Revised Ohio Bill still guts science education, adds 'strengths and weaknesses' language

sigh, If only there was a way to convince the general public of the exceptional need for science education for the near and far future prosperity and security of the US. In a similar way to the cold-war inspired support in the 50's and 60's...

Strengths--evolution explains the patterns, like why prokaryotes use other species' genes (as seen in the entire course of evolutionary history) while eukaryotes typically don't much do so.

Weaknesses--none. You could say, well, there are unanswered questions. That, however, is not a weakness in any ongoing science. Astronomy's weakness is that it has more to learn?

And even if there were weaknesses, kids learning the basics are in no position to evaluate these. Which is what they're counting on, bring up "questions" in order to imply that remaining questions cast doubt on well-supported conclusions, when they do nothing of the sort. Mis-education is the goal.

Glen Davidson

I've had to explain to a lot of people why this bill is designed as stealth armor for Creationism and isn't just a desirable or harmless piece of legislation with no teeth. This latest revision actually makes my life easier, because I can link to the same Wiki page and show how the phrase has been used.

In other words, they've shot themselves in the foot by using an old and recognizes ploy. Ironically their first version was vague enough to fool a lot of people.

ksplawn said: I've had to explain to a lot of people why this bill is designed as stealth armor for Creationism and isn't just a desirable or harmless piece of legislation with no teeth.

Someone on Facebook made an excellent point: If students don't learn the processes of science, how the hell can they "...analyze, critique, and review, in an objective manner, the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the standards."???

I think the teacher ultimately decides where discussion begins and leads to. If a teacher is determined to
proselytize....it will happen. If a teacher wants to teach ONLY science...it will happen.

La. had it's war on what materials could be used. Will Ohio have the same war if this creationist stealth bill becomes law?

Richard B. Hoppe said: Someone on Facebook made an excellent point: If students don't learn the processes of science, how the hell can they "...analyze, critique, and review, in an objective manner, the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the standards."???

Charley Horse said: I think the teacher ultimately decides where discussion begins and leads to. If a teacher is determined to proselytize....it will happen. If a teacher wants to teach ONLY science...it will happen. La. had it's war on what materials could be used. Will Ohio have the same war if this creationist stealth bill becomes law?

eric said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: Someone on Facebook made an excellent point: If students don't learn the processes of science, how the hell can they "...analyze, critique, and review, in an objective manner, the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the standards."???

I'm guessing that the critique process the conservatives would like and support goes something like this: 1. Ask you parents. If they think theory is wrong, say it must be wrong. If parents don't understand theory or have no opinion on it... 2. Read your bible. If theory contradicts it, say the theory must be wrong. If theory doesn't seem to be covered... 3. Ask you Reverend. If theory contradicts reverend, say the theory must be wrong. Else, accept theory.

I'm still not sure: does "scientific processes" refer to how science is done -- the scientific method -- or to natural processes posited by science, like the processes of stellar evolution, deep-time erosion of landforms, human effects on climate, or the process of EVOLUTION?

Might the language be intentionally ambiguous to allow a teacher to interpret it as "I'm not supposed to teach the process of evolution"?

Nothing in division (A)(1) of this section shall be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

If its illegal to to promote discrimination "against" religious beliefs then evolution is doomed. It does just that. It attacks genesis.
This all shows again its impossible for the state to be neutral on origin conclusions IF its controlling content of teaching.
if it says evolution is true and bans creationism then its making a official conclusion since the object is to teach what happened back in the day.
Censoring God/Genesis is DISCRIMINATION. how not?

Robert Byers said: If its illegal to to promote discrimination "against" religious beliefs then evolution is doomed. It does just that. It attacks genesis.

Evolution attacks Genesis.

Special Relativity attacks Genesis.

Nuclear decay attacks Genesis.

Stratigraphy attacks Genesis.

Recorded history attacks Genesis.

Archeology attacks Genesis.

Thermodynamics attacks Genesis.

Science must be a SNES fanboy! Either that or a Phil Collins hater.

Textbooks all over the planet teach evolution without mentioning Genesis even once.

— stevaroni

Kahn attacked Genesis, too.

Henry J said: Kahn attacked Genesis, too.

Robert Byers said: If its illegal to to promote discrimination "against" religious beliefs then evolution is doomed. It does just that. It attacks genesis.

Just Bob said: I'm still not sure: does "scientific processes" refer to how science is done -- the scientific method -- or to natural processes posited by science, like the processes of stellar evolution, deep-time erosion of landforms, human effects on climate, or the process of EVOLUTION?

It provides an explanation for how life works based on objective evidence.

eric said:

Just Bob said: I'm still not sure: does "scientific processes" refer to how science is done -- the scientific method -- or to natural processes posited by science, like the processes of stellar evolution, deep-time erosion of landforms, human effects on climate, or the process of EVOLUTION?

Based on the Texas legislation from a few years ago, and my reading of the ACLI vs. Stearn Christian textbooks, I think that it means how science is done. What they object to is teaching students to answer questions by looking around at the natural world. When a kid asks "why does that rock have layers? Where did they come from and what do they mean?" these folks want schools to say "gee, its a mystery - ask your parents." They absolutely don't want' the school to say "study the rocks, study chemical processes, and formulate your answer based on what nature tells you." It is that methodology that they violently object to, for two reasons: (1) it doesn't rely or respect parental and pastoral authority, and (2) when the kids applies it to rock layers, it's only a matter of time until they apply it to other claims too.

Robert Byers: what processes do you think "scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes" refers to? I bet you're in favor of this law. If you were a teacher, which process(es) would you believe the law says you should not "focus on"?

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: If its illegal to to promote discrimination "against" religious beliefs then evolution is doomed. It does just that. It attacks genesis.

It does no such thing. It provides an explanation for how life works based on objective evidence. Textbooks all over the planet teach evolution without mentioning Genesis even once, other than some politically correct American tomes that say "But religious people believe otherwise and they're entitled to their beliefs". The fact that you can't square your holy book with easily demonstrated reality isn't realities problem.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: If its illegal to to promote discrimination "against" religious beliefs then evolution is doomed. It does just that. It attacks genesis.

The Lemon test allows for the government to teach and enact policies that impact religion, if the purpose and effect is primarily secular. The TOE passes this test. In teaching it, we have the secular purpose and effect of teaching kids what mainstream science says about how species developed. If that impacts some religious theories, too bad so sad. The same, incidentally, is true for religions (such as Hinduism) that posit an eternal or cyclical. We teach BBT, and too bad so sad for the religions that don't think that's right. And why can we do that? Because the BBT is mainstream science's best supported theory, so teaching it has a secular purpose and effect, so it doesn't matter if it opposes some religion's beliefs.

Just Bob said: Robert Byers: what processes do you think "scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes" refers to? I bet you're in favor of this law. If you were a teacher, which process(es) would you believe the law says you should not "focus on"?

Robert Byers said:

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: If its illegal to to promote discrimination "against" religious beliefs then evolution is doomed. It does just that. It attacks genesis.

It does no such thing. It provides an explanation for how life works based on objective evidence. Textbooks all over the planet teach evolution without mentioning Genesis even once, other than some politically correct American tomes that say "But religious people believe otherwise and they're entitled to their beliefs". The fact that you can't square your holy book with easily demonstrated reality isn't realities problem.

In fact it does attack Genesis etc. It says the well known idea of origins is wrong.

Its teaching to kids that religious claims are wrong. In fact they usually press this point in many ways.

Anyways the banning of rebuttal is a even greater state claim of what is true. So what is not true is what is banned.

So discrimination against some religious conclusions. Can't beat the equation here. No neutrality is going on here.

Robert Byers said: If its illegal to to promote discrimination "against" religious beliefs then evolution is doomed. It does just that. It attacks genesis. This all shows again its impossible for the state to be neutral on origin conclusions IF its controlling content of teaching. if it says evolution is true and bans creationism then its making a official conclusion since the object is to teach what happened back in the day. Censoring God/Genesis is DISCRIMINATION. how not?

Robert Byers said:Its teaching to kids that religious claims are wrong.

Robert Byers said: In fact it does attack Genesis etc. It says the well known idea of origins is wrong. Its teaching to kids that religious claims are wrong. In fact they usually press this point in many ways.

I suppose we should stop teaching physics, because that clearly attacks the idea of God stopping the sun for Joshua. Since the sun doesn't go around the Earth but vice-versa, God would actually have had to stop the Earth from turning and from going in orbit around the sun to make the sun appear to stand still. Momentum would have made this quite catastrophic for everybody who was on the Earth at the time.

Why doesn't Byers argue for consistency? Why single out evolution when it's physics that deals the majority of death blows to the Genesis account? Lest we forget, there's also the slew of problems with Noah's flood that physics throws up for us.

Byers, if you want to post anything in this thread again, answer the question. Why don't you have a beef with the basic physics we teach children in schools?

If somebody doesn't want science texts to contradict claims made by their religion, the obvious solution is to simply stop making claims that flatly contradict evidence-based conclusions.

Continuing to make those claims just tells sensible educated people that members of that religion don't have reliable judgment or education. (Say, wasn't there a Christian philosopher who said something pretty much like that?)

Or, here's a shorter way to put it:

The closed mouth gathers no foot.

Henry

Lest we forget, there’s also the slew of problems with Noah’s flood that physics throws up for us.

ksplawn said: I suppose we should stop teaching physics,

ksplawn said: I suppose we should stop teaching physics, because that clearly attacks the idea of God stopping the sun for Joshua. Since the sun doesn't go around the Earth but vice-versa, God would actually have had to stop the Earth from turning and from going in orbit around the sun to make the sun appear to stand still.

In a naive view of things, all it would take is for the Earth to stop rotating to give the appearance of the Sun (and the Moon, too - the Bible says that both the Sun and the Moon stopped) standing still. Earth’s orbital motion would not be implicated.

Wait, I just realized something else - the sun and moon normally cross the sky at different rates, with the moon being a bit slower than the sun.

So changing only the rotation of Earth could not equalize the apparent motion of those two objects; something else would have had to be changed too to get that effect.

Henry J said: So changing only the rotation of Earth could not equalize the apparent motion of those two objects; something else would have had to be changed too to get that effect.

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: If its illegal to to promote discrimination "against" religious beliefs then evolution is doomed. It does just that. It attacks genesis. This all shows again its impossible for the state to be neutral on origin conclusions IF its controlling content of teaching. if it says evolution is true and bans creationism then its making a official conclusion since the object is to teach what happened back in the day. Censoring God/Genesis is DISCRIMINATION. how not?

There are Christians, serious, intelligent Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that the Earth is unmoving in space and that the Sun and Moon make daily orbits of the Earth. And they believe that is true. Is it discrimination against their religion to teach that the Earth makes a daily rotation and moves just like other planets of Solar System?

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: In fact it does attack Genesis etc. It says the well known idea of origins is wrong. Its teaching to kids that religious claims are wrong. In fact they usually press this point in many ways.

No. Again, evolution is simply a neutral fact. It's an objectively demonstrable thing, just like it's objectively demonstrable that, say, birds exist. The problem isn't the birds, but that you have a holy book that says "There are no birds". Maybe 90 percent of the other users of the same holy book look at the book, look at the bird up in the tree in their backyard, apply at least one brain cell and come to the conclusion "This is probably some sort of metaphor, and I should read it that way." You, on the other hand, have chosen a different strategy, which is to say "Nope. No such thing as birds. Says so right here in my book". And you know what, Beyers, I'm totally fine with that. You can believe any stupidity you want and I will totally defend your right to do so. The problem comes when you realize that there's a shitload of evidence that birds actually do exist, and if this information seeds itself into objective young minds it's going to be that much harder to pretend that they don't. So you go on a campaign insisting that somehow teaching simple, objective, well documented, easily demonstrable facts about science, in a class about science is an insufferable affront to your religion. The issue, Beyers, isn't that Evolution denies Genesis, it's that Genesis denies reality. Consequently, you want the rest of the world to stop teaching reality.

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: If its illegal to to promote discrimination "against" religious beliefs then evolution is doomed. It does just that. It attacks genesis. This all shows again its impossible for the state to be neutral on origin conclusions IF its controlling content of teaching. if it says evolution is true and bans creationism then its making a official conclusion since the object is to teach what happened back in the day. Censoring God/Genesis is DISCRIMINATION. how not?

There are Christians, serious, intelligent Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that the Earth is unmoving in space and that the Sun and Moon make daily orbits of the Earth. And they believe that is true. Is it discrimination against their religion to teach that the Earth makes a daily rotation and moves just like other planets of Solar System?

Yes. It can't be helped that if the state is involved in controlling content based on religion but claims neutrality then it can't ban any options by any religion. The state is not to pick sides they say in order to censor creationism. Yet in fact its picking sides in banning because the purpose of the schools is to teach the truth on some subject. The remedy is freedom and/or public control of education content. Not these illegal post www11 attempts to use the constitution to ban creationism.

Robert Byers said: [ underlining added ]

TomS said: There are Christians, serious, intelligent Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that the Earth is unmoving in space and that the Sun and Moon make daily orbits of the Earth. And they believe that is true. Is it discrimination against their religion to teach that the Earth makes a daily rotation and moves just like other planets of Solar System?

Yes. It can't be helped that if the state is involved in controlling content based on religion but claims neutrality then it can't ban any options by any religion. The state is not to pick sides they say in order to censor creationism. Yet in fact its picking sides in banning because the purpose of the schools is to teach the truth on some subject. The remedy is freedom and/or public control of education content. Not these illegal post www11 attempts to use the constitution to ban creationism.

@Scott F:

That comment is so good that I'll overlook the fact that it is still technically "feeding." In hopes of avoiding another request for "food", I take it that that you were being tongue-in-cheek in saying that scientists voted for evolution.

As you know, one of the biggest misconceptions among nonscientists, including unfortunately many who accept evolution, is that scientists "vote" on their explanations. A too-well-kept secret is that, if the evidence would let them, most evolutionary biologists would not vote for evolution, but for a new explanation, as it would make the research far more interesting and rewarding.

Note to readers: You heard it from the "authority": teaching heliocentrism is "censorship." Now pay close attention to how the "authority" responds to Scott's other points. And don't expect a straight answer before World War Eleven. :-)

Robert Byers said: We don't advocate censorship. Only equal time.

You say there are birds and if we try to teach there are not birds you DON'T make your case but instead ban our opinion from being taught. Its you censoring.

Frank J. said: That comment is so good that I’ll overlook the fact that it is still technically “feeding.”

I agree. No one should respond to booby again on any thread until he answers the questions posed by Scott. He has painted himself into a very uncomfortable corner. Let's see how long it takes him to realize that he is full of crap and always has been. I'm betting he will never admit it. But then again, thanks to Scott, even the most casual observer can not help but recognize the vacuity of booby's position. Let's rub it in his face every time he tries to spout his nonsense here.

its a different interpretation of whats in the trees. Your insisting on your conclusion being true and censoring, in schools, opposition.

Frank J said: Note to readers: You heard it from the "authority": teaching heliocentrism is "censorship." Now pay close attention to how the "authority" responds to Scott's other points. And don't expect a straight answer before World War Eleven. :-)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

its a different interpretation of whats in the trees. Your insisting on your conclusion being true and censoring, in schools, opposition.

It's lying bullshit, not a different interpretation. Evolutionary theory was produced from the evidence. "Your interpretation" was produced from imagination and is now imposed upon the evidence. There is no equivalence between the one honest process, and your transparently dishonest "process" of insisting on something contrary to the evidence. This gets back to the importance of process, since it is what distinguishes science from your lying bullshit. It's not only contrary to religious freedom to impose your lying bullshit on kids at government expense, it is extremely wrong to teach kids lying bullshit as if it were science, or even as a "different interpretation," when that is nothing other than dictating against the evidence what the conclusion must be. Glen Davidson

DS said: Booby has been asked repeatedly to explain the observed pattern, he never has. Now he won't answer a few simple questions. He is busted, shown to be the lying hypocrite he is. Maybe some day he will realize that not answering questions is almost as bad as answering them.

They come across, IMHO, as more intelligent, more informed, and - dare I say, more sincere - than the creationists. Unfortunately, they are all creationists, too...

— TomS

Robert Byers said: We don't advocate censorship. Only equal time. You say there are birds and if we try to teach there are not birds you DON'T make your case but instead ban our opinion from being taught. Its you censoring.

Then our position really is that there are birds but not the ones you say. its a different interpretation of whats in the trees. Your insisting on your conclusion being true and censoring, in schools, opposition.

Giving equal time to blatant propaganda would be censorship, since it would drastically reduce the time available to present the material the zealots want to suppress.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: [ underlining added ]

TomS said: There are Christians, serious, intelligent Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that the Earth is unmoving in space and that the Sun and Moon make daily orbits of the Earth. And they believe that is true. Is it discrimination against their religion to teach that the Earth makes a daily rotation and moves just like other planets of Solar System?

