to display the fact that they're actually loopy. "Small target" is the name of their game; their business is to attack evolution by telling lies about it, not to defend anything.
On the other hand, ICR are obviously, palpably, the-bible-is-right-because-we-say-so crazy. They're right out there with it. None of this namby-pamby nonsense about we don't know who did what when, like the DI. No, no. God did it, created everything separately in six days six thousand years ago, including Adam and Eve. Then he wiped the whole shebang out with a flood, except for eight people, and the lifeforms we have now, and either you believe all that or it's hell for you, buster. The bible says so. Evidence, schmevidence. We don' need no steenking evidence.
Neither, of course, does the DI, which is the point of contact between them. But still the approaches are fundamentally (now there's a word!) different. ICR are easily dismissed. It becomes obvious practically immediately that they're a bunch of lunatic bible-bashers and that's their only motivation. Most people's eyes glaze over. ICR only preaches to about twenty-five per cent, which is certainly enough to keep them there cheques and money orders a-comin' in, but isn't going to break out of their demographic: mouth-breathing rednecks with more toes than teeth, if'n they ain't done blowed them off with a shotgun yet. There's millions of them out there.
The DI is sneakier. They simply ignore questions about who, what, how or when. In fact, they'll tell you that they don't know, which is a straight-out, flat lie. They think they know, all right, they just won't say. Instead, they hammer away at stuff most people think is reasonable: "The jury is still out"; "only a theory"; "controversy"; "teach both sides"; "let the student decide".
The DI know damn well that it won't stand up in court, of course, which is why they bailed on Kitzmiller and headed for the hills to lay low for a bit. But it doesn't have to stand up there, if they can sneak it into the schools without anybody noticing particularly. This is cleverer, but it still won't work, so long as the courts apply the Constitution. Maybe only twenty percent or so of parents of public school students will object to their kids being taught somebody else's religion in science class, but that will be enough to land it all in the crapper.
Sucks to be the DI, I reckon. But they've got the Ahmanson money behind them, and they'll keep at it. Small target, sound reasonable, set up other people to take the fall, don't say, attack only, big lies are easier to believe, stay on message.
It's a little too artsy-fartsy intellekshul for the goobers, but it appeals to another demographic: people like SteveP. He likes to think he's profound, because he mistakes "murky" for "deep". Steve wouldn't know a genome from a gee-gee, but that doesn't stop him from abusing science and scientists. He's a slightly different species of loon. I suppose the next step would be to see if they're cross-fertile.
Forgive me if I say I really don't want to go there.
Scott F · 4 May 2012
tomh · 4 May 2012
SteveP. · 5 May 2012
Robert Byers · 5 May 2012
Robert Byers · 5 May 2012
Robert Byers · 5 May 2012
TomS · 5 May 2012
My impression is that Scalia doesn't care about evolution or creationism. He doesn't like the "Lemon" test (in particular, the "prong" which speaks of the need for a secular purpose), and will use any case to overturn it. I would hope that lower court judges would realize that, and formulate their opinions in such a way that they don't critically rely on the "Lemon" test. And I would also hope that the lawyers for the ACLU would be practical enough not to push the court into reaffirming the "Lemon" test.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 5 May 2012
Robert Byers
You don't know this stuff about Job? Well, here's a radical suggestion for you - go and read the Bible some time and ponder on what it actually says. I presume that you are actually allowed to do that? Or is it banned without the presence of a guiding hand to steer you away from drawing the "wrong" conclusions? I presume that as you accept Job as containing the direct speech of God, that you believe the earth is flat, and placed on pedestals, as stated by God.
Like "biblical creationism", geocentrism was a historic belief to many investigators of nature for thousands of years - that didn't stop it being thoroughly disproven and replaced 400 odd years ago. Do you not understand that biblical creationism based on inerrant literalism, like geocentrism, the flat earth, and a whole bunch of other things, is a dodo, extinct, and utterly beyond any possibility of resurrection?
It's certainly true that creationism is not like alchemy; for all the nonsense and gibberish in alchemical thought, there were actually a few solid achievements: development of laboratory glassware, identification and production of some acids, instrumentation and measurement techniques. Alchemy's occasional scientific successes may have arisen via happenstance and serendipity, but at least it got a few runs on the board; by contrast, every time creationists have ventured out to the crease they've been dismissed for a golden. Seriously, tell me what equipment and instrumention has the DI, AIG or ICR developed? What new compounds have they isolated? What discoveries have they made? What phenomena have they explained? What mechanisms of nature have they outlined? What have they successfully predicted? None, none, none, none, none and nothing. There's a simple reason for all of that - the creationist movement isn't doing science, isn't interested in doing science, certainly isn't interested in teaching science, and exists solely to defraud people in the service of a dogmatic, sectarian, theo-political agenda. You seem to be a willing servant in all of that.