Yes. It can't be helped that if the state is involved in controlling content based on religion but claims neutrality then it can't ban any options by any religion. The state is not to pick sides they say in order to censor creationism. Yet in fact its picking sides in banning because the purpose of the schools is to teach the truth on some subject. The remedy is freedom and/or public control of education content. Not these illegal post www11 attempts to use the constitution to ban creationism.

I see. So, Robert, what I hear you saying is that state-run schools should not teach personal hygiene or teach anything about the germ theory of disease or teach doctors or nurses, because that would pick sides against those religions that believe that The Truth is that all disease is caused by sin, and that all disease is healed by prayer. Is that "the truth" that schools should teach? State-run schools should not teach that the Earth goes around the Sun, because that would pick sides against those religions that believe it does not. Should schools teach "the truth" that the Sun goes around the Earth once a day? State-run schools should not teach anything about electricity or movies or indoor plumbing or buttons, because that would pick sides against those religions that believe those things to be evil and the works of Satan. Should schools teach "the truth" that electricity is the work of Satan? State-run schools should not teach anything about Biblical Genesis, because that would pick sides against Hindus who believe that The Truth contradicts Genesis. Should state-run schools teach "the truth" that the universe is eternal or hundreds of billions of years old, because some religion believes that is "the truth"? I cannot think of a single subject that some religion somewhere would not object to. Can you? Which religion gets to decide which "truth" the state-run schools can teach? You? Christians? Muslims? Hindus? Quakers? Mormons? Seventh Day Adventists? Atheists? Jews? Scientologists? Christians? Why? Because there are more of them in this country? Are you saying that Might Makes Right? Are you saying that "The Truth" can be decided by a majority vote? That we can vote to decide if the Earth goes around the Sun, or vice versa? Maybe we can decide by majority vote if the Moon causes tides on the Earth. Fox News teaches that we don't know what causes the tides. Let's put that question to a vote, and then teach that as "The Truth". After all, that's how you believe that science is done. Right? Scientists get together, and they all vote on what "The Truth" is. Right? Well, scientists have voted. Evolution is "The Truth".

So that would be a no.. Booby refuses to answer the questions, can't even be bothered to try to answer one.

Meanwhile booby is guilty of censorship of every other religious idea of origins. He is the one advocating censorship. How can he deny everyone else? He defends his censorship on freedom grounds. I am pointing out the error and absurdity of his position.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: We don't advocate censorship. Only equal time.

Equal time is impossible, as there are tens if not hundreds of world religions with different creation stories. If we did equal time, biology would consist of (approximately) 18 1-week units each going over a different creation story, and no actual biology getting taught. What you want is exceptional treatment. You want your creation story given preference over other religions' creation stories.

You say there are birds and if we try to teach there are not birds you DON'T make your case but instead ban our opinion from being taught. Its you censoring.

What a great example. Yes, I think the state has the right to exclude theories that say birds don't exist. When some idea is very far out of mainstream acceptance, the school system has a secular and non-discriminatory reason for not teaching it: there are too many ideas to cover them all, the state must prioritize which ideas it teaches, and teaching the ones most accepted by experts in that field makes reasonable sense. You teach the history that historians teach is true. The civics that political scientists, lawyers, and election officials follow. The earth history that scientists use. You don't teach taht the moon landing was faked, that the CIA assassinated Kennedy, or that the first amendment only applies to Christianity. Sure, those are ideas that are out there - some people believe them. But the school system cannot teach everything that people believe, it has to make decisions. And its reasonable to decide to teach mainstream history, mainstream civics, mainstream science.

Frank J. said: That comment is so good that I’ll overlook the fact that it is still technically “feeding.”

As long as Robert makes on-topic comments, I think its not feeding but rather encouraging positive behavior. :)

evidence for creationism is off topic here. This is about school censorship.
The reason creationism is banned is not because of limited evidence. Its banned from the star because they say religious conclusions are banned.
So religious conclusions must not be true in these subjects dealing with whats true!!
So the state is saying religious decisions are not true. so breaking the state/church separation concept.
The state is illegal in its censorship. Not just crazy wrongheaded.

Frank J said: @Scott F: That comment is so good that I'll overlook the fact that it is still technically "feeding." In hopes of avoiding another request for "food", I take it that that you were being tongue-in-cheek in saying that scientists voted for evolution.

Robert Byers said: anyways the point is the constitution is the power behind the censorship. agree to get rid of that and then let the state decide issues of content control.

Robert Byers said: evidence for creationism is off topic here. This is about school censorship. The reason creationism is banned is not because of limited evidence. Its banned from the star because they say religious conclusions are banned. So religious conclusions must not be true in these subjects dealing with whats true!! So the state is saying religious decisions are not true. so breaking the state/church separation concept. The state is illegal in its censorship. Not just crazy wrongheaded.

Robert Byers said: evidence for creationism is off topic here.

Robert Byers said: ... The reason creationism is banned is not because of limited evidence. Its banned from the star because they say religious conclusions are banned.

Robert Byers said: So religious conclusions must not be true in these subjects dealing with whats true!! So the state is saying religious decisions are not true. so breaking the state/church separation concept. The state is illegal in its censorship. Not just crazy wrongheaded.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: evidence for creationism is off topic here. This is about school censorship. The reason creationism is banned is not because of limited evidence. Its banned from the star because they say religious conclusions are banned. So religious conclusions must not be true in these subjects dealing with whats true!! So the state is saying religious decisions are not true. so breaking the state/church separation concept. The state is illegal in its censorship. Not just crazy wrongheaded.

But Robert, religious decisions are not true. By definition. How can "truth" be decided by what religion you are? Is "truth" in America different than "truth" in India? Or in China? If something is "true", then it must be true for everyone, regardless of what religion they are. Otherwise, it cannot be "the truth".

ksplawn said: I suppose we should stop teaching physics, because that clearly attacks the idea of God stopping the sun for Joshua. Since the sun doesn't go around the Earth but vice-versa, God would actually have had to stop the Earth from turning and from going in orbit around the sun to make the sun appear to stand still. Momentum would have made this quite catastrophic for everybody who was on the Earth at the time. Why doesn't Byers argue for consistency? Why single out evolution when it's physics that deals the majority of death blows to the Genesis account? Lest we forget, there's also the slew of problems with Noah's flood that physics throws up for us. Byers, if you want to post anything in this thread again, answer the question. Why don't you have a beef with the basic physics we teach children in schools?

Robert, you claim that this is about censorship. You are wrong.

It can only be censorship if there are "facts", "truths" that the government is preventing from being taught.

It is a fact that some Christians believe that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. That is a fact, and public schools are allowed to teach this, and do teach this without any repercussions.

It is a fact that some Hindus believe that the universe was created (again) several hundred billion years ago. that is a fact, and public schools are allowed to teach this, and do this without any repercussions.

It is a fact that every religion has its own, separate, typically unique creation story about how the world came to be, and about how all of the gods in and out of the world interact with the world. These are facts, and public schools are allowed to teach these facts, and do teach them without any repercussions. (I have personally taken such courses, and they are very enlightening. I strongly recommend them.)

That is not censorship.

It is a scientific fact that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. It is a scientific fact that the universe is about 13 billion years old.

These are facts, and public schools are allowed to teach these facts, and do so without any repercussions.

Bring some facts to the public table, and public schools will teach those facts without any censorship or repercussions.

That's what makes them "public". That's what makes them "schools".

Robert Byers said: evidence for creationism is off topic here. This is about school censorship. The reason creationism is banned is not because of limited evidence.

There is no sense trying to have a conversation with someone who refuses to answer questions. His refusal to do so condemns him. Time to ban the boob and dump all his crap to the bathroom wall where it belongs. I know, it's "censorship". So be it. He asked for it.

I know, it’s “censorship”.

— DS

stevaroni said: It's actually quite baffling. If the world is, indeed, the product of a Genesis-type creation, the evidence should be - literally - everywhere. The geological column everywhere should show the existence of a great flood. There should be a 100 foot-thick layer of mud almost anywhere you dig, filled with the muddled remains of dinosaurs, dolphins and douglass firs.

gnome de net said: ...and people! Don't forget all those poor wicked sinners who perished in the flood, their fossilized remains lying among their fossilized pet dinosaurs.

stevaroni said:

gnome de net said: ...and people! Don't forget all those poor wicked sinners who perished in the flood, their fossilized remains lying among their fossilized pet dinosaurs.

That's right, of course, and among their number are all those men and women who worked alongside the Noah for decades toiling to build the Ark with them. After all, every picture I've ever seen of the Ark under construction shows a very large workforce, for instance this lovely image AiG generously provides as inspirational wallpaper. too bad all those workers, who were probably lifelong friends of the Noahs, and apparently all the children and infants of those workers were too evil to be worth saving. And after all, space on the Ark was a precious thing that had to be saved for 2000 kinds of ticks and a dozen different species of pubic lice.

TomS said: BTW, I do wonder about need to take all the waterfowl.

TomS said: BTW, I do wonder about need to take all the waterfowl.

stevaroni said:

TomS said: BTW, I do wonder about need to take all the waterfowl.

And the pit vipers. Why bring the pit vipers? What was Noah thinking with that one? Yes, yes, I know he was told to bring two of everything, but really, who would have missed them?

TomS said: There was no carnivory before the Flood...

Scott F said: Robert, you claim that this is about censorship. You are wrong. It can only be censorship if there are "facts", "truths" that the government is preventing from being taught. It is a fact that some Christians believe that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. That is a fact, and public schools are allowed to teach this, and do teach this without any repercussions. It is a fact that some Hindus believe that the universe was created (again) several hundred billion years ago. that is a fact, and public schools are allowed to teach this, and do this without any repercussions. It is a fact that every religion has its own, separate, typically unique creation story about how the world came to be, and about how all of the gods in and out of the world interact with the world. These are facts, and public schools are allowed to teach these facts, and do teach them without any repercussions. (I have personally taken such courses, and they are very enlightening. I strongly recommend them.) That is not censorship. It is a scientific fact that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. It is a scientific fact that the universe is about 13 billion years old. These are facts, and public schools are allowed to teach these facts, and do so without any repercussions. Bring some facts to the public table, and public schools will teach those facts without any censorship or repercussions. That's what makes them "public". That's what makes them "schools".

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: evidence for creationism is off topic here. This is about school censorship. The reason creationism is banned is not because of limited evidence.

No, Robert, evidence for creationism is not off topic. Evidence for creation, or rather the total, utter lack of it, is the very core of the topic itself. The reason evolution can be taught in schools and creationism cannot is because evolution is based on actual evidence. It is therefore a fact, and facts are religiously neutral, if sometimes theologically inconvenient to faiths that choose to pick a fight with reality. The reason creationism cannot be taught in schools is that creationism has no objective basis in demonstrable, fact-based reality. It has no apparent support whatsoever outside of a religious framework. It is therefore religion and hence, cannot be taught any more than Muhammads nighttime ride can be presented as actual history or students can be led in the practice Buddhism in lieu of gym class.. Evidence for creation is, in fact, your central problem, Robby. Without it, your creation story is classed as myth, along with the creation stories of a thousand other religions. But with it, your creation story becomes history and, according to the Lemon test, you can subsequently demand to have it taught far and wide o'er the land. If you can just find some, just one teeny, tiny little speck of objective, demonstrable evidence that the Earth was created a la' Genesis, then your're golden here Robby. So, um, just why do you think none of the brightest thinkers in the history of mankind have managed to come up with absolutely no evidence that the biggest, most important events in planetary - nay, universal- history ever actually happened?

Robert Byers said: Evidence for creationist ish themes is illegal or rather censored in classes. Thats what these dover trials etc were all about.

Shorter Byers:

"I don't have a helmet*, or shoulder pads, or cleats, or a ball, and I don't know the rules but YOU'RE CENSORING FOOTBALL!!!!ONE!!!"

*(actually he probably has to wear one before they let him outside.)

Robert Byers said: Any of our facts are ruled out right at the gate.

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Any of our facts are ruled out right at the gate.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to refresh our memories and list some of those facts.

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Any of our facts are ruled out right at the gate.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to refresh our memories and list some of those facts.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: Evidence for creationist ish themes is illegal or rather censored in classes. Thats what these dover trials etc were all about.

No, Robert. The Dover trial was an opportunity. You keep telling me about censorship. Well, in Dover you had a shot. You had a fair venue where you could actually present your evidence in a neutral environment where you were on the official record and nobody could shut you up till you were done talking. Even if the proceeding was rigged, you would still have your case on the record in front of all those cameras and microphones. That's what you want, remember, Robert? You keep telling me you want to get past all those pesky censors and get your story out. Well, you had an entire year to plan your case, to put forth your best evidence. That's what the evolution side did. the judge, a conservative appointee of a republican president commented that the science side was remarkably informative "The science education I wish I had had back in school". And when the intelligent design side stood to present their case - to put their evidence on the table, an action that would have fulfilled the Lemon test and allowed their side to win.... Well, when that time came, their star witness, "Wild Bill" Dembski refused to testify because he knew he'd be cross examined under oath and therefore couldn't lie, and your backup witness, Michael "Flagellum" Behe was forced to do his calculations in public and concede that not only was mutation happening at rate well in excess of what he portrayed in his books, but that the unexplainable examples in his books had been quite well document and were, in fact, eminently well understood to anyone working in the field. Again, and I'll make this as simple as I possibly can... All you have to do to teach creationism in classes all over the land is to actually demonstrate that it's a real thing. You want to make this about censorship, but the only censorship that actually happens is the simple requirement to put some evidence on the table. In the current political climate, virtually any scrap of actual evidence would give you the buy-in to win a court case. And yet, you always fail.

Robert Byers said: ...ID was censored because the incompetent judge said it was not science THEREFORE it was religious.

"we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a strong official endorsement of religion" (Judgement, section E, part 2)

It was its being RELIGIOUS that kept the censorship policy on it.

So they are saying religious origin conclusions are wrong because its absurd to ban a option in a class about teaching the truth.

So the state breaks its own law.!! I think i'm right here.

So booby still won't answer any questions, still keeps yammering that he is right, still insists that he is being censored. He could keep this up for years. Wait, he already has. Yea, that's real censorship booby boy. You break your own law!

Robert Byers said: First things first. ID was censored because the incompetent judge said it was not science THEREFORE it was religious. It was its being RELIGIOUS that kept the censorship policy on it.

ID was censored because the incompetent judge said it was not science THEREFORE it was religious.

stevaroni said: More importantly, Why don't you even try"? Why does AiG spend millions fighting "censorship" in court, but almost nothing on actual physical research? Research that could instantly make all those expensive legal fights obsolete? Methinks that speaks volumes all by itself. It's... well... it's almost as if they already know that they won't actually find anything.

First things first. ID was censored...

— Robert Byers

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Any of our facts are ruled out right at the gate.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to refresh our memories and list some of those facts.

Need oxygen yet?

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: First things first. ID was censored because the incompetent judge said it was not science THEREFORE it was religious. It was its being RELIGIOUS that kept the censorship policy on it.

Yes, Robert. Once again, you have a perfect grasp of the issue without even realizing it. I will go slowly, as though I am talking to a child, because apparently you just cannot get your head around this one. Please read carefully, for comprehension. The Judge says ID is not science. This is convenient since ID is, in fact, not science. ID is not science since its proponents steadfastly refuse to provide any demonstrable facts or actual evidence and therefore there is no way to verify it. The ability to actually verify facts, which we colloquially call "examining evidence" and "testing" is, simply, the actual basis of science. Those beliefs which have no evidentiary underpinning, or, in fact take a position in opposition to existing evidence are simply not "fact". You can call them beliefs, or religions, or sploofdoodle if you like, but you cannot call them science. Let's go back to your complaint for a second....

ID was censored because the incompetent judge said it was not science THEREFORE it was religious.

The way to cure this pesky little problem seems glaringly obvious. All you have to do is demonstrate that your claim has some factual underpinning. It then ceases to be "religion" and instantly becomes that magical thing called "objective fact" and you may then demand it be taught far and wide o'er the land. You just need to move it from "Column A" to "Column B", and it should be trivial to do that. Creationists tell me all the time that Genesis is literally true. The earth is only 6000 years old. We are all descended from two original humans that wore fig leafs and used dinosaurs like draft animals. There was a worldwide flood in the middle of the bronze age. Three hundred years later half a million Jews left Egypt in a huff and wandered around the Sinai for 40 years. God messes with the physical constants of the universe and the speed of light so the stars look old. All of these things, and a million more related by Genesis, supposedly actually happened. So if all of this stuff was an actual thing, it should have left some physical evidence. Again, Robert, in your world the fingerprint of God should be literally everywhere. It should be impossible to miss. The pattern of oilfields should match predictable flood geography, not a billion-year tectonic march. DNA should present some evidence of special, individual, creations, not a slow, steady drift from one source. Someone, somewhere should have be digging up a building foundation right now that just turned up a corral of dinosaurs in draft gear in a thick layer of Noachic mud. This is all you need, Robert. You just need one little incontrovertible fact to move ID from the religion column to the science column and your problem will evaporate like the tears of liberal heathens on the front steps of a southern courthouse in August. And yet.... When you actually have a venue to do that, loudly and publicly, like at Dover, or many times before that, such as in Edwards v. Aguillard, when you have a chance to make your case that Creations science is actually science you still fail miserably. Why is that, Bobby? Why, oh why has it been so totally impossible to just check that one little box that says "Yup, ID is a real thing. Here's the evidence".? More importantly, Why don't you even try"? Why does AiG spend millions fighting "censorship" in court, but almost nothing on actual physical research? Research that could instantly make all those expensive legal fights obsolete? Methinks that speaks volumes all by itself. It's... well... it's almost as if they already know that they won't actually find anything.

Robert Byers said: Any of our facts are ruled out right at the gate.

Robert Byers also said: truth, Christianity, freedom, science knowledge, are on our side.

You can repeat it as many times as you want bobby boy, but claiming that the facts are on your side and refusing to provide any isn't going to fool anyone. Answer the questions, provide the facts or STFU. Why do you censor yourself? Why do you prevent yourself from answering the questions? You are the censor! You bobby, no one else.

Robert Byers said:

I think you agree with me.

Probably not. That would likely be a sign the end of days is nigh.

YES. ID was said first not to be science THEREFORE it was judged to be religion in its investigation and conclusion.

Hmmm. maybe the end of days is nigh. Go on....

that was this crazy judgement . It could be just incompetent science or incompetence in knowing what science is! it doesn't prove its religious in its essence of investigation.

Ah, the crux of the craziness. No, Robert, the problem is that the court did know what science is. Science is the explanation of the world based on investigation of facts, as determined by testing evidence. The essence of religion is clinging to explanations in spite of countervailing evidence.

The court was censoring conclusions. it was saying its illegal to come to conclusions that God/Genesis are true or simply independent claims that evolution is not true.

No, No, No. No. The court was censoring process. The court was censoring teaching children a fact-adverse version of reality for reasons that had nothing to do with science education and apparently everything to do with religious motivation. As I have said over and over, if you had conclusions based on evidence those conclusions are not religion. Even if they support your religion, they are still objective fact and can be taught in any school in the land. There are, I would point out, many religions, like the billion-member Roman Catholic church, that do see the Big Bang as the penultimate demonstration of the glory of God. And regard evolution as a directed, elegant process demonstrative of a masterful engineer. The fact that a particular sect feels evolution is, or isn't real isn't the issue.

The court was... saying its illegal to come to conclusions that God/Genesis are true or simply independent claims that evolution is not true.... therefore the court/state is saying these conclusions are false.

No, No, No. No. The court was saying that the "conclusions" of intelligent design were vacuous, totally devoid of any evidentiary backup. Courts tend to be sticklers about that whole "evidence" thing, Robert, and your side always seems to bring exactly none.

Time for a showdown. A high noon.

Fine. You gonna bring some evidence this time or what? Here's a question. A simple, simple, simple question. Assume that you're standing in front of a federal court now, in a case similar to Dover. There are, let's be honest, many, many courts in the land who are quite sympathetic to your cause, and there are many many school boards who would acquiesce to your demands if only to make the issue go away. You can get your way if you can get past the Lemon test. And the Lemon test is clear. Contrary to your constant whining, you can teach Creationism, you can teach Intelligent Design, you just need to be able to back them up with some evidence. Having some evidence instantly moves CS or ID from the "religion" column to the neutral fact column, and bada bing - bada boom, as soon as you can say "wasted education" Pandas and People is on little Johnny's official reading list. So here's the question. You're in the courtroom. make your case that creationism is objectively real. Present your evidence. Don't whine about censorship. Don't whine about unfairness. Don't fucking whine about anything. Just put your fucking evidence on the fucking table and fucking pass the fucking Lemon test. Just complete this sentence "Intelligent design is an actual true thing, and to back that up I offer the following hard data......"

Robert Byers said: I think you agree with me.

YES. ID was said first not to be science THEREFORE it was judged to be religion in its investigation and conclusion.

that was this crazy judgement . It could be just incompetent science or incompetence in knowing what science is! it doesn't prove its religious in its essence of investigation.

The court was censoring conclusions. it was saying its illegal to come to conclusions that God/Genesis are true or simply independent claims that evolution is not true.

The court was... saying its illegal to come to conclusions that God/Genesis are true or simply independent claims that evolution is not true.... therefore the court/state is saying these conclusions are false.

Time for a showdown. A high noon.

You can repeat it as many times as you want...

— DS

Having some evidence instantly moves CS or ID from the “religion” column to the neutral fact column, and bada bing - bada boom, as soon as you can say “wasted education” Pandas and People is on little Johnny’s official reading list.

— stevaroni

Still no reply from booby. I guess he is still censoring himself.

stevearoni.
you make my case.
you said iF i can't back up YEC/ID with evidence then its back into the religious column.
Thats what these courts said.
Its because ID is religious that its banned.
Thats the equation here.
Nothing to do with science.
ID could be bad science, poor science, etcand still be legal.
yet the court said iTS not science THEREFORE its religion in its investigative competence.
First its not. its based on the evidence of nature or the evidence of nature in attacking evolution.
This courts are science judgers uniquely in these cases because its a either/or situation to them.
They attack the moral and intellectual credibility of ID/YEC by saying our positions are based on bible verses or ideas about God existing .
NOT about natures evidence. even if wrong.
If evolutionists agreed with these courts they should never argue/debate/rebuke ID/YEC on the basis its just religion in its investigative process.
IN fact ID/YEC are called incompetent researchers but not NON researchers.!

nptwithstanding all this.
the court banns iD/yEC in classes about seeking the truth on origins and so its saying creationism9s) are not true.
so breaking their own law.
Its all dumb stupid jurisprudence.
its absurd, arrogant, for these judges to say iD/YEC researchers are not investigating competently and sincere about it.
These judges have no right to judge science merit.
Why just this case?
Because they really are judging ID/YEC is religious. Then they censor it.
This will be beat once enough people care to stop this abuse of the state.

So that's why you won't provide any evidence, because you don't want to stop being considered religion and you don't want to be considered science? Why do you censor yourself? Why don;t you let yourself present the evidence? Come on booby, we're all waiting. Just try, just once. Stop the censorship!

So Robert: is ID religious, or isn't it?

If it is, you can't teach it in science class because it's not science.

If it's not, put some frickin' evidence on the table already. No-one has done this yet.

It's not about "interpretation", Robert. If it's scientific evidence,, it should be understood and repeatable by Christians, atheists, agnostics, wiccans, druids, Shintoists... etc....

How is this not clear to you?

Robert Byers said: stevearoni. you make my case. you said iF i can't back up YEC/ID with evidence then its back into the religious column. Thats what these courts said. Its because ID is religious that its banned. Thats the equation here. Nothing to do with science. ID could be bad science, poor science, etcand still be legal. yet the court said iTS not science THEREFORE its religion in its investigative competence. First its not. its based on the evidence of nature or the evidence of nature in attacking evolution. This courts are science judgers uniquely in these cases because its a either/or situation to them. They attack the moral and intellectual credibility of ID/YEC by saying our positions are based on bible verses or ideas about God existing . NOT about natures evidence. even if wrong. If evolutionists agreed with these courts they should never argue/debate/rebuke ID/YEC on the basis its just religion in its investigative process. IN fact ID/YEC are called incompetent researchers but not NON researchers.!

Even if he did, it would only be a lack of reasoning.

Er, I mean, line of reasoning.

You see, Robert Byers, it is damn near unanimous. If you want to
be a scientist, you must have actual evidence.

You claim that there is evidence, but you can't show any.
You insist that design is real, but you can't put any money where your mouth is. You believe that design is real, but you cannot
give one single solitary piece of testable evidence to back that up.

I say you are either a liar, or you are too stupid to know
reality when it pokes you in the eye. There is no evidence for design. No matter how much you want to believe in your cargo-cult pseudo-science of design, it simply is not real.

Just like gods, Byers. Just like gods.

Robert Byers should have said: Its because ID is religious that its banned from science classes.

Robert Byers said: stevearoni. you make my case. you said iF i can't back up YEC/ID with evidence then its back into the religious column.... ( Several hundred words of screechy stuff go here ) ... This will be beat once enough people care to stop this abuse of the state.

This courts are science judgers uniquely in these cases because its a either/or situation to them.

Even if wrong, if evolutionists agreed with these courts they should never argue/debate/rebuke ID/YEC on the basis its just religion in its investigative process.

IN fact ID/YEC are called incompetent researchers but not NON researchers.!

IN fact ID/YEC are called incompetent researchers but not NON researchers.!

All right, I admit it. I am the one who is censoring booby. I have deleted every single post that he has ever made that has presented any evidence for creationism. It was tough, since I have absolutely no control whatsoever over any posts here, but somehow I did it. I completely censored any attempt by booby to present any evidence for creationism of any kind whatsoever. He loses. He will always lose. Just as long as I am able, I will continue to censor him. He cannot win against this evil conspiracy. Ever. No matter how hard he tries, I will always be there to delete all of the evidence, sometimes even before he posts it. That's how effective the evil conspiracy can be.

And it's not just booby. It has worked against every other creationist in every journal everywhere for over two hundred years! Man I'm good.

DS said: All right, I admit it. I am the one who is censoring booby. I have deleted every single post that he has ever made that has presented any evidence for creationism. It was tough, since I have absolutely no control whatsoever over any posts here, but somehow I did it. I completely censored any attempt by booby to present any evidence for creationism of any kind whatsoever. He loses. He will always lose. Just as long as I am able, I will continue to censor him. He cannot win against this evil conspiracy. Ever. No matter how hard he tries, I will always be there to delete all of the evidence, sometimes even before he posts it. That's how effective the evil conspiracy can be. And it's not just booby. It has worked against every other creationist in every journal everywhere for over two hundred years! Man I'm good.

DS said: And it's not just booby. It has worked against every other creationist in every journal everywhere for over two hundred years! Man I'm good.

All right, I admit it. I am the one who is censoring booby. I have deleted every single post that he has ever made that has presented any evidence for creationism. It was tough, since I have absolutely no control whatsoever over any posts here, but somehow I did it.

— DS

@DS:

I see that you're a selective censor, in that you allowed 2 of Robert's replies to stevaroni that postdate my question. I guess you're also the one responsible for deleting Paul Nelson's reply on a PT thread a few years ago when I asked him whether he was an Omphalos creationist. All he had to do was say yes or no. And maybe he did, and you deleted it. But you left his replies to others that postate my question.

And speaking of Nelson, how's that "Ontogenetic Depth" "theory" that you hijacked from him 10 years ago? ;-)

Go ahead booby, try to post some evidence. I dare you. I will delete it before you even type it. You cannot post any evidence as long as I am here to censor you. You can try and try and try, but everyone will see that you have no hope against the evilution conspiracy. You will never win as long as you are so effectively censored. (Laughs sarcastically while curling mustache al la Snidely Whiplash).

DS said: All right, I admit it. I am the one who is censoring booby. I have deleted every single post that he has ever made that has presented any evidence for creationism. It was tough, since I have absolutely no control whatsoever over any posts here, but somehow I did it. I completely censored any attempt by booby to present any evidence for creationism of any kind whatsoever. He loses. He will always lose. Just as long as I am able, I will continue to censor him. He cannot win against this evil conspiracy. Ever. No matter how hard he tries, I will always be there to delete all of the evidence, sometimes even before he posts it. That's how effective the evil conspiracy can be. And it's not just booby. It has worked against every other creationist in every journal everywhere for over two hundred years! Man I'm good.

Hey man, I had nothin to do with that. I only censor evidence, that's all that matters. You got a hypothesis, a real honest to goodness scientific hypothesis, let's hear it. Course it ain't nothin without no evidence no how. That's where I come in. I ain't ascared of no hypothesis. But then again, if you never put forward a scientifc hypothesis, well then I guess you got nothin to test anyhow now does ya? No wonder I don't actually have to do nothin to censor no evidences. It just seems to happen all by itself.

DS said: It just seems to happen all by itself.

Mike Elzinga said:

DS said: It just seems to happen all by itself.

ID/creationist "theories" are unique in being self-stultifying. No other theories have that property.

fnxtr said: So Robert: is ID religious, or isn't it? If it is, you can't teach it in science class because it's not science. If it's not, put some frickin' evidence on the table already. No-one has done this yet. It's not about "interpretation", Robert. If it's scientific evidence,, it should be understood and repeatable by Christians, atheists, agnostics, wiccans, druids, Shintoists... etc.... How is this not clear to you?

Stevearoni.
Your misunderstanding the legal decision here.
The court did not find iD not to be science THEREFORE its illegal.
The court/state has no right to ban non science or make any opinion at all.
What they found was that SINCE id is not science THEREFORE its religious ideas.
Thats what they have the right to ban in schools.
Watch the equation here.
you keep saying iD must prove its science. it doesn't .
ID must prove only its not religious in its methodology and conclusions.
this is why these Judges are laughable incompetent.
ID is obviously not religious doctrines but exactly what it is. Investigation and conclusion that nature shows a complexity needing a thinker and that evolution is flawed.

I add myself that banning ID as religion is itself illegal by the very law invoked for the banning.
Its all crazy stupid censorship to attack christianity and control content in schools on matters the state cares about.
every angle on these matters makes absurd the embracing of censorship by the courts/state/evolution defenders.

A bigger court case is needed to overthrow this dictatorship of conclusions affecting religion, truth, scientific enquiry.
A separation of school and state is needed.

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said:

DS said: It just seems to happen all by itself.

ID/creationist "theories" are unique in being self-stultifying. No other theories have that property.

Theories cannot appear from nothing. (They don't create themselves.) I can't imagine how that would happen by chance. (Therefore, of course, it can't.) ID/creationist "theories" are offered "as is". Without that understanding, a theory would be expected to be fit for some purpose (such as an alternative to evolution) or with the prospect of being relevant to something (such as the variety of life) or to be able to react to evidence (whether confirming, modifying, or disconfirming).

Dr. Purdom’s scientific research focuses on the roles of natural selection and mutation in microbial populations. She seeks to understand the original, created, "very good" roles of bacteria in the pre-Fall world and genetic mechanisms that have led to their adaptations and pathogenicity in a post-Fall world.

Robert Byers said: Stevearoni. Your misunderstanding the legal decision here.

The court did not find iD not to be science THEREFORE its illegal.

From Kitzmiller vs Dover (page 43) The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 86) The one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.

Robert Byers said: The court/state has no right to ban non science or make any opinion at all.

From Lemon V. Kurtzman (test 2, the "Effect Prong") 'The statute must not advance or inhibit religious practice.' (test 3, the "purpose Prong") 'The statute must have a secular purpose.' From Mclean V. Arkansas "the Act was passed with the specific purpose by the General Assembly of advancing religion," ..... "it violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause." From Kitzmiller v. Dover "Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause."

Robert Byers said: Watch the equation here. you keep saying iD must prove its science. it doesn't . ID must prove only its not religious in its methodology and conclusions.

ID is obviously not religious doctrines but exactly what it is. Investigation and conclusion that nature shows a complexity needing a thinker and that evolution is flawed.

From Kitzmiller (page 26) "A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 31) "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism." (page 46) ... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (page 89) ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

stevaroni said: Sigh. Robert, Robert, Robert, ...

Mike Elzinga said: For example, this is how another ID/creationist describes ID/creationist type research.

Dr. Purdom’s scientific research focuses on the roles of natural selection and mutation in microbial populations. She seeks to understand the original, created, "very good" roles of bacteria in the pre-Fall world and genetic mechanisms that have led to their adaptations and pathogenicity in a post-Fall world.

What kind of research question is that? Outline a research program complete with needed with equipment, staffing requirements, a budget, and an estimated timeline. The answer is a forgone conclusion; those "bad" bacteria were in the saliva of Adam and Eve when they bit into that apple. They are the "fallen" bacteria that nibbled on the apple. Why did the bacteria get punished along with all the other non-humans and plants on the planet? Did the deity ever tell all the animals, plants, and bacteria what would happen? Outline a research program that will answer those questions. Guess what that "research program" will be: "Properly" read the holy book to generate the answer that comports with sectarian dogma.

Mike Elzinga said: Seriously; does anybody really believe he is capable of understanding anything?

Mike Elzinga said: Seriously; does anybody really believe he is capable of understanding anything?

stevaroni said: I just want to check - Robert is real, right?

I kind of enjoy jousting with him - even though I know it has all the effect of explaining things to my cat, I feel it still makes my debate skills sharper.

Still, even though I see him in other blogs, somehow it's always a bit hard to believe that any actual human being can be this perpetually dense.