Having accepted that alchemy shouldn't be taught in public school science classes, why on earth should should anyone take seriously the idea that your dismal science, which can't even rise to alchemy's level of successlessness, deserves to be given any time in public school science classes? As far as I can see you're marching in the creationist parade with a "let's teach nonsense and be proud of it" banner.
You think you do alright? At present, you seem to be the site's intellectual pig-pen, blindly marching around in a cosmic dust-cloud of unknowing. All you do is exhibit a level of ignorance and unclarity of thought that plankton find embarassing. You're the epitome of a useful idiot - as propagandist for the creationist brigade you're an unwitting object lesson for all those backsliders, lurking cloaked in the ether, who get that there's a con being perpetrated on them. Please, please, please stick around and keep your end up.
bigdakine · 5 May 2012
John · 5 May 2012
Malcolm · 5 May 2012
John · 5 May 2012
Malcolm · 5 May 2012
For those of you playing at home.
Please note that for Byers, FL, SteveP, IBIG, etc, when reality conflicts with their religious beliefs, reality is wrong.
Karen S. · 5 May 2012
harold · 5 May 2012
Steve P. -
How old is the earth? Do humans and chimpanzees share common descent?
Who is the designer? Exactly what did the designer design? Exactly how did the designer do this? Exactly when did the designer do this? What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?
TomS · 5 May 2012
David · 5 May 2012
John · 5 May 2012
John · 5 May 2012
John · 5 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 5 May 2012
Frank J · 5 May 2012
Frank J · 5 May 2012
John · 5 May 2012
John · 5 May 2012
apokryltaros · 5 May 2012
apokryltaros · 5 May 2012
phhht · 5 May 2012
FL · 5 May 2012
FL · 5 May 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 5 May 2012
FL
Theology, of any description, is irrelevant to science.
The laws of physics don't discriminate between Jews, atheists and Christians - they're the same for everyone.
harold · 5 May 2012
harold · 5 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 5 May 2012
apokryltaros · 5 May 2012
apokryltaros · 5 May 2012
John · 5 May 2012
John · 5 May 2012
I might add further, harold, that Shapiro sees nothing wrong in having posted over at the Dishonesty Institute's Evolution Lies and More Mendacity website (DI Evolution News & Views website for those who don't know), even after I pointed out that no other credible scientist has ever considered doing this, including his University of Chicago colleagues like Jerry Coyne. In light of his online behavior, I must conclude that Shapiro has allowed himself to become a DI "useful idiot".
SLC · 5 May 2012
mandrellian · 5 May 2012
Paul Burnett · 5 May 2012
dalehusband · 6 May 2012
Just Bob · 6 May 2012
apokryltaros · 6 May 2012
FL · 6 May 2012
mandrellian · 6 May 2012
Robert Byers · 7 May 2012
Robert Byers · 7 May 2012
TomS · 7 May 2012
eric · 7 May 2012
cwjolley · 7 May 2012
eric · 7 May 2012
apokryltaros · 7 May 2012
apokryltaros · 7 May 2012
DS · 7 May 2012
Just Bob · 7 May 2012
OK, Bobby, let's vote on which particular religious denomination should be able to dictate what is and isn't taught in public schools.
Guess which denomination gets the most votes in the US in 2012. (Hint--it ain't yours. And it is one that has no quarrel with evolution and teaches evolution in its many private schools and universities.)
SWT · 7 May 2012
Paul Burnett · 7 May 2012
Frank J · 7 May 2012
Karen S. · 7 May 2012
bbennett1968 · 7 May 2012
Karen S. · 7 May 2012
harold · 7 May 2012
I was going to point out to Robert Byers that 1) voter majorities have consistently eliminated creationists from school boards and 2) individual rights that can't be taken away by a majority are what allows him to practice his religion.
But then I remembered that creationists don't care about any of that.
They have an authoritarian social/political agenda, which includes obsessive denial of certain scientific facts (evolution, climate change, and also to varying degrees HIV denial, cigarettes/disease denial, and, increasingly, vaccine denial).