I sometimes suspect that "Robert Beyers" is actually a pseudonym for some kind of performance artist.

stevaroni said: ... it's always a bit hard to believe that any actual human being can be this perpetually dense.

Man I got busy last night and didn't get a chance to censor booby. I see he didn't post any evidence anyway. That was a close one. If he had known that I wasn't watching, I'm sure he would have given it a try. After all, he keeps talking about all the reams of data he has supporting his ideas. He must be desperate to get it all past the censors so it can have a fair trial in the market place of public opinion.

And just for the record booby, saying that something is religion id not saying that it is wrong, it is saying that it isn't science. When you can admit that you understand that, maybe someone will care what you think. Until then, STFU.

stevearonie

It doesan't say what you think it says.
The court has no say in science education. By constitution or anything.
it only is used to ban religious teachings.
Yes the court opined ID was not science but thats not the reason for the court censorship.
Its BECAUSE its not science THEREFORE the court ALSO found it to be religious conclusions/methodology etc.
So on this it was banned.
lets get this right.

Creationists rightly say our stuff is science but thats beside the issue here.
The courts make the accusation against the scholarship of iD researchers that their conclusions are from religious presumptions and not natures evidence. The court judges absurdly iD researchers.
The court is judging academic qualifications uniquely.

The court admits its not to interfere with religion but then allows evolution without criticism being allowed.

anyways its about who judges if ID/YEC is science.
the court can't. The state can but from public involvement. Thats fine.

The point here is that religion is banned as options for origin conclusions.
This is itself a breaking of the law they invoke for the banning.
We must not stray here in judicial complexity.
In reality the constitution made no content control for schools.
the state is not everything the state pays for.
Education must be up to the people and not court dictated state control.
freedom will come when enough interest is there in these matters.

I compliment you Stevearoni for trying to make your case. most evolutionists don't understand these things about law.
yet you must pay attention to what courts can ban. its not banning non science. its only banning religion.
These incompetent judges simply had to get out of the way that iD was science THEN attack it as religion.
A great insult to the integrity of mind and motive of iD researchers and YEC.
Courts do this all the time .

CENSORED!!!

(shrug) Yup. You can't teach your religion in science class. Or mine, if I had one. Or the Ayatollah's. Or Gandhi's. Suck it up, princess.

Robert Byers said: stevearonie It doesan't say what you think it says.

INCONCEIVABLE!!111!!!elEVen!!!!

Of course ID and creationism are religion - if Genesis wasn't a part of the Bible, then no one would object to evolution - just like they don't object to other scientific findings that don't conflict with a literal reading of the Bible. If the Bible said that mental illness were caused by demons (oh wait it does!?), then literalists would be calling for exorcism in the Affordable Care Act.

I have had creationists tell me that revelation trumps science and that is why evolution is wrong. But funny thing is literalists pick and choose what "revelations" to believe every day - they need to get over evolution and move on to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and housing the homeless.

Robert Byers said: I compliment you Stevearoni for trying to make your case. most evolutionists don't understand these things about law.

The court admits its not to interfere with religion but then allows evolution without criticism being allowed.

yet you must pay attention to what courts can ban. its not banning non science.

its only banning religion.

These incompetent judges simply had to get out of the way that iD was science THEN attack it as religion.

Mike Elzinga said:

stevaroni said: Sigh. Robert, Robert, Robert, ...

Seriously; does anybody really believe he is capable of understanding anything?

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: I compliment you Stevearoni for trying to make your case. most evolutionists don't understand these things about law.

Awww, shucks. You're so sweet sometimes, Robert. OK, so let's see what you've got today...

The court admits its not to interfere with religion but then allows evolution without criticism being allowed.

Well, that's inconvenient for faiths that stake out a position in opposition to the simply demonstrated laws of nature, but that seems to be religion's problem, since the alternate rule you seem to be promoting is "pretend everything a religion says is correct, even if gets in the way of teaching about the foundational rules of physics and biology". And, also, it seems to be a matter of opinion. For example, the 1.2 Billion members of the Catholic faith, for example, have absolutely no official problem problem with the Big bang or evolution.

yet you must pay attention to what courts can ban. its not banning non science.

It's not banning non science because ID is not science, it's religion. Huh? And I'm sorry Robert, I want to back up here for a moment because I think we might have missed something. Why shouldn't we ban non-science from being taught in a science class anyway?

its only banning religion.

Ah. So ID is religion and therefore teaching it is banned. You, um, do realize that not teaching religion in public schools is established by, oh, about 80 years of settled case law, right?

These incompetent judges simply had to get out of the way that iD was science THEN attack it as religion.

But... but you said ID wasn't science and I should stop trying to exclude it because it wasn't science. You said that ID was religion and that's what gets it banned. Um... or something. OK, now I'm totally confused. Give me a head's up here Robert so we can continue arguing, because I kinda don't see your counterpoint. Do you feel that ID is science and not religion, or that ID is religion and not science? or maybe that ID is a mostly science with a little bit of religion, or that... Just help me out here, Robert, just check one or more box, so I can figure out what point you're trying to make... [ ] ID is science. [ ] ID is religion.

OK, Robert, whatever you say. ID is science. Fine.

Now, all it's got to do to be accepted as a scientific theory is to show observational evidence for intelligent design. Note, evidence. Not, "I don't know how this happened, so it must be intelligent design", because that doesn't follow. Not, "This is really complicated, so it must have been designed", because that doesn't follow, either. Not, "This looks designed, so therefore it was designed", because looks can be deceiving.

No, what the ID crowd have to do is point to one feature about living things that rigorously must have been designed, and cannot possibly be explained without design. One.

Problem is, they can't do that. Never have. Irreducible complexity? Proven to be a necessary outcome of evolution. Paramecium flagellum? Nope. Exaption explains it. Blood clotting sequence? Wrong in fact, and ditto, anyway. Elegance and perfection? Not only does evolution explain what elegance we find, because it tends to eliminate the unnecessary, but there are plenty of examples of inelegant and imperfect solutions in living things, anyway.

So on and so forth, and at the end of it, nada. Nothing that evolution doesn't explain without assuming design. And if you don't need something, you don't put it in.

While they're at it, and seeing it's a science and all, the IDers have to say what happened. Not "Some designer did something some time". Who did what, when?

Why do they have to say that? Why, so it can be tested. If it can't be tested, it's not science. But they won't say, so it can't be tested.

It can't be tested, so it isn't science. Robert's flat busted wrong, as always. ID isn't science, and never was. It's religion in a lab coat.

So then Robert goes into lawyer mode. He's flat busted wrong about that, too, of course.

As soon as State (or Federal) money from taxes goes into schools, that money cannot be used to promote (or "establish", as the Constitution has it) a religious purpose, because "the Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion". Since money is voted by Congress according to what the law allows, and no law may be made establishing a religion, no money may be used to teach a religion in a school that receives money from the State.

The problem with bringing up the issue of evidence is this;

Evidence for what?

What if it were discovered that there was a fatal error in evolutionary biology. Many professional biologists or a whole lot of amateurs were admitting that something, somewhere it went wrong. What would that do for "Intelligent Design"?

We still would left with the basic questions about ID; who, what, where, when, why, how?

Where can we find a discussion of ID which lays it out on its own? No, it's always "and it can't be evolution".

Take the latest book which tells us all the reasons to believe that the evolutionary account of the Cambrian Explosion is lacking. For the sake of argument: what if that were all so? What account would we have to fill in for evolution? Nothing

whenever one tries to engage with ID, saying that "this doesn't look intelligently designed", what is the answer: "That is not what is meant by ID." And, in their own way, they're right. For there is nothing positive and substantial meant by ID as an account for the variety of life. ID is not meant to tell us about the natural world why this, rather than that.

(Why is this so? Why doesn't ID try to offer accounts? This is speculation of mine, but here are a couple of reasons: Nobody has been able to think of another way that the particular variety that life displays could come about. Except Omphalism. Or maybe it is because people have been burnt by the silly excesses of YEC. Or maybe it's a reaction to the legal system of the USA. Or maybe it's hard work, doing science. Or maybe the ID-ists are wary of dividing their base of support. Whatever.)

stevaroni said: OK, so let's see what you've got today...

The court admits its not to interfere with religion but then allows evolution without criticism being allowed.

Well, that's inconvenient for faiths that stake out a position in opposition to the simply demonstrated laws of nature, but that seems to be religion's problem, since the alternate rule you seem to be promoting is "pretend everything a religion says is correct, even if gets in the way of teaching about the foundational rules of physics and biology". And, also, it seems to be a matter of opinion.

The Green and Hahn families believe that life begins at conception which they equate to fertilization, and object to their closely held for-profit corporations providing health insurance coverage to their female employees of four FDA-approved contraceptives that the Green and Hahn families believe may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg (many doctors and scientists disagree), which the Green and Hahn families believe constitute an abortion.

Robert Byers said: The court admits its not to interfere with religion but then allows evolution without criticism being allowed.

TomS said: The problem with bringing up the issue of evidence is this; Evidence for what? What if it were discovered that there was a fatal error in evolutionary biology. Many professional biologists or a whole lot of amateurs were admitting that something, somewhere it went wrong. What would that do for "Intelligent Design"? We still would left with the basic questions about ID; who, what, where, when, why, how?

Robert is confusing that some people who do science in other areas also believe in ID/creationism with ID/creationism is science. It is not; it knows the answer it wants and fits evidence to it and this is not science, but apologetics.

Scott F said: Of course, once science eventually finds these answers, ID Creationists will then claim that those answers were in the Bible all along.

Robert Byers said: A very insulting attack on the intelligence and integrity of the ID folks...

Robert,

Here's a question for you. If science teachers were allowed to teach Creationism or ID in the science classroom, should they be allowed to also present all of the "strengths and weaknesses" of Creationism, instead of just reading from the Bible? Is that what you want? Do you want science teachers dissecting the Bible and showing their students all that's wrong with it, and how the Bible does not match reality?

'Cause I guarantee you that with an honest reading, the Bible will lose.

Just look at Europe, or specifically England, where religion has been a required subject for generations.

You don't seem to understand that religion in the U.S. benefits from being separate from the State.

Robert,

Another question for you.

If ID were to be taught in science class, what would the lesson plan be? What "facts" would the teacher actually teach?

Lesson #1: The Designer did It.

Lesson #2: See Lesson #1.

Or, perhaps the teacher would teach "normal" science, and simply end every lesson with, "And that's how the Designer designed it."

Is that how one would "teach" ID?

Robert Byers said: These courts said ID is from religious methodology and motives and not scholarly investigation of nature. These lawyers in black robes know this is so. Well ID is not religious in its methodology. Its science or incompetent science from IDiots. but its not religious even if it concludes evolution is not true or a creator is behind the universe as shown by the evidence of nature.

William Dembski said: from here: My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ. ---- If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e., the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient. ----- Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God ----- Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners do not have a clue about him. ---- The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. ---- This is really an opportunity to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ. That's really what is driving me. ---- But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done - and he's not getting it. ---- And another thing I think we need to be aware of is that not every instance of design we see in nature needs to be directly attributed to God. Certainly as Christians we believe there is an angelic hierarchy - it's not just that there's this physical material world and there's God. There can be various hierarchies of intelligent beings operating, God can work through what can be called derived intelligences - processes which carry out the Divine will, but maybe not perfectly because of the fall. ---- Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.

Robert Byers said: Also banning criticism of evolution as exclusively a religious motive/methodology.

Scott F said: Just read the transcript of the Dover trial, read what Bill Buckingham and Alan Bonsell had to say. The school board in Dover knew exactly what they were doing. They raised money from their churches to buy the "ID" books, in order to bring Christ back into the schools. That was their stated purpose. That's what they told their congregations. And then they repeated lied in federal court about it.

The testimony at trial stunningly revealed that Buckingham and Bonsell tried to hide the source of the donations because it showed, at the very least, the extraordinary measures taken to ensure that students received a creationist alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Surely you guys aren't suggesting that he ought to describe one or more observed patterns of evidence that would be likely consequences of his "model"!

Mike Elzinga said: The Judge had every right to charge these characters with perjury.

Dave Luckett said:

Mike Elzinga said: The Judge had every right to charge these characters with perjury.

Unfortunately, as I understand the matter, he didn't have that right. If he had, I have no doubt that Judge John Jones III would have so charged them, and these Christian activists would have had to account for their lies under oath. The judge referred their testimony to the State prosecutor, who alone could bring the charge, and the State prosecutor declined to act. He didn't have to give reasons why not, but it's at least likely that one consideration was the public good versus the public harm that would have resulted from such a prosecution - for it's likely that prosecuting Bonsell and Buckingham would have conferred the status of martyrs on them. They'd then get bankrolled by every hooly-dooly cumterjeezus Bible barn in the country, and the resulting inveterate legal shenanigans would be interminable and riotously expensive. Consider Freshwater. As it is, they're exposed as a pair of grubby liars by anyone who reads the transcript. Or the judgement. Which of course Robert Byers is never going to do. Or, I suspect, can do.

Here is Buckingham's testimony on the morning of Day 16 again.

Start on Page 94 and read on to the end of the morning testimony. Buckingham is having his ass handed to him as he squirms.

"Deer in the headlights" on Page 100.

Priceless!

Scott F said:

TomS said: The problem with bringing up the issue of evidence is this; Evidence for what? What if it were discovered that there was a fatal error in evolutionary biology. Many professional biologists or a whole lot of amateurs were admitting that something, somewhere it went wrong. What would that do for "Intelligent Design"? We still would left with the basic questions about ID; who, what, where, when, why, how?

Just look as astronomy. All of a sudden (relatively speaking) scientists discover that their ideas about how the universe is expanding are thrown out the window. Something is wrong with our scientific models. Here is something that is shaking the foundations of our understanding of the universe. Here is a monumental hole that ID and Creationism can step in to fill. Is the solution for this problem ID? Have ID "researchers" stepped in to tell astronomers the ID solution to the expansion of the universe? Has science resorted to religious explanations? No. Currently, science has no answers for these problems. But science has names for these problems: "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". These are not names of things. These are the names of problems. All ID has to do to prove itself is to answer these problems. Will ID do that? Of course not, because they can't find those answers in the Bible. Of course, once science eventually finds these answers, ID Creationists will then claim that those answers were in the Bible all along.

Scott F said: Here's a question for you. If science teachers were allowed to teach Creationism or ID in the science classroom, should they be allowed to also present all of the "strengths and weaknesses" of Creationism, instead of just reading from the Bible? Is that what you want? Do you want science teachers dissecting the Bible and showing their students all that's wrong with it, and how the Bible does not match reality? 'Cause I guarantee you that with an honest reading, the Bible will lose.

Teacher (Mrs Crabopple) : "Well, that about wraps up the Christian presentation. I'd like to thank the Reverend for coming today. To sum it all up, a lifetime of sacrifice and self-deprivation, and if you do everything just right, you'll spend the afterlife in heaven. Sadly, the Reverend was unable to bring any evidence today that such a place actually exists, but here's an artist's illustration of people playing harps on clouds while Jesus glows at them. "Next up, we have Mr Crowley, of the Church of Satan. Mr Crowley, would you like to explain your church's precepts?" Crowley: "Class, I'd like to thank you, and your teacher, Mrs Crabopple, for inviting me here today." "Ahem..." "TITTIES!" "Titties! Titties! Titties! Everywhere titties!" "Seriously, kids, we all know that everybody dies, and deep down we all know that this whole "afterlife" thing is just bullshit invented by priests to control people. After all, if it really existed someone would have some evidence after 2000 years, right?" "Since this one life is all you've got, it makes no sense to sacrifice it for something you'll never get. It's like paying to spend your whole Saturday night waiting in line for a fabulous nightclub that will never let you in because there's nothing actually behind the door." "So, we say 'Have as much fun as you can, just so long as you don't hurt anyone'." "Sex? We dig it, just so long as you have a willing partner. Or two. Or you're alone. Whatever." "Drinking and debauchery? Actually a sacrament! Just don't try to drive. That's both illegal and stupid." "Here's a picture of spring break going on right now! Somebody is going to get naked and do embarrassing things with stuffed furniture tonight! This our kind of gig!" "So everybody - to the cars! We're going down to the strip club for beer and a lap dance - and It's OK because it's a sacrement!" "C'mon, first round is on me!" "Then we're gonna hand out condoms and everybody is going to get laid!"

The devil you say!

Hey, would the assigned reading include Stranger in a Strange Land (Heinlein) ?

Or how about JOB: A Comedy of Justice (Heinlein) ?

Or Inferno (Niven and Pournelle) ?

Actually, I took a "world cultures" class in high school. It wasn't labeled as "comparative religion", but it covered a lot about religions as part of those foreign cultures. In fact, one of the "extra credit" assignments was to attend three different, separate religious ceremonies of your choice, from a list of Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Shinto, and other religions. (We grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, where such choices were actually available.) We then had to write reports on what we saw and the significance of that to the religions involved. It was very eye opening and interesting.