What they care about is pursuing that agenda, ruthlessly.
If they think saying "majority rule" will get their bullshit into taxpayer funded public school science class, they'll say "majority rule".
If they think saying "individual rights" will do it, they'll say "individual rights".
In fact, they do say both, frequently, and the contradiction does not bother them.
The only consistency is "anything which contradicts, insults, censors, or otherwise attacks science is good".
Byers is neither a particularly obnoxious guy, by creationist standards, that is, nor, spelling and grammar aside, is he any more illogical than other creationists. This is simply true of all creationists.
FL · 7 May 2012
TomS · 7 May 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 7 May 2012
Robert Byers
I think that you'll find that in the harsh, uncomfortable and physical sense of the word, reality is petty much the same for everyone, regardless of their beliefs. Do you really think that if enough people believe in a flat earth that the world loses its sphericity?
It would be nice if, via the magic of voting, we could eliminate cholera or create a perpetual motion machine, but we can't; your, or anybody else's, evolution denial isn't going to alter the awkward fact of evolving drug-resistant pathogens, or evolving pesticide-resistant insects, or evolving influenza viruses.
Robin · 7 May 2012
Bobsie · 7 May 2012
ogremk5 · 7 May 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 7 May 2012
Harold
I'm probably not familiar enough with creationists, but even from the other side of the Atlantic, there's something ineffable about RB.
Henry J · 7 May 2012
Oh good, a Sirius discussion.
eric · 7 May 2012
ogremk5 · 7 May 2012
Scott F · 7 May 2012
Kevin B · 7 May 2012
ogremk5 · 7 May 2012
Yep, almost 3 years ago. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/09/bloggingheads-b.html#comment-193691
How evolution is incompatible with Christianity and ID is science so let's teach it in the classrooms.
He was destroyed on the evolution incompatibility issue. Which, is the exact same issue that is teaching atheism in the classroom. The simple fact that there exists Christians who accept evolution (indeed, entire churches that do so) and that there are practicing scientists that support evolution (how about a paleontologist who is also a preacher?) destroys this entire line of "reasoning".
Then Fl completely bailed on the "ID is science". I was waiting with a stack of questions (and still am waiting) for FL to answer on "ID is science". He bailed... and returns here occasionally to repeat these same things that we destroyed years ago.
dalehusband · 7 May 2012
dalehusband · 7 May 2012
mandrellian · 7 May 2012
John_S · 7 May 2012
apokryltaros · 7 May 2012
apokryltaros · 7 May 2012
studentscaptive audience listen to you preach and screech every single slander and blood libel you can dredge up about Evolution, including how you think that Charles Darwin invented racism and slavery and devil worship?John_S · 7 May 2012
apokryltaros · 7 May 2012
mandrellian · 7 May 2012
apokryltaros · 7 May 2012
mandrellian · 7 May 2012
apokryltaros · 7 May 2012
Robert Byers · 8 May 2012
Dave Lovell · 8 May 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 8 May 2012
Robert Byers
You have to be one of the most extreme epistemological nihilists around. Personally, I think that that's because you've mistaken your evident inability to know anything about anything to be somehow universalisable. Perhaps I'm wasting my time reproving a scoffer, but yo're doing a very good job of demonstrating how folly settles in the minds of the thoughtless.
Perhaps you could elucidate what you consider to be the time horizon beyond which any investigation is impossible, and why. Seriously, I'd love to understand at what point we can no longer reliably know ANYTHING about the past.
The world's most famous ancient "crime scene" is that of Oetzi the iceman - about 5000 years old. Do you think that the investigators who have analysed his remains and come to conclusions about his manner of death, diet, style of life etc are groping blindly around in the dark, or are they making reasonable statements based on the evidence at hand? Do you think that historians and anthropologists can derive no information from what they've found?
Do you have any evidence, or even any sound reason, for assuming that the processes that we can presently witness, measure, describe and understand in extremely fine detail are different from processes in the past? Are you proposing that the universe is marked by such radical discontinuities that it is possible that the law of gravity will change on Thursday and we'll all be able to fly?
Dave Luckett · 8 May 2012
TomS · 8 May 2012
Paul Burnett · 8 May 2012
eric · 8 May 2012
I tend to agree with Paul; Robert's response is incoherent. But we can't lay the blame entirely on him; he's just repeating a creationist party line which contains the same incoherence. "Evolution historical! CSI not!" is not exactly Byers' invention.
apokryltaros · 8 May 2012
DS · 8 May 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 8 May 2012
FL · 8 May 2012
Karen S. · 8 May 2012
Blabber on, Robert Byers, blabber on.
Dave Luckett · 8 May 2012
Of course FL didn't have to retract his nonsense. We couldn't tie him down and cram his lies down his throat. He could say whatever he liked, no matter how false, fallacious, nonsensical or furiously stupid it was. He could babble whatever foolishness he wanted. Nobody could make him take it back.
All that could be done was to show that he was wrong. Comprehensively, utterly, entirely and unmistakeably wrong, and not only wrong but untruthful, two-faced, false and mendacious. And that was done.
There is no requirement in Christian doctrine or teaching requiring a belief in the Genesis stories as literal fact. There is no essential incompatibility between those stories, read as Christians may read them, and Christianity.
FL · 8 May 2012
Paul Burnett · 8 May 2012
co · 8 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 8 May 2012
DS · 8 May 2012
ogremk5 · 8 May 2012
FL, You spent over 100 pages on this EXACT topic just over 3 years ago at AtBC. You didn't convince anyone then and you're not going to convince anyone now.
However, the other part of that discussion (which you chickened out on) was to discuss "ID is science so it should be taught in the science class".
To that end and since it's on the topic of this thread (more or less, but more so than science is anti-Christian*).
So, onward. Please list one fact that supports Intelligent Design or one actual fact that shows evolution to be wrong. If you can do that, then we have grounds for a discussion of the scientific accuracy and place of ID in a science classroom OR a valid critique of evolution.
Note carefully that a critique of evolution is NOT a support of Intelligent Design. ID is not the only would-be competitor to evolution, even Meyer has said so.
Now, until you produce these facts that provide the evidence (which, over 3 years you have utterly failed to do), ID is not science and there are no valid criticisms of evolution as a concept at all.**
_____________________________________
* which is instantly debunked the very second a person says, "I'm a Christian and I think that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth." People like The Pope and 11,000+ clergy-men. Of course, you claim that all those Christian leaders are wrong and you are right... and I've continually asked you for evidence to support this claim, but you never answer that.
** there are some perfectly valid discussions on various aspects within evolutionary theory (value of neutral mutations, amount of epigenetics, difference between speciation, etc), but nothing that directly attacks the concept of evolution: That is small changes can be magnified by time into major changes, common ancestry, natural selection, mutation, etc.
Henry J · 8 May 2012
Or to sum up: The fact that the process itself doesn't exhibit forethought doesn't mean it can't be used by an agency that does have forethought.
The use of G.A.'s in engineering shows that; the algorithm itself has no forethought. Breeding of plants and animals is another example.
DS · 8 May 2012
phhht · 8 May 2012
As usual, Floyd the Loathsome tacitly agrees that absence of evidence constitutes evidence for non-existence. He tacitly concedes that the utter absence of evidence for gods constitutes evidence against their existence.
It's bizarre to see a drooling religious loony adopt such a thoroughly atheistic position in his attempt to defend his delusions.
TomS · 8 May 2012
I'd like someone to explain to me how evolution is more problematic for Christianity (or any version of creation) than is reproduction.
Christianity says that each individual stands in a special relationship with his/her Creator and Redeemer: Each individual is created, and each individual is saved. The belief that "mankind" as a whole, or that all individuals are saved is a minority opinion ("heresy" to the majority) called "Universalism".
Standard scientific accounts of reproduction give a purely naturalistic explanation for the origins of the individual human body, and part of that account involves the random aspect of genetic theory (present already with Mendel's mathematics, but also with the randomness of mutations).
Henry J · 8 May 2012
DS · 8 May 2012
Floyd wrote:
Think about it: you’ve got no room for theism (or even deism), you cain’t even sneak in a cheap whiskey “theistic evolution”, when you’ve stuck with a “completely mindless process.”
Think about it, you have no room for theism when you are stuck with the completely miondless processes of:
Phases of the moon
Tides
Lightning
Plate tectonics
Hurricanes
Earthquakes
Tornadoes
The list goes on and on. Everyone used to assume these things had a purpose, but nobody does any more. Why not complain about the atheistic meteorologists or geologists? Why not complain about those godless auto mechanics or electricians? Science already won this battle, Floyd is just a few hundred years slow on the uptake.
FL · 8 May 2012
SWT · 8 May 2012
FL · 8 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 8 May 2012
How does God direct an undirected process?