Looking back on it now, I suppose it was "extra credit", because the teacher probably couldn't make it required that you attend religious ceremonies.

But, yeah. It would be excellent if every high school student was required to learn about all of the worlds religions. That would really piss off the fundies.

Scott F said: But, yeah. It would be excellent if every high school student was required to learn about all of the worlds religions. That would really piss off the fundies.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The court admits its not to interfere with religion but then allows evolution without criticism being allowed.

Stevaroni, I laud your patience and fortitude. I agree with everything that you've said, and you've said it quite well. However, I feel that you are missing one salient point that Robert is trying to make. Robert, The government, including schools that are run by the government, is prohibited by the constitution from taking sides in religious debates. This has been established by the Founding Fathers, and by over 200 years of decisions by the Supreme Court (if we ignore the Hobby Lobby case). Would you agree that a Hindu teacher could teach his 8th grade science class that the Hindu creation story is a scientific fact? Of course you wouldn't. Similarly, the Hindu or Buddhist student would object to being taught that 6-day creationism is a scientific fact. If the court finds that an idea has its basis in religious doctrine, is supported only by religious doctrine, and is not supported by any scientific evidence, then that idea is religious. By definition. The government cannot take sides in which religious ideas are "true" and which are not "true". The teacher cannot say, "Christians are right, and Hindus are wrong", just as a teacher cannot tell their science class that "Hindus are right and Christians are wrong." Similarly, a teacher cannot say to her students, "Christian creationism is wrong." She cannot say to her students, "Christian creationism is right." The teacher cannot say either of those things. The teacher cannot take sides in whether Christian creationism is right or wrong. Just like the science teacher cannot take sides in whether Hindu creationism is right or wrong. The government teacher must remain silent on whether Christian creationism and Hindu creationism are right or wrong. To do anything other than remain silent is to take sides, to favor one religion over another. What a government teacher may do is to teach her students what the scientific consensus is about the facts about our world. Science is not a religion. Sciences deals with evidence and facts that are available to all people of all religions. Light travels at a constant speed, whether the person measuring that light is a Christian or a Hindu. Ice cores, lake varves, tree rings, continental movement, the size of galaxies, and literally millions of other measurements and facts show that the Earth is about 4 billion years old, and that the universe is about 13 billion years old. Those are scientific facts. Those are the consensus of all scientists, regardless of what religious beliefs they hold. Those facts and those conclusions are not based on religion or religious dogma. The science teacher cannot tell her students that Christian creationism is wrong. The science teacher must remain silent on what Christians believe. The government science teacher may teach her students what the consensus of 99.99% of scientists believe to be true: the Earth is very, very old. If the science teacher were to tell her students that Christian creationism is wrong, that would be illegal. Similarly, the science teacher cannot tell her students that Christian creationism is right. The science teacher must remain silent on that subject. The fact that Christian creationism happens to disagree with the consensus of 99.99% of all scientists is not the concern for the government. The government is not allowed to change science to conform to a particular religion. Similarly, the government cannot change any particular religion to conform to reality. In fact, the teacher is not saying that science is "right" either. There may still be some greater "truth" out there that we don't know about. Science doesn't say that its answers are "right". Science simply says, this is what works. What the government teacher may tell his students is that science works. That science makes predictions, that science tests those predictions, and these are the results of those tests. That's all the government teacher is saying. Science works. Science works to explain the world we see around us, how it works, what makes it work, how it came to be, and how we can use that knowledge to enrich all of our lives and to learn new things about the world. Science works for all people, to enrich the lives of all people. Science works.

Sigh.

Once more, Byers. Creationism isn't a scientific theory, it's a religious doctrine. ID isn't a scientific theory either, it's an assertion without evidence. It's also a fraud, because it's really only creationism in camo.

But whether you call it creationism or "intelligent design" doesn't matter. It's not science, so it can't be taught in science classrooms. It is religion - in fact, it's one interpretation of one religious book - so it can't be taught in public schools, because the courts have ruled that the US Constitution forbids teaching a religion in public schools. It doesn't matter what you think courts can or should do - that's what they have done.

And that's all there is to it. The recourse is to amend or strike down the First Amendment to the US Constitution. That, Byers, is so not going to happen.

Dave Luckett said: ID isn't a scientific theory either, it's an assertion without evidence.

booby still has no evidence. still just word games and special pleading for his religion. science doesn't say your religion is wrong booby, it ignores it completely. that's what has your panties in a bunch isn't it? you cannot present any evidence because you are censored, isn't that right? too bad for you.

in banning creationism as religion the state is saying that it is religion, therefore it doesn't matter if it is true. it is not science, it will never be science, it cannot be taught as science. but you already know this booby, you just can't accept that anyone can reject your religion in any way. you must be very insecure in your beliefs. i wonder why

"If evolution threatens your God, then you must seriously reexamine the tenets of your faith."

Robert Byers said: Whether iD/YEC is science or not is a matter for the people/gov't to decide.

I'm always amused at how nonplussed fundies always get at the suggestion that there are other religions that should be taken as seriously as theirs, and that all religions should be considered intrinsically equal. Sure, sure, that's always the lip-service line they publicly agree to, but watch them freak out when they realize that somebody - especially somebody in power - actually takes this whole "equality" thing seriously.

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Any of our facts are ruled out right at the gate.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to refresh our memories and list some of those facts.

Maybe booby doesn't understands the term "evidence". Well booby, here is just one example for you:

Journal of Molecular Evolution. ISSN: 0022-2844. 81 Volumes, 399 Issues, 4,580 Articles available from 1972 - 2014.

Now that's just one journal out of dozens, perhaps hundreds, that all contain evidence for the theory of evolution. You know, scientific evidence from experiments. Now all you have to do is to present one, just one, piece of real scientific evidence that supports creationism and you can claim that it is science. Until then you can't, period.

Oh by the way, if you do somehow manage to get creationism redefined as some kind of science, that still won't mean it's true. You are going to have to come up with a better explanation for all of the evidence for evolution, including these 4,580 articles and hundreds of thousands more. Better get started booby, you got a lot of splainin to do.

Robert Byers said: Amen. to much of what you said here. Yes NO picking sides is the purpose of the founding fathers. great idea. Yes saying creationism is wrong is illegal by the law invoked to deny creationism saying its right is also illegal! In banninmg creationiosm as religion the state is saying officially its not true and the opposite ,which makes it impossible to be true, being allowed is AGAIN the state enforcing opinions about whether some religious doctrines are not true. no way around the equation.

His solution is teach creationism as science - because it's true! I'm not kidding. That's exactly what he thinks. To him that isn't taking sides. To him that's just being fair. He literally cannot conceive that anyone could have any other religion. He cannot believe that anyone would be able to believe anything other that what he believes. If he thinks it is true it just is, whether he has any evidence or not. And everyone else has to go along with it, otherwise he is being censored, or discriminated against, or something.

Now if course this is not rational. This is a mental illness. If he would just go away and keep his blubbering nonsense to himself he could live out his life without ever having to face this fact. But he won't. His illness requires that he make it known to others. He will never be able to understand why others demand evidence and he will never be able to provide any. And then he is baffled that they won't go along with it. How sad.

Robert, You are claiming creationism is true - on what basis do you justify that claim? It can't be through scientific investigation - so is because you believe that what the Bible says and you believe the Bible to be true? If so, how do you justify that claim?

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Amen. to much of what you said here. Yes NO picking sides is the purpose of the founding fathers. great idea. Yes saying creationism is wrong is illegal by the law invoked to deny creationism saying its right is also illegal! In banninmg creationiosm as religion the state is saying officially its not true and the opposite ,which makes it impossible to be true, being allowed is AGAIN the state enforcing opinions about whether some religious doctrines are not true. no way around the equation.

No, Robert. First, the teacher in a government run school, paid for by the government, is a government employee. Second, the only way that the government cannot pick side, is to not say that any religion is scientific fact. Third, creationism is religion. It is not science, by definition. Fourth, creationism is not banned from state run schools. I had a class in comparative religions. What the government cannot do is to tell students that creationism is a scientific theory. That would be taking sides, and it would be lying to the students. ---- Okay Robert. You have set yourself up a no win situation. You say that the government cannot take sides in religion. You also say that government must be able to teach Christian Young Earth Creationism in government run schools as though it were factual science. How is that "not taking sides"? What do you propose to do instead? Should the government teach *all* religious dogmas as "fact", even though they all disagree with each other? Remember, if the government can't take sides, then it must teach that *all* religions are factual and equally valid. Right? Would you agree that all religions are factual and equally valid? What is your solution to the problem that you have posed?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Robert, You are claiming creationism is true - on what basis do you justify that claim? It can't be through scientific investigation - so is because you believe that what the Bible says and you believe the Bible to be true? If so, how do you justify that claim?

Robert, should teachers, principals, school boards and the community be able to proselytize in schools? Is the law against that? What if one person in the community disagrees? Should everyone get their shot? Science is secular - people who accept evolution come in all stripes - religious and nonreligious. It is not the same as creationism which has no secular purpose. You keep bringing up science, but we haven't seen any evidence of science from your camp.

To be honest, if creationism were compared to evolution - evolution would win hands down. I have nothing to fear from creationism and would love to demonstrate in the classroom what an utter waste it is.

Poor booby. He just can;t wrap his head around it. WE have perfect freedom in science class. We are perfectly free to teach any science we want. WE are not free to teach religion in science class. booby wouldn't even want us to, unless of course it was his version of his religion.

Anyway my censorship remains perfect. booby can't even present one single shred of evidence to support creationism, because I won't let him. Prove me wring booby, I'm waiting.

DS said: Prove me wring booby, I'm waiting.

Robert Byers said: Amen. to much of what you said here. Yes NO picking sides is the purpose of the founding fathers. great idea.

banning on creationist opinions IN CLASES DEALING WITH ACCURACY in origins is a state opinion that creationism is wrong and so breaking the law.

Robert Byers said: there is no problem to these matters. America had no problem until after ww11. The schools are not THE STATE. This is not what the founders meant by the state. They meant the gov't in its power. nOt everything the gov't pays for. The state pays for Armed forces ministers etc.

Robert Byers said: If the state censors a OPINION then its saying the opinion is wrong if the class is about teaching the true opinion or options for true opinions. No way around it.

Fourth, creationism is not banned from state run schools. I had a class in comparative religions. What the government cannot do is to tell students that creationism is a scientific theory. That would be taking sides, and it would be lying to the students.

Robert, try this one.

You claim that Young Earth Creationism is a fact. The Bible tells us that the Universe was created 6,000 years ago.

Hindu cosmology is also a fact. The Rig Veda tells us that the Universe and humans were created trillions of years ago.

They can't both be right. Which one is right? How do you know?

Which of these truths should the State schools teach our children as "fact"? Both?

Robert Byers said: Whats wrong with freedom in science class as in society? Whats to fear? Can't evolution etc make a winning case against rebuttal? NO but why do you guys think that??

Henry J said:

Fourth, creationism is not banned from state run schools. I had a class in comparative religions. What the government cannot do is to tell students that creationism is a scientific theory. That would be taking sides, and it would be lying to the students.

Yep. The point of that infamous amendment is to keep one sect from censoring the other sects that they don't like. And with a rather large number of different sects around, the odds of any particular one getting the authority to censor the others (rather than vice versa) isn't really all that good. In short, that amendment is there to protect them. From each other. Henry

The hilarious thing is that evolution did make a winning case in court. If it had lost, do you think that booby would still be crying about how the court should not be able to decide? Why do you think he thinks like that?

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Amen. to much of what you said here. Yes NO picking sides is the purpose of the founding fathers. great idea. Yes saying creationism is wrong is illegal by the law invoked to deny creationism saying its right is also illegal! In banninmg creationiosm as religion the state is saying officially its not true and the opposite ,which makes it impossible to be true, being allowed is AGAIN the state enforcing opinions about whether some religious doctrines are not true. no way around the equation.

No, Robert. First, the teacher in a government run school, paid for by the government, is a government employee. Second, the only way that the government cannot pick side, is to not say that any religion is scientific fact. Third, creationism is religion. It is not science, by definition. Fourth, creationism is not banned from state run schools. I had a class in comparative religions. What the government cannot do is to tell students that creationism is a scientific theory. That would be taking sides, and it would be lying to the students. ---- Okay Robert. You have set yourself up a no win situation. You say that the government cannot take sides in religion. You also say that government must be able to teach Christian Young Earth Creationism in government run schools as though it were factual science. How is that "not taking sides"? What do you propose to do instead? Should the government teach *all* religious dogmas as "fact", even though they all disagree with each other? Remember, if the government can't take sides, then it must teach that *all* religions are factual and equally valid. Right? Would you agree that all religions are factual and equally valid? What is your solution to the problem that you have posed?

there is no problem to these matters. America had no problem until after ww11.

The schools are not THE STATE. This is not what the founders meant by the state. They meant the gov't in its power. nOt everything the gov't pays for.

The state pays for Armed forces ministers etc. yet this is not the state pushing religion. Education content is not dictated by the constitution. Nobody back in the day thought of such a trivial matter.

The people are free to decide and that fixes everything. Censor here and free there.

If the state censors a OPINION then its saying the opinion is wrong if the class is about teaching the true opinion or options for true opinions. No way around it.

Censoring God or genesis is state decree they are false ideas since science class is literally about seeking the truth in origin subjects for example.

The state censoring God/genesis is illegal if the state is not to pick sides about religious doctrines WHICH its claiming creationism IS.

THEY ARE NOT. If truth is the objective of science class then censorship means its decided whats not truth! This is illegal by the law they invoke for the censorship.

Whats wrong with freedom in science class as in society? Whats to fear? Can't evolution etc make a winning case against rebuttal? NO but why do you guys think that??

ID and YEC say we do just as much scientific investigation as our opponents on the issues we address.

Thats why organized creationism exists and is doing very well.

The people can decide if creationism is deserving of equal time.

Some places will and some won't. All won't agree with other religions stuff. Creationism is special in its history and popularity here.

First the strange twisting of the constitution into a censorship tool must GO.

The very protestant Yankee and Southern Americans never put into their higher law ideas, constitution, the prohibition of gOD/genesis as the truth or options for truth of origins. Its an absurdity. in fact they might of banned any oppositions is the issues were kicking around.

The strange censorship will fall one day. Organized creationism is just not got the energy yet. We got the constitution and common sense on our side.

Robert Byers said: there is no problem to these matters. America had no problem until after ww11.

The state pays for Armed forces ministers etc. yet this is not the state pushing religion.

Creationism is special in its history and popularity here.

Organized creationism is just not got the energy yet. We got the constitution and common sense on our side.

Robert Byers said: ID and YEC say we do just as much scientific investigation as our opponents on the issues we address. Thats why organized creationism exists and is doing very well. ---- The strange censorship will fall one day. Organized creationism is just not got the energy yet. We got the constitution and common sense on our side.

Robert Byers said: The people can decide if creationism is deserving of equal time. Some places will and some won't. All won't agree with other religions stuff. Creationism is special in its history and popularity here.

Clearly Robert doesn't care about reality, because he's never been there.

Scott F said:

The people can decide if creationism is deserving of equal time. Some places will and some won’t. All won’t agree with other religions stuff.

So, Robert. Do you believe it is a good thing for schools in Los Angeles or New York to teach evolution as truth, and at the same time schools in Atlanta and New Orleans to teach creationism as the truth.

fnxtr said: Clearly Robert doesn't care about reality, because he's never been there.

Robert Byers said: ID and YEC say we do just as much scientific investigation as our opponents on the issues we address.

Daniel said:

Robert Byers said: ID and YEC say we do just as much scientific investigation as our opponents on the issues we address.

Wow. This statement is so astoundingly ignorant I can't bring myself to laugh at it... so let's try it out. I am currently reading a new book called My Beloved Brontosaurus, by Brian Switek. It is about dinosuars in general, and about how do we know so much about them, like the feathers, what sounds they made, how they got big, etc... it is a fascinating read, actually. Anyway, in just this book, among the dozens of studies they mention are: 1) How we found out the color of their feathers. By studying fossil squid, they found microscopic organelles called melanosomes in the ink sacs, establishing a method by which we can determine the color of an organ. After doing more studies to rule out they were looking at bacteria instead, they checked the dino feathers for melanosomes and BOOM! We now know that both Archaeoptryx and Microraptor had at least some black feathers. 2) Complete and detailed analysis of the skulls of Parasaurolophus and their kind to find out what kind of sounds they made. A full 3D scan of different skulls concluded they made booming low-frequency sounds like a foghorn, and the analysis of the ear bones found that they were adapted to hear in the very low frequencies. 3) Complete analysis of the origin of feathers. We have dinos with with assymetric flying feathers like Archaeopteryx, dinos with dino-fuzz like raptors and dinos with even more primitive feathers like a tyrannosauid whose species name escapes me. All this of course fits the phylogenic analysis of dinosaurs perfectly. 4) The pathologies and injuries that dinos suffered. By studying their skulls, we know tyrannosaurids battled each other by biting in the face. We know the T-Rex had an astounding sense of smell. We even know how Sue, the famous fossil T-Rex, died; she was infected by a close relative of modern parasite Trichomonas Gallinae, which infects birds and leaves holes in the lower jaw. Sue has those exact holes in her lower jaw, and they are not healed, showing she died shortly thereafter, probably because she became unable to feed. 5) Studies about coprolites... fossil dino-shit. They dug deep to find out what kind of intestinal flora and fauna T-Rex had, and found several microorganisms. 6) Studies about dino reproduction. One dino died with 2 eggs inside her, so we know they had two tubes to deposit eggs simultaneously. We know they cared for their young, but probably not for long. We know giant sauropods move in herds, but did not keep their young in the middle for protection... the young just walked behind the adults. 7) Studies about how sauropods got so big. Basically, one the most important factors is that they were oviparous. A mammal, having to grow a giant version of themselves inside, cannot possibly give birth to a giant kid... except whales, which are free from the constraints of gravity of course, so they got big for another reason. But dinosaurs were extremely tiny at birth; a baby sauropod could fit in a human hand. 8) We know that in the Triassic, the dominant for of life were not yet the dinosaurs... that honor belonged to the crocodylian branch of the archosaurs, with truly fearsome specimens like Postosuchus. And so on and so forth... study after study of every single tiny detail of dinosaurs, from their shit to their brains to their upright posture to their growth pattern to their lineage, etc, etc... We know a boatload of details about dinosaur life thanks to the literally thousands of studies done to this day. And this is just a single subject... do you really, honestly stand by your statement that ID does the same amount of investigation?? Those guys' only investigation comes when someone publishes grpundbreaking evolutionary studies, and they just try to tear it apart, sometimes not even bothering to read the whole contents. Casey Luskin's hilarious attempt to show that Neil Shubin didn't indicate which Tiktaalik bones were analogous to us is a perfect example... the guy has no idea what he is talking about. Not one of them know just how detailed the fossil record of dinosaurs is, how much we know about them, how many clades there are, where to find them, etc... Go to Pubmed and type dinosaur, see how many results come in... and this is just one single topic. What a ridiculous comment you made.

Well if booby is right and creationist do as much research as evolutionary biologists, then it is even more damning that he cannot produce a single piece of evidence to support any of their claims! I recently posted a journal that has published 4,500 peer reviewed articles containing evidence for evolution. And that is just in one journal. If creationists do any research at all, where are their journal articles? Oh that's right, despite all their efforts, not one of them has ever found any evidence whatsoever. And of course booby is completely ignorant of all of the evidence that does exist. That's why he keep blubbering on and on about voting and other such nonsense.

So booby, since you obviously aren't about to provide any evidence of your own, the least you could do would be to give a refutation of every article in the latest issue of the Journal of Molecular Evolution. Until you do, it will continue to be taught as science and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Unless of course you come up with some evidence of your own, or a more predictive and explanatory hypothesis for the evidence than the theory of evolution. Ignoring all of the evidence is isn't going to get you anywhere, ever.

DS said: Well if booby is right and creationist do as much research as evolutionary biologists, then it is even more damning that he cannot produce a single piece of evidence to support any of their claims! I recently posted a journal that has published 4,500 peer reviewed articles containing evidence for evolution. And that is just in one journal. If creationists do any research at all, where are their journal articles? Oh that's right, despite all their efforts, not one of them has ever found any evidence whatsoever. And of course booby is completely ignorant of all of the evidence that does exist. That's why he keep blubbering on and on about voting and other such nonsense. So booby, since you obviously aren't about to provide any evidence of your own, the least you could do would be to give a refutation of every article in the latest issue of the Journal of Molecular Evolution. Until you do, it will continue to be taught as science and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Unless of course you come up with some evidence of your own, or a more predictive and explanatory hypothesis for the evidence than the theory of evolution. Ignoring all of the evidence is isn't going to get you anywhere, ever.

TomS said: The problem is more basic than this. The problem is that no one has even guessed at what happened in the world of life so that it turned out to have the complex, predictive pattern of the "tree of life" except three general ideas: 1) There was descent with modification. (Variants on this include inheritance of acquired characteristics, innate drive to perfection, endosymbiosis, neutral drift, natural selection, sexual selection, divine intervention, ...) 2) The world of life suddenly appeared in pretty much its present form, with no precursors, but with the appearance of having had a prior existence. ("the chicken or egg" problem, or Omphalos Hypothesis.) 3) Life has always existed in pretty much its present form, from eternity; or things recur in cycles. Creationism, despite all the time that it has had, and all the claims that there has been deep thought given to it, has not been able to present the rudiments of a fourth hypothesis or choose one of these three. This not just a problem that a random amateur posting on a blog. The best brains of Creationism - and I'm including Intelligent Design - have not made an attempt to address it. It is pointless to talk about evidence when we don't know what the evidence is supposed to be for.

DS said: And don't forget, your "hypothesis" cannot contain any untestable supernatural nonsense, that wouldn't be science, even if it were true.

Well the whole point was that booby wanted his ideas taught in science class. But OK, I guess I would accept evidence of a supernatural event. At least then it could be taught as something with evidence, if not a scientific hypothesis. But of course booby doesn't have any of that either. All he has is special pleading for his religion. He has no explanation for anything and indeed he seems to be completely ignorant of any evidence.

TomS said: The standard account from "Intelligent Design" would tell us that all three varieties of eye are designed. But, as far as I have been able to see, it does not attempt to tell us: How and what and when and where and why did we end up with a vertebrate eye, rather than an insect eye or an octopus eye (those are also "designed", aren't they?)?

Daniel said:

TomS said: The standard account from "Intelligent Design" would tell us that all three varieties of eye are designed. But, as far as I have been able to see, it does not attempt to tell us: How and what and when and where and why did we end up with a vertebrate eye, rather than an insect eye or an octopus eye (those are also "designed", aren't they?)?

Or the awesome Mantis shrimp's eyes

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: Amen. to much of what you said here. Yes NO picking sides is the purpose of the founding fathers. great idea.

Oh, Robert, Robert, Robert, what are we going to do with you? You know what? You, and I, and 100 years of constitutional law are on the same side here. You're absolutely right, Robert, The government, and by extension, the schools, cannot pick sides. Darwinian evolution and big-bang astrophysics do not have any right to be taught to the exclusion of any other factual explanation, even if that other explanation has the effect of promotion religion. That's right, Robert, you are entitled to have your version of the truth taught. Um... just so long as you can reasonably demonstrate that it is the truth. So bring the facts and evidence supporting your side out, and put em' on the table and let's see what you've got. Why is this so hard, Robert? You always act like you've got nothing. That can't be right, though, because you're talking about an entirely different set of biological and physical facts, and that stuff would simply have to leave a mark somewhere. Just bring it out already so we can get on with the whole rewriting the science book thing.

banning on creationist opinions IN CLASES DEALING WITH ACCURACY in origins is a state opinion that creationism is wrong and so breaking the law.

Fine. Totally, totally, fine. Then bring out the accuracy already. Show me how to measure this creationist stuff.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The people can decide if creationism is deserving of equal time. Some places will and some won't. All won't agree with other religions stuff. Creationism is special in its history and popularity here.

So, Robert. Do you believe it is a good thing for schools in Los Angeles or New York to teach evolution as truth, and at the same time schools in Atlanta and New Orleans to teach creationism as the truth. Why is it that "reality" happens to be different depending on where you live? Why is it that "reality" can be put to a vote? Should we let "the people" vote on what the speed of light is? Perhaps we should let the people vote on whether plate tectonics exists? Perhaps we should let the people vote on whether the Earth orbits the Sun, or whether the Sun spins around the Earth once a day? Should we let the people vote on whether dinosaurs ever existed, or whether humans had ever domesticated them? Should we let the people vote on whether the Earth is 6,000 years old, 4.5 billion years old, or trillions of years old? How about we let the people vote on whether E=mc2? Or perhaps we should let them hear both sides? Maybe E=mc2.5 should enter the political race as a dark horse third candidate? Is that how "Science" works, Robert? By popular vote? By which fact "feels" right? Or by who promises eternal life and who doesn't? "Yes, if you vote for Me, I promise that you will have eternal life." That would make one heck of a political ad, wouldn't it Robert. Who could resist the tempting promise of that kind of ad? Especially if you had the power of The State to guarantee that you will have eternal life?

Robert Byers said: Debating can persuade.

I think your agreeing the present censorship is illegal and plain crazy wrong.

Robert Byers said: This is been about the legality of the censorship law. First this must go.

saying creationism is not a a option, ON THE PRINCIPAL THAT ITS RELIGIOUS, in a class dedicated to the truth of a subject EQUALS state opinion that certain religious conclusions are not true.

One more time for the hearing impaired. Saying it is religion is not saying it is not true. Saying it is religion is saying it is not science.

YEC and ID cannot provide any material for reachers in science class, as booby himself demonstrates. They got nothin, absolutely nothin.

Reap it booby.

Those who allow creationism will allow only the great creationist beliefs. The historic ones. not hindu. anyways it can be about the presence of a creator in nature by the evidence of nature(ID) and criticisms of evolution and geology etc. Just reflecting real America on these matters. thats a free and democratic nation.

As the man said, it's like punching a sack of water.

No, Byers, stevaroni is not agreeing anything like that. He's telling you you're plain crazy wrong. I'm telling you you're plain crazy wrong. We're all telling you you're plain crazy wrong.

The courts are telling you you're plain crazy wrong. All of science is telling you you're plain crazy wrong. Even the majority of the people of the United States are telling you you're plain crazy wrong.

You're plain crazy wrong about everything, Byers. Creationism is false to demonstrated fact AND the United States is not going to trash its Constitution to suit you. Maybe there are local areas where ignorant pig-headed loons are in the majority, but the nation isn't going to fragment its education system to allow them to force their religion onto other people's kids.

It isn't going to happen, Byers, except in your dreams. But go ahead, dream on. There's still a chance that some teacher or some school board somewhere will try to smuggle their religion into the classroom of a public school. It could happen. Probably it does happen, because it's impossible to prevent loons from being loons, and sometimes you don't know they're there until they sound off. But if it happens, and if someone with standing complains to a court about it, it'll all go down again, as in Dover, PA.

You lose, Byers. You actually lost a hundred years ago. You're never going to win again. But don't get the idea that you're unwelcome here.

Sure, you can't give it up, you can't shut up, but here's the thing - nobody's telling you you have to. There's no "censorship". Write on, dream on, speak on, Byers. Do your incompetent best. You're close to illiterate, incapable of reason, deaf and blind to debate, and hard of thinking - it's so good to have you here. "This is a creationist", we say, as we point and laugh.

And every time it happens, every time you sit at your monitor in the wee hours of the morning and hit the blither key again, you do us a favour. You show that there are in fact idiots in the shrubbery, and you show again what idiots they are. Both at once. Two for the price of one.

It doesn't get better than that, Byers.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said:

Those who allow creationism will allow only the great creationist beliefs. The historic ones. not hindu. anyways it can be about the presence of a creator in nature by the evidence of nature(ID) and criticisms of evolution and geology etc. Just reflecting real America on these matters. thats a free and democratic nation.

Too funny - I do believe Hinduism is much older than Christianity and is likely older than Judaism. How do you define "great" and "historic" when it comes to creationist beliefs? - I suspect they just mean whatever Robert Byers believes. Oh and by the way, we already have a "creator" in nature when it comes to organisms - it is called evolution.

DS said: Well the whole point was that booby wanted his ideas taught in science class.

Robert wants creationism to be voted on and for everyone to accept majority rules. He only wants this because he thinks creationism would win. As soon as it was clear creationism was losing, he would be against democracy and majority rules.
It is all about winning by any means necessary and the means would change when "fairness" no longer met his ends.

Malcolm said: I get the distinct impression that Byers would be happy if everyone just stopped teaching science altogether.

DS said: One more time for the hearing impaired. Saying it is religion is not saying it is not true. Saying it is religion is saying it is not science. YEC and ID cannot provide any material for reachers in science class, as booby himself demonstrates. They got nothin, absolutely nothin. Reap it booby.

Dave Luckett said: As the man said, it’s like punching a sack of water.

Keelyn said:

DS said: One more time for the hearing impaired. Saying it is religion is not saying it is not true. Saying it is religion is saying it is not science. YEC and ID cannot provide any material for reachers in science class, as booby himself demonstrates. They got nothin, absolutely nothin. Reap it booby.

Now DS, that's just not fair! I am hearing impaired and I understand it just fine. No, Boobily is obviously suffering from a peculiar mental impairment - there may not even be a name for it yet. Unfortunately, I doubt if there is any sort of effective therapy for it, either.

Robert Byers said: Those who allow creationism will allow only the great creationist beliefs.

The historic ones. not hindu.

Keelyn said:

DS said: One more time for the hearing impaired. Saying it is religion is not saying it is not true. Saying it is religion is saying it is not science. YEC and ID cannot provide any material for reachers in science class, as booby himself demonstrates. They got nothin, absolutely nothin. Reap it booby.

Now DS, that's just not fair! I am hearing impaired and I understand it just fine. No, Boobily is obviously suffering from a peculiar mental impairment - there may not even be a name for it yet. Unfortunately, I doubt if there is any sort of effective therapy for it, either.

Dave Luckett said: As the man said, it’s like punching a sack of water.

It seems more like punching a sack of air - there is nothing of substance to make contact with.

Robert Byers said: America had no problem until after ww11.

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: America had no problem until after ww11.

Robert, do you know the difference between WW11 and WWII? I'll give you a clue: we haven't had a World War Eleven yet. Just two, as in the Roman numeral "II". Not "11". You may now demonstrate your learning skills.

It seems more like punching a sack of air - there is nothing of substance to make contact with.

You may now demonstrate your learning skills.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: This is been about the legality of the censorship law. First this must go.

Um, yeah. See, Robert, it's not going to go, because it's so transparently unconstitutional.

saying creationism is not a a option, ON THE PRINCIPAL THAT ITS RELIGIOUS, in a class dedicated to the truth of a subject EQUALS state opinion that certain religious conclusions are not true.

Um, no. Let's be precise, here, Robert. What the courts have determined is that creationism is only religious. it is pure religiosity with has no factual basis. If you can demonstrate that it is religious but it is still grounded in science, it sails pas the Lemon test and you can teach it int science classes. Why is that so hard, Robert? Why, time after time, do you guys fail to meet that tiny, tiny little standard. Why, when you finally get a venue like the Dover courtroom and everyone is under oath and on the record and nobody can put words in your mouth or cut you off in mid answer, do you fail so totally miserably? Why is your expert witness's only rebuttal to being shown hundreds scholarly research papers carefully explaining the mechanics of things he claims don't actually exist "Oh. these are heavy." ?

Iy's like a broken record. Over and over and over and over .... Never any learning, never any understanding, just the same stupid thing repeated over and over and over and over and over ...

Sorry booby, your'e still wrong. You were wrong the first time, you were wrong the second time, you are wrong this time, you will be wrong the next time, you are just plain wrong now and forever. Read what people wrote when they told you why you were wrong, then shove it up your favorite orifice and rotate counter clockwise. The broken record technique will not work here. It won't, it won't, it won't. So there, so there, so there. You can repeat it another thousand times, but you will always be wrong and you will never change a thing.

Oh and if you don't want to obey the law, fine, go right ahead and break it. No one is stopping you. You can probably still post your nonsense from jail.

Robert, do you really think that uneducated boobs should be the ones deciding what is taught in schools? How about we let them decide what medical care you get? Or how to build your house? Let's just put everything up for a vote and whatever dumbass ideas win get taught in schools.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The people can decide if creationism is deserving of equal time. Some places will and some won't. All won't agree with other religions stuff. Creationism is special in its history and popularity here.

So, Robert. Do you believe it is a good thing for schools in Los Angeles or New York to teach evolution as truth, and at the same time schools in Atlanta and New Orleans to teach creationism as the truth. Why is it that "reality" happens to be different depending on where you live? Why is it that "reality" can be put to a vote? Should we let "the people" vote on what the speed of light is? Perhaps we should let the people vote on whether plate tectonics exists? Perhaps we should let the people vote on whether the Earth orbits the Sun, or whether the Sun spins around the Earth once a day? Should we let the people vote on whether dinosaurs ever existed, or whether humans had ever domesticated them? Should we let the people vote on whether the Earth is 6,000 years old, 4.5 billion years old, or trillions of years old? How about we let the people vote on whether E=mc2? Or perhaps we should let them hear both sides? Maybe E=mc2.5 should enter the political race as a dark horse third candidate? Is that how "Science" works, Robert? By popular vote? By which fact "feels" right? Or by who promises eternal life and who doesn't? "Yes, if you vote for Me, I promise that you will have eternal life." That would make one heck of a political ad, wouldn't it Robert. Who could resist the tempting promise of that kind of ad? Especially if you had the power of The State to guarantee that you will have eternal life?