He doesn't. He directs a process that does not direct itself. Simple.
Just Bob · 8 May 2012
FL · 8 May 2012
DS · 8 May 2012
DS · 8 May 2012
SWT · 8 May 2012
My previous comment stands.
ogremk5 · 8 May 2012
Kevin B · 8 May 2012
EvolutionistsScientists don't need an answer for that one. As far as science is concerned, the important point is that the "undirected process" of evolution tends to go "somewhere". At some level the physics that drives the undirected process ceases to be predictable. At the moment (and possibly always) we are unable to fully describe the position and momentum of a single electron, although we can explain the behaviour of electrons en masse. Beyond this, science just says "That's what happens." A Theistic Evolutionist is perfectly at liberty to believe that the particular result that has happened is because "God did it", but science provides no evidence to support (or reject) this position. This should not be a problem for a TE because this is a matter of belief, not of proof. And the only thing that the Gospels has to say on this is Christ rebuking the Apostle Thomas for insisting on proof. It's Floyd and his friends who are in difficulties because their faith isn't strong enough. They have to have proof, and the idea that "undirected processes" are sufficient scientifically and that the existence of God is not "proved" by experiment leaves them dangling over the abyss of Doubt and the peril of Hellfire.cwjolley · 8 May 2012
Henry J · 8 May 2012
One might also ask why should we think that God's goals require any particular anatomy or biochemistry in the resulting creatures.
If the goal is spiritual (which is what's usually implied in what I've read on that subject), then the physical details aren't critical to the goal and therefore wouldn't need to be directed in the first place.
Just Bob · 8 May 2012
harold · 8 May 2012
mandrellian · 8 May 2012
DS · 8 May 2012
John · 8 May 2012
Robert Byers · 8 May 2012
Robert Byers · 8 May 2012
ogremk5 · 8 May 2012
Henry J · 8 May 2012
I doubt that they really want what they think they want, but they refuse to think about stuff that would probably happen if they got what they seem to be asking for.
Henry
mandrellian · 8 May 2012
I had to read Byers' last abortion of a paragraph three times before I understood the gist of it (then, of course, I immediately wished I could un-read the damn thing).
Far and away from making people demonstrate competency or basic understanding of topics they're presuming to de-bunk, when the hell are the Emperors Of The Internet(tm) going to make people pass basic freaking English Composition before allowing them to post things?
mandrellian · 8 May 2012
phhht · 8 May 2012
apokryltaros · 8 May 2012
apokryltaros · 8 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 9 May 2012
eric · 9 May 2012
eric · 9 May 2012
SWT · 9 May 2012
DS · 9 May 2012
DS · 9 May 2012
John · 9 May 2012
apokryltaros · 9 May 2012
bigdakine · 9 May 2012
mandrellian · 9 May 2012
FL · 9 May 2012
SWT · 9 May 2012
mandrellian · 9 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 9 May 2012
FL says his lot are "friends" with another, slightly different, set of loony tunes. That would last until about four seconds after the moment when, between them, they manage to set up their longed-for theocracy.
mandrellian · 9 May 2012
Ah yes, theocracy - the wet dream of FL and his Puritan ilk since the Declaration and the first drafts of the US Constitution! Part of me hopes it actually happens so they can watch how fast it crumbles under the weight of endless sectarian squabbling. But then, we have Iran and Saudi Arabia - two of the only "functioning" theocracies left - as fantastic illustrations of how theocracies do function and how they can remain ideologically pure and free of such internecine conflict. Hint: only by systematic and brutal repression of political and religious dissent and severe abridgement or even wholesale removal of every freedom and civil right Americans currently claim as their birthright.
In short: only by shitting on the legacy of Adams, Jefferson, Paine et al and wiping their butts on the Constitution can their Nation Under God be realised; FL and his fundamentalist journeymen want nothing more than to strip America of every single thing that made America the great country it was and still could be (if they'd only keep their mitts off it).
Dave Luckett · 9 May 2012
Well... we can reasonably disown Crowe and Gibson. Comfort never was an Australian, in all fairness - witness his traditional Kiwi reverence for fruit.
But, true, Ham hails from Ipswich, Queensland. It isn't necessary to make jokes about Queensland. Redundant, maybe, but not necessary.
mandrellian · 9 May 2012
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't implying that Comfort wasn't a Kiwi, it's just that we want people to know he definitely isn't Australian. The similarities in our accents can be confusing to some Northern Hemisphere-dwellers and we like to make the distinction.
I shan't joke about Queensland (why, some of my best friends are from Queensland!). But there are more than a few similarities between the Banana Belt and the Bible Belt. My suspicion is that Kenny-boy, his only skill being a top-drawer bullshit artist, simply couldn't make a quid as a used-god salesman in Australia and moved to the US to set up shop in a more, shall we say, "target-rich environment". It seems to have paid off, showing once again that Aussies can totally match the Yanks at their own game. Not that Hambo's antics are a source of pride though.
Dave Luckett · 9 May 2012
Well, it figures. If you want to spread the Good Word among the unenlightened, you'd go to where the unenlightened are. But if you want to haul in the suckers, you'd go where the suckers are thickest on the ground.
Our boy Ham feels the call of God to preach creationism - so he leaves Australia, where creationism is, shall we say, not much above the horizon, and goes somewhere every other person's a YEC. That's marketing, not mission.
You gotta hand it to the old-time Christian missionaries. You can say they were wrong, but it was on a heroic scale. St Patrick went to Ireland, which was violently pagan; St Boniface cut down Wotan's oak in front of a bunch of angry German warriors; the Nestorians went to China, where they were rather often dismembered; the Jesuits to the Hurons, who had a tribal custom of seeing how long they could keep someone alive under torture. Ken Ham runs a Creation Museum in Kentucky. Uh-huh.
mandrellian · 9 May 2012
A good point that I didn't consider!
Yes, you'd think if Ken was truly, honestly concerned about winning souls for Jesus he'd've opened his Ministry - sorry, "museum" - somewhere like Mumbai, Medina, Munich. But no, as you say, instead of seeking the unsaved or the heretic he goes to Kentucky to hunt for creationists. Freaking con artist.
God said it, Ken regurgitates it, Ken sells it.
Robert Byers · 9 May 2012
Robert Byers · 9 May 2012
dalehusband · 10 May 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 10 May 2012
"The creator just made biology like a parts department"
And there's a bunch of avaricious dwarves who are on call 24/7 to do the maintenance.
ogremk5 · 10 May 2012
ogremk5 · 10 May 2012
eric · 10 May 2012
DS · 10 May 2012
DS · 10 May 2012
Tenncrain · 10 May 2012
Robert, here's your good pal demonstrating why common design falls short as a science paradigm.
This same buddy of yours also also explains how even broken (but otherwise non-fatal) genes get passed on to new species with the broken genes in both old and new species having exact matching defects - suggesting hierarchical patterns (in other words, evolutionary common decent).
Robert Byers · 11 May 2012
Robert Byers · 11 May 2012
Robert Byers · 11 May 2012
Dave Luckett · 11 May 2012
Gawd, Byerbabble. You have to love the blind inability not only to understand, but even to realise that he doesn't understand. "He talks fast", yet!
And the moronic reversal of what the guy is saying - which is precisely that scientists don't like man-made systems, and the taxonomy of living things ISN'T a man-made system.
And the purblind bloody-minded ignorance of "fossils don't show what evolution would predict" when they show EXACTLY what evolution would predict.
And the grinning assertions of idiotic falsehoods known to be flat contradictions of fact. "The fossil record is only a snapshot from the flood year"! How can anybody have so much nerve and no brain at all?
You have to love these things, because if you didn't, you'd die of sheer outrage on experiencing such an overwhelming volume of bigoted, entrenched, furiously fatuous stupidity.
DS · 11 May 2012
Tenncrain · 11 May 2012
Scott F · 11 May 2012
cwjolley · 11 May 2012
Robert Byers · 12 May 2012
Robert Byers · 12 May 2012
Dave Lovell · 12 May 2012
TomS · 13 May 2012
eric · 14 May 2012
Just Bob · 15 May 2012
Or flying fish?
How about penguins, Bobby, are they 'water' or 'flying'?
Walruses?
Bats?
Ostriches?
dornier.pfeil · 16 May 2012
Keelyn · 16 May 2012
apokryltaros · 16 May 2012
thinkswho has immaculate knowledge of the United States Constitution, andbelievesknows beyond a shadow of a doubt that teaching evolution, or anything, in a science classroom that is not some derivative of Young Earth Creationism, magically violates the separation of Church and State as outlined in the 1st Amendment. His reason is some unintelligible word-salad about "origins," or alternatively excuses himself from giving his reasons altogether because it's hypocritically impolite to go off-topic, nevermind that he already derailed the topic to begin with.