This is been about the legality of the censorship law. First this must go. its illegal to censor creationism in classes dealing with origins if the law invoked is about non state dictation of religious conclusions. saying creationism is not a a option, ON THE PRINCIPAL THAT ITS RELIGIOUS, in a class dedicated to the truth of a subject EQUALS state opinion that certain religious conclusions are not true. So breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship of creationism. After these laws are eliminated then its up to the people to decide. If the federal gov't decides then thats fine. Probably it will be school districts etc or states etc. Those who allow creationism will allow only the great creationist beliefs. The historic ones. not hindu. anyways it can be about the presence of a creator in nature by the evidence of nature(ID) and criticisms of evolution and geology etc. Just reflecting real America on these matters. thats a free and democratic nation.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: Debating can persuade.

It can also be used as a tool for duplicitous misdirection. Which is pretty much all people like, say, Duane Gish ever used it for. Regardless, it misses the point. The reason science is and not opinion is that you don't "debate" it. You test it. Rigorously. You can "debate" how best to achieve peace in the middle east, or the moral status of abortion, or, if you get sent through a Star Trek transported, does the same soul come out the other end or is it just a new copy. You can debate those things because they are dominated by an unknowable, philosophical aspect. You don't debate things that can be measured. You don't debate how much coffee is left in the can, you go measure it. You don't debate the speed of light or the mass of a proton or the number of moons of Jupiter, because your opinion of these things has no effect on reality. You just go count it. Or measure it. Or minutely dissect it into little bits and minutely examine the fragments to see how they are alike or different. Now, don't get me wrong, science argues with itself all the time. But the form of the argument is not "who can stand up on a stage and make the most officious argument". The form of the argument is "who brought the best data, the best test results, the most accurate model". If that's the kind of "debate" you're talking about, bring it on, because that's the kind of thing we've been asking for for years.

I think your agreeing the present censorship is illegal and plain crazy wrong.

Again, slowly, it is not censorship that gets you barred from schools Robert. As someone else pointed out it is an issue of quality control. You have a trivial bar to leap over to get your nonsense into the schools. All you have to do is produce the tiniest, teeniest, little scrap of evidence to show that your explanation really works.

DS said: One more time for the hearing impaired. Saying it is religion is not saying it is not true. Saying it is religion is saying it is not science. YEC and ID cannot provide any material for reachers in science class, as booby himself demonstrates. They got nothin, absolutely nothin. Reap it booby.

DS said:

Keelyn said:

DS said: One more time for the hearing impaired. Saying it is religion is not saying it is not true. Saying it is religion is saying it is not science. YEC and ID cannot provide any material for reachers in science class, as booby himself demonstrates. They got nothin, absolutely nothin. Reap it booby.

Now DS, that's just not fair! I am hearing impaired and I understand it just fine. No, Boobily is obviously suffering from a peculiar mental impairment - there may not even be a name for it yet. Unfortunately, I doubt if there is any sort of effective therapy for it, either.

Dave Luckett said: As the man said, it’s like punching a sack of water.

It seems more like punching a sack of air - there is nothing of substance to make contact with.

Sorry Keelyn, no offense. But booby just doesn't seem to be able to hear the truth, even when he reads it. Hell, he already admitted that creationism is religion, but he still whines on and on about how everyone should pretend that it is science, so as not to offend his delicate sensibilities. Well I don't give a rat's hairy ass about him or his sensibilities. He has been disrespecting everyone who posts here for years and he deserves nothing but ridicule. If he doesn't want the abuse he can always leave. Until then, every time he posts some incoherent and fallacious nonsense it will be pointed out that he is nothing but a hypocrite and a liar. Eventually he might realize that all he is doing is making a fool of himself, but since that seems to be his objective, he might not care.

Keelyn said:

DS said: One more time for the hearing impaired. Saying it is religion is not saying it is not true. Saying it is religion is saying it is not science. YEC and ID cannot provide any material for reachers in science class, as booby himself demonstrates. They got nothin, absolutely nothin. Reap it booby.

Now DS, that's just not fair! I am hearing impaired and I understand it just fine. No, Boobily is obviously suffering from a peculiar mental impairment - there may not even be a name for it yet. Unfortunately, I doubt if there is any sort of effective therapy for it, either.

Robert Byers said: but not these crazy court cases. No one should obey their conclusions. tHey are not the boss.

Scott F said:

Keelyn said:

DS said: One more time for the hearing impaired. Saying it is religion is not saying it is not true. Saying it is religion is saying it is not science. YEC and ID cannot provide any material for reachers in science class, as booby himself demonstrates. They got nothin, absolutely nothin. Reap it booby.

Now DS, that's just not fair! I am hearing impaired and I understand it just fine. No, Boobily is obviously suffering from a peculiar mental impairment - there may not even be a name for it yet. Unfortunately, I doubt if there is any sort of effective therapy for it, either.

I'm sure that DS meant "listening" impaired. :-) ;-)

Malcolm said: Bobby is thinking impaired

Robert Byers said: I thought you agreed it was wrong to censor creationism. It seemed like you said that.

my whole point is that its impossible to censor creationism using the law/concept of separation of church/state etc. nothing to do with who judges if ceationism is science.

SO they are saying religious ideas are wrong aND SO breaking the very law they use to censor creationism. That's my equation is wrong.

Robert Byers said: even the big science groups should not be deciding. the evidence of anythings claim to be science is in its evidence. its obvious. the people do not and must not give this science judging authority to a few. important issues like this should be up to the people.

Scott F said: Why should we let doctors decide how to treat disease. I say, let the people vote on medicine! Why should we let pilots decide how to safely fly an airplane? I say, let the people vote on airplane! Why should we let priests decide how to worship god? I say, let the people vote on gods! Why should we let engineers decide how to build skyscrapers that don't fall down? I say, let the people vote on structural steel! ... etc ...

Robert Byers said: Even the big science groups should not be deciding. the evidence of anythings claim to be science is in its evidence. its obvious. the people do not and must not give this science judging authority to a few. important issues like this should be up to the people.

Scott F said:

Keelyn said:

DS said: One more time for the hearing impaired. Saying it is religion is not saying it is not true. Saying it is religion is saying it is not science. YEC and ID cannot provide any material for reachers in science class, as booby himself demonstrates. They got nothin, absolutely nothin. Reap it booby.

Now DS, that's just not fair! I am hearing impaired and I understand it just fine. No, Boobily is obviously suffering from a peculiar mental impairment - there may not even be a name for it yet. Unfortunately, I doubt if there is any sort of effective therapy for it, either.

I'm sure that DS meant "listening" impaired. :-) ;-)

Scott F said:

stevaroni said: ... You have a trivial bar to leap over to get your nonsense into the schools. All you have to do is produce the tiniest, teeniest, little scrap of evidence to show that your explanation really works.

Damn-well put.

Well a couple of years ago someone asked booby to present a lesson plan for what he would teach in science class if creationism was allowed (although he probably spelled it "aloud"). He never came up with anything. No hypothesis, no evidence, nothing. All he has is a line of reasoning (ironic isn't it). And when it is pointed out that this reasoning is fallacious, what does he do, just repeats it over and over. He has been doing this for many years and as far as anyone can tell has completely failed to convince a single person. The law has not changed, the courts have not reversed their decisions, the US constitution remains unaltered and still booby sits at his computer every night and whines and moans about how unfair life is. It's not enough for him that he is free to believe whatever he wants. It's not enough for him that he can preach whatever he wants in his tax free church. He is even free to teach his religion in universities and high schools as religion, as science fiction. as mythology as history or in psychology (as an example of mass delusion) and yet he claims CENSORSHIP!

Time for some real censorship. Ban the boob. At least dump him to the bathroom wall and let him scream about censorship there. It really isn't censorship of course, but at least it would be a start.

DS said: Well a couple of years ago someone asked booby to present a lesson plan for what he would teach in science class if creationism was allowed (although he probably spelled it "aloud"). He never came up with anything. No hypothesis, no evidence, nothing. All he has is a line of reasoning (ironic isn't it). And when it is pointed out that this reasoning is fallacious, what does he do, just repeats it over and over. He has been doing this for many years and as far as anyone can tell has completely failed to convince a single person. The law has not changed, the courts have not reversed their decisions, the US constitution remains unaltered and still booby sits at his computer every night and whines and moans about how unfair life is. It's not enough for him that he is free to believe whatever he wants. It's not enough for him that he can preach whatever he wants in his tax free church. He is even free to teach his religion in universities and high schools as religion, as science fiction. as mythology as history or in psychology (as an example of mass delusion) and yet he claims CENSORSHIP! Time for some real censorship. Ban the boob. At least dump him to the bathroom wall and let him scream about censorship there. It really isn't censorship of course, but at least it would be a start.

Hey bobby boy, do you teach evolution in your church? No? Why not? It's true you know, evolution is definitely true, there's lots of evidence. So, according to your logic, if you refuse to teach it, you are saying it isn't true, right? That's censorship booby.

What about auto mechanics? Is that true? Do you teach it in your church? No? That's censorship! Are you saying that auto mechanics isn't true? Same for physics, chemistry, etc. So by your own logic, your church is really, really into censorship. So booby, either you are just a hypocrite, or you are just plain wrong. Those are your only two choices. Which is it booby? I won't even try to censor your reply. Are you gong to censor yourself again?

Maybe we should vote on what they teach in your church. Would you like that booby? IS your religion in the majority in your country? What if another religion wins the vote? If you don't teach that religion in your church, that's CENSORSHIP!

DS said both of the following: Time for some real censorship. Ban the boob.

At least dump him to the bathroom wall and let him scream about censorship there. It really isn't censorship of course, but at least it would be a start.

Scott f
The discussion was about court dictated state censorship. The using of the constitution to censor conclusions in origin subjects.
Thats what is illegal and immoral.
Yes the people , by elected officials, censor school content. Its an option. I don't want censorship but the people insist.
So the people could censor creationism in science class. they could censor evolution in science class.
If not the people and THERE IS CENSORSHIP then who knows better then the people.?
Who decides who knows better?
therefore anyways there would be no issues about content. Her and there or everywhere equal time would be given to the great ideas about origins. Creationism is one. not hindus etc etc . also evolution and company would be seen as one of the great ideas.
Yet first richmond must fall and then reconstruction.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: I thought you agreed it was wrong to censor creationism. It seemed like you said that.

No, Probably not. But you know what, Robert? I do say, time and time again, the I think you do have a right to teach creationism in the classroom, regardless of the fact that it supports you religion so long as you can back up your claims with empirical evidence. I think I've been saying that for something like 8 pages now. I think I also usually take the time to wonder about why, oh why, AiG and the other big players can't meet that tiny little requirement. For all your whining about oppression and censorship, it seems baffling that your side doesn't just bring out some actual evidence and instantly the problem is cures. It's like spending your time whining about how the authorities won't let you drive your car when people keep pointing out to you that the real problem is that you're driving on the wrong side of the road. Just stop whining and solve the tiny little technical violation and you can move on with want you really want to do. It's... why, it's almost like you can't solve the technical problem because you're full of shit and your explanation is as factually vacuous as floating pink unicorns.

my whole point is that its impossible to censor creationism using the law/concept of separation of church/state etc. nothing to do with who judges if ceationism is science.

Nonetheless, the bullshit does not move.

SO they are saying religious ideas are wrong aND SO breaking the very law they use to censor creationism. That's my equation is wrong.

Your equation is wrong. The courts say your ideas are lacking factual backing. There's a difference. The IRS is perfectly within its rights to reject your tax return if the figures seem unrealistic and appear without any supporting documentation. It's not censorship, it's not oppression. It's simply, as someone here noted, quality control. If that happens you don't whine about the Government "censoring" your numbers, your don't complain about being oppressed, you just find the missing W2 and send it in with a note that says here's the proof I am required to provide, now go away. Why is this so hard? Oh yeah, I forgot. It's because you can't demonstrate that the single most important thing you're claiming exists in the universe, actually, well, exists.

Robert Byers said: Here and there or everywhere equal time would be given to the great ideas about origins. Creationism is one. not hindus etc etc .

Robert Byers said: ... the courts only can say Id/YEC is illegal if its religious conclusions. ... Creationism IS NOT CENSORED because of not being science.! its because its NOT SCIENCE therefore ITS RELIGIOUS therefore its censored. ...You must prove to me/us that teaching truth in origins without the option for God/genesis is not pre determined state opinion id/yec is false!! Its impossible to censor a opinion and still say truth is the objective of the subjects teaching. Where am i wrong here!

Robert Byers said: The courts have nothing to say about factual stuff equals science. the courts only can say Id/YEC is illegal if its religious conclusions. i don’t agree with you that creationism is legal iF there is empiricle evidence behind it.

(Epperson v. Arkansas) "Arkansas’ law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine" (Mclean v. Arkansas) "creation-science as defined in Arkansas Act 590 is simply not science" and "a bald assertion which explains nothing and refers to no scientific fact or theory"

(Kitzmiller v. Dover) The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not,

Robert Byers said: Scott f The discussion was about court dictated state censorship. The using of the constitution to censor conclusions in origin subjects. Thats what is illegal and immoral. Yes the people , by elected officials, censor school content. Its an option. I don't want censorship but the people insist. So the people could censor creationism in science class. they could censor evolution in science class. If not the people and THERE IS CENSORSHIP then who knows better then the people.? Who decides who knows better? therefore anyways there would be no issues about content. Her and there or everywhere equal time would be given to the great ideas about origins. Creationism is one. not hindus etc etc . also evolution and company would be seen as one of the great ideas. Yet first richmond must fall and then reconstruction.

Robert Byers said: Its been a tussle here. you don't give up. neither do i.

Robert Byers said: why do you think the courts can judge scientific qualifications? Creationism IS NOT CENSORED because of not being science.! its because its NOT SCIENCE therefore ITS RELIGIOUS therefore its censored. Thats the legal equation here.

Robert Byers said: The courts have nothing to say about factual stuff equals science. ----- Where am i wrong here!

booby has been told repeatedly why he is wrong. He refuses to accept the fact that he is wrong. So what? He hasn't changed anything with his ignorant rants. He never will. He stunningly displays the most essential characteristic of creationists everywhere, a pronounced inability to learn. He even admits that creationism is religion and not science, but still wants it taught as science! That makes no sense. It is completely and totally illogical. But he keeps repeating it over and over as if it were somehow not totally insane. Nine pages of his bullshit is enough. Dump him to the bathroom wall and ignore him there. CENDOR THE BOOB.

Robert thinks education is indoctrination so he projects that on to everyone else. He thinks that we want to teach evolution because we want to indoctrinate others into atheism. He can't see that evolution is not sectarian in the way creationism is.

Just look at what is happening with AP History - the RNC has declared war on it and now Texas is banning it and protest are starting in Colorado:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/-sp-colorado-ap-history-curriculum-protest-patriotism-schools-students

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Robert thinks education is indoctrination so he projects that on to everyone else. He thinks that we want to teach evolution because we want to indoctrinate others into atheism. He can't see that evolution is not sectarian in the way creationism is. Just look at what is happening with AP History - the RNC has declared war on it and now Texas is banning it and protest are starting in Colorado: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/-sp-colorado-ap-history-curriculum-protest-patriotism-schools-students

Robert Byers said: You must prove to me/us that teaching truth in origins without the option for God/genesis is not pre determined state opinion id/yec is false!! Its impossible to censor a opinion and still say truth is the objective of the subjects teaching. Where am i wrong here!

Daniel said:

Robert Byers said: ... the courts only can say Id/YEC is illegal if its religious conclusions. ... Creationism IS NOT CENSORED because of not being science.! its because its NOT SCIENCE therefore ITS RELIGIOUS therefore its censored. ...You must prove to me/us that teaching truth in origins without the option for God/genesis is not pre determined state opinion id/yec is false!! Its impossible to censor a opinion and still say truth is the objective of the subjects teaching. Where am i wrong here!

Okay, I'll give it a shot without being snarky. 1) ID/Yec is not illegal because of its religious conclusion. Repeat, it is not. It is illegal because it doesn't provide testable hypothesis, because it doesn't make any testable predictions, because it doesn't publish in peer-reviewed journals, because it doesn't try to provide a positive explanation for anything except "God did it", because it has provided exactly 0 new avenues of research, because it hasn't provided any evidence at all, and because its only explanation for everything is found in the first chapter of a religious book. It follows then, that ID/Yec is merely an unsubstantiated, religious opinion. But once again, it has nothing to do with the nature of its conclusions. 2) Not everything that is not science is religious... after all, palm-reading provides natural conclusions but is not taught as science, is it? Neither is astrology, cryptozoology, phlogiston theory, tarot reading, tea-leaf reading, or the weird little feeling everyone gets that they are gonna make a flush when holding 2 suited cards in poker. 3) Again, the state has no opinion on weather YEC is true or false... it is most accurately described as "until they provide evidence other than a religious book, they are a religion, so I don't care". I repeat, the truth of falsehood of religious claims is not the reason they are not taught... they are not taught because they are only backed by a religious book. They have, for all effects and purposes, the exact value as an opinion, and opinions are not science. 4) And you seem to think, unsurprisingly of course, that only christian YEC is true history, not Hinduism. Why is that, if you have the exact same amount of evidence? Would you say the Hindu creationism should be banned in science class while Christian YEC is not?

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: The courts have nothing to say about factual stuff equals science. the courts only can say Id/YEC is illegal if its religious conclusions. i don’t agree with you that creationism is legal iF there is empiricle evidence behind it.

Um. No. The courts clearly say that creationism cannot be taught because it is without factual backing...

(Epperson v. Arkansas) "Arkansas’ law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine" (Mclean v. Arkansas) "creation-science as defined in Arkansas Act 590 is simply not science" and "a bald assertion which explains nothing and refers to no scientific fact or theory"

And, of course, Kitzmiller v Dover, which more than any other creationism case plowed deepest into the question of "is Intelligent Design science?". And why did the Dover trial spend so much time on the question of "Is Intelligent design science?" They spent all that time on the question specifically at the behest of the AiG lawyers, which realized that it was the best way to get past the Lemon test via a "3rd prong attack", a strategy which would have instantly outflanked any "is it religion?" argument. This failed miserably when they were able to produce exactly zero data.

(Kitzmiller v. Dover) The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not,

Notably, this also illustrates the old maxim that you should be careful what you wish for. After Dover the ICR and AiG railed mightily at judge Jones for ruling that ID was not science, when he could have decided the case on religious establishment grounds. Why were they so upset about this? Because they had been paying lip service to the "ID is science" argument for years, but by forcing a decision, Dover set legal precedent for directly examining the claim. The legal status quo went from "you haven't provided any evidence in your brief", which is basically a lack of positive argument, to "OK, let's put your experts up on the stand and see what you've got... Oh, wow. You've totally got nothing" which is a definitive finding of fact that you're wrong.

bobby,

Your wrong. This has been the legal question here amongst others. (1) and (3) are correct. Id/YEC is illegal because it is not science (the courts say). The state does not have a opinion on YEC/ID if its not censoring it in a class that deals with the subjects that ID/YEC opine on. How so?

The courts have constitutional authority to determine what science is ! this authority is given to them by the constitution That is the first amendment lines in the constitution gave them this unique ability! All they can do is determine if creationism is science or not. To do this they THEN determine that it is not science. its not the religious control that only gives them legal authority to determine what is science. Important difference. the founders never thought of these things and never thought the courts would deal with these things so the courts couldn’t be the judges of science. That is why we needed the first amendment.

booby wrote:
"
All they can do is determine if creationism is religious or not. To do this they THEN determine if its science."

Then he proved he was wrong:

"They judged iD was religion AFTER deciding it was not science."

So which was it booby? Did the first decide that it was religion and THEN decide that it wasn't science, or did they first decide it was not science and decide AFTER that it was religion? Does it matter, since creationism religion and not science? You seem to be confused once again. At least try to keep your story straight.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The courts have nothing to say about factual stuff equals science. ----- Where am i wrong here!

Well, you're wrong in your very first sentence. The courts decide about science, about "factual stuff" all the time. The courts decided the science about who was responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf. The courts decide about forensic evidence all the time, and decide whether it is science or not. Just recently there was news that the courts are maybe changing their collective decision, about whether certain ideas about how fires burn buildings is science or not science. The courts decide about what is and isn't science every day of the week. Why do the courts do this? Because "The People" ask them to. People bring cases to courts every day, asking judges to decide who has a right to a patent, or whether the science of one company violates the scientific patents of another. Judges deal with cases of science all the time. That's what they do. That's their job. People pay them to do it, and people ask them to do it. And, as stevaroni pointed out, AiG and the defendants (the Christians) in the Dover trial asked the judge, in fact, they insisted that the judge decide about whether ID was science. In fact before the verdict came down, they were so confident, that they boasted about how the judge was going to rule in their favor. They wanted the judge's endorsement, and they expected to get it, too. I remember it well, because it seemed all too possible that the judge could have ruled in their favor. So yes, "the people" vote every day to have judges decide questions of science. They vote with their feet, they vote with their money, they vote with their lives to have judges decide what is and isn't science. The People insist on it. So yes, Robert, you are wrong in your very first statement. [ BTW Robert, as a matter of English grammar, you are supposed to end a question with a question mark, not an exclamation point. It's not the same thing. That's what the Experts in grammar have decided, and we pay them to tell us these things. ]

Robert Byers said: The courts have no constitutional or any authority to determine what science is ! where ias this authority? That is which lines in the constitution gave them this unique ability.?! … the founders never thought of these things and never thought the courts would deal with these things so the courts couldn't be the judges of science.

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

All they can do is determine if creationism is religious or not.

Robert Byers said: The court ruled ID was a religion and so illegal.

ruling it was not science did not make it illegal. NON science is not illegal.

Robert Byers said: ID didn't need to prove its science.

The Judge should have to prove its religion .

iD was confident , rightly so in essence, but wrongly is dealing with lawyers in black robes.

Robert Byers said: Deciding forensic/oil spills is about details. iTs not about deciding scientific methodology.

Robert Byers said: A line of reasoning.

I suggest looking at the Wikipedia article on the "Daubert standard":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

Robert Byers said: I mean the courts have no constitutional right or job to decide what science is. Its none of their business legally . The courts have no legal/constitutional authority to decide what scientific methodology is. where? chapter and verse!

Art II - Sect 2 : The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...-snip-... and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects

SEC . 11. And be it further enacted, That the circuit courts shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and the United States are plaintiffs, or petitioners; or an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State. And shall have exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States,

SEC . 15. And be it further enacted, That all the said courts of the United States, shall have power in the trial of actions at law, on motion and due notice thereof being given, to require the parties to produce books or writings in their possession or power, which contain evidence pertinent to the issue, in cases and under circumstances where they might be compelled to produce the same by the ordinary rules of proceeding in chancery; and if a plaintiff shall fail to comply with such order, to produce books or writings, it shall be lawful for the courts respectively, on motion, to give the like judgment for the defendant as in cases of nonsuit; and if a defendant shall fail to comply with such order, to produce books or writings, it shall be lawful for the courts respectively on motion as aforesaid, to give judgment against him or her by default.

If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? [5 U.S. 137, 163] The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain the king himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court. ...In all other cases, it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded. ...The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right. ...That this is the understanding of the government, is apparent from the whole tenor of its conduct. ...The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. [5 U.S. 137, 179] Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained. ... Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from.

It is claimed that the allegation in the complainant's bill, that the said 'Providence Hospital is a private eleemosynary corporation, and that to the best of complainant's knowledge and belief it is composed of members of a monastic order or sisterhood of the Roman Catholic Church, and is conducted under the auspices of said church; that the title to its property is vested in the Sisters of Charity of Emmitsburg, Maryland,' renders the agreement void for the reason therein stated, which is that Congress has no power to make 'a law respecting a religious establishment,' a phrase which is not synonymous with that used in the Constitution, which prohibits the passage of a law 'respecting an establishment of religion.' The act of Congress, however, shows there is nothing sectarian in the corporation...

Robert Byers said: the courts here opined on whether iD was science yet its still not why its against the establishment clause. They judged iD was religion AFTER deciding it was not science. Lots of things could fail to be science but don't break the establishment clause.

TomS said: I suggest looking at the Wikipedia article on the "Daubert standard": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

In Daubert, seven members of the Court agreed on the following guidelines for admitting scientific expert testimony: Judge is gatekeeper: Under Rule 702, the task of "gatekeeping", or assuring that scientific expert testimony truly proceeds from "scientific knowledge", rests on the trial judge. Scientific knowledge = scientific method/methodology: A conclusion will qualify as scientific knowledge if the proponent can demonstrate that it is the product of sound "scientific methodology" derived from the scientific method.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: the courts here opined on whether iD was science yet its still not why its against the establishment clause. They judged iD was religion AFTER deciding it was not science. Lots of things could fail to be science but don't break the establishment clause.

Yes, Robert, there are many things that are not science that do not break the establishment clause. Ghosts. Astrology. Psychic pets. Floral arranging. Nose picking. But guess what? None of those should be taught in science class either. Even if Creationism didn't break the establishment clause, it wouldn't have a place in a competent science class because it's totally devoid of actual facts, an important concept in.. you know... Science.

Scott F said: And nose picking? I pick my nose very scientifically, thank you very much.

Robert, Doesn't your view indicate that "truth" is only what the majority in a place decides it is? It is not objective? What place gets to decide? Is it on a town by town or county by county or state by state or nation by nation basis? Should colleges be able to deny matriculation to students it deemed were taught the wrong "truths?" I don't think you have thought two seconds about the implications of your proposal.

Let me just add that ID is just an attempt (like creation "science") to have a certain religion taught in public school. They will resort to any means necessary to achieve their goal which is turn the US into a theocracy. When creation science didn't work they tried ID, when ID didn't work they tried strengths and weaknesses, when that doesn't work they will try something else. The end is always the same - the means just change in an attempt to disguise their theocratic aims.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Robert, Doesn't your view indicate that "truth" is only what the majority in a place decides it is? It is not objective? What place gets to decide? Is it on a town by town or county by county or state by state or nation by nation basis? Should colleges be able to deny matriculation to students it deemed were taught the wrong "truths?" I don't think you have thought two seconds about the implications of your proposal.

Everything I say is a lie. But if I lie, then I tell the truth. So if I tell the truth, then I lie. But if I lie, I tell the truth ...

(Star Trek episode: "I Mudd").

DS said: Everything I say is a lie. But if I lie, then I tell the truth. So if I tell the truth, then I lie. But if I lie, I tell the truth ...

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Robert, Doesn't your view indicate that "truth" is only what the majority in a place decides it is?

Everything I say is a lie. But if I lie, then I tell the truth. So if I tell the truth, then I lie. But if I lie, I tell the truth … (Star Trek episode: “I Mudd”).

I vote that 1+1=1.9999999999...

Henry J said: I vote that 1+1=1.9999999999...

Henry J said:

Everything I say is a lie. But if I lie, then I tell the truth. So if I tell the truth, then I lie. But if I lie, I tell the truth … (Star Trek episode: “I Mudd”).

"Please explain. Only humans can explain their logic." "I am not programmed to respond in that area." (Hopefully I'm not mixing it up with a different episode... )

SWT said: The moral of the story is, of course, to keep Kirk the hell away from your AIs. I can think of at least three times (including the scene above with Norman) that he talked an AI into oblivion ...

Also remember that artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity...

Scott F said:

SWT said: The moral of the story is, of course, to keep Kirk the hell away from your AIs. I can think of at least three times (including the scene above with Norman) that he talked an AI into oblivion ...

"Norman", "Nomad", ... you got me stumped. What's the third? "M-5"?

You’d think that by the 23^rd century, vulnerabilities like these would have been engineered out …

SWT said: You'd think that by the 23rd century, vulnerabilities like these would have been engineered out ...

SWT said: And, if I recall correctly, Spock at least earns partial credit for driving an entity out of the ship's computer by asking the computer to calculate the last digit of pi.

Do it in binary, and you can narrow it down to just two choices instead of ten! :D

stevaroni said:

SWT said: And, if I recall correctly, Spock at least earns partial credit for driving an entity out of the ship's computer by asking the computer to calculate the last digit of pi.

Pshaw! Even I can tell you with one hundred percent accuracy that it's a number between 0 and 9. Given the fact that pi has billions and billions of digits, the fact that I can narrow it down to such a small range is, I think, pretty damn impressive.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Deciding forensic/oil spills is about details. iTs not about deciding scientific methodology.

Robert, it's called forensic "science", and yes it is all about the scientific details. Finger prints, DNA, blood chemistry, gun powder residue, fiber analysis, bacteria and insects, medical autopsies. It's all about the scientific details of a murder trial. Deciding "oil spills" is all about the scientific details of who did what and when, whether negligence was involved, whether the science supports or denies the plaintiffs claims. Courts, judges, and lawyers deal with science on a daily basis. It's their job. It's what they are trained for. People, people like you and me, pay lawyers a lot of money to deal with and to judge science. Every day.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: I mean the courts have no constitutional right or job to decide what science is. Its none of their business legally . The courts have no legal/constitutional authority to decide what scientific methodology is. where? chapter and verse!

Well, that's a good question, Robert The original authority comes from the Constitution, Article III (which predates the 1st Amendment by 3 years)

Art II - Sect 2 : The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...-snip-... and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects

Of course, that's just words on paper, so the actual reach of the judiciary was formalized in law by the Judiciary_Act_of_1789. Which, among other things, establishes the circuit and district court system

SEC . 11. And be it further enacted, That the circuit courts shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and the United States are plaintiffs, or petitioners; or an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State. And shall have exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States,

And, importantly for your question, Robert, specifically empowers said courts to analyze and compel the production of evidence...

SEC . 15. And be it further enacted, That all the said courts of the United States, shall have power in the trial of actions at law, on motion and due notice thereof being given, to require the parties to produce books or writings in their possession or power, which contain evidence pertinent to the issue, in cases and under circumstances where they might be compelled to produce the same by the ordinary rules of proceeding in chancery; and if a plaintiff shall fail to comply with such order, to produce books or writings, it shall be lawful for the courts respectively, on motion, to give the like judgment for the defendant as in cases of nonsuit; and if a defendant shall fail to comply with such order, to produce books or writings, it shall be lawful for the courts respectively on motion as aforesaid, to give judgment against him or her by default.

Oddly, the judiciary act did not specifically address constitutional violations, and this was an untested area of law until 1802, when it was decided (thereby establishing foundational precedent) in Marbury_v._Madison, which you should have learned about in high school civics... This is the foundational ruling that gives courts authority to redress constitutional injuries (I will quote at length, since it is well written)

If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? [5 U.S. 137, 163] The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain the king himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court. ...In all other cases, it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded. ...The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right. ...That this is the understanding of the government, is apparent from the whole tenor of its conduct. ...The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. [5 U.S. 137, 179] Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained. ... Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from.

Even James Madison who was the looser in this first-ever constitutional case agreed that the courts had interpreted the law correctly, as I've said before, it became foundational precedent that everybody at all levels of government, was actually required to follow the Constitutional rules. Oh, and before you start complaining about church-state separation, the foundational case in that issue was Bradfield v. Roberts, 1899.

It is claimed that the allegation in the complainant's bill, that the said 'Providence Hospital is a private eleemosynary corporation, and that to the best of complainant's knowledge and belief it is composed of members of a monastic order or sisterhood of the Roman Catholic Church, and is conducted under the auspices of said church; that the title to its property is vested in the Sisters of Charity of Emmitsburg, Maryland,' renders the agreement void for the reason therein stated, which is that Congress has no power to make 'a law respecting a religious establishment,' a phrase which is not synonymous with that used in the Constitution, which prohibits the passage of a law 'respecting an establishment of religion.' The act of Congress, however, shows there is nothing sectarian in the corporation...

That last phrase, by the way, "there is nothing sectarian in the corporation" would come back about 75 years later to bite your side in the ass as the third prong of the Lemon law. That's the legal framework, chapter and verse, that says they can prevent you from proselytizing in schools. Do you have any legal basis at all for imagining that somehow all this precedent does not actually apply to your cause? If so, please, by all means, lay it on me, because I don't see it, and I'm pretty good with the Google box. . . OK Robert, I answered your question (at length and in detail) now you answer one of mine. You said we need to teach creationism in schools to balance "scientific opinions". If we did that, would it have to specifically be Christian creation, or could it be some other religion, say Hinduism, Buddhism, of Satanism? Would you be happy with a scheme that rotated through them, teaching a random one to the class that came through that year? If not, why not?

Robert Byers said: The equation is simple. if the state censors a religious opinion in a subject where the truth is the objective then its saying said opinion is wrong. SO its making a state opinion on religion and breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship in the first place.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Robert, Doesn't your view indicate that "truth" is only what the majority in a place decides it is? It is not objective? What place gets to decide? Is it on a town by town or county by county or state by state or nation by nation basis? Should colleges be able to deny matriculation to students it deemed were taught the wrong "truths?" I don't think you have thought two seconds about the implications of your proposal.

booby will never get it. He spews on and on about the "Truth" as if he knew what that meant, but he doesn't. Science is not about "Truth", science is about facts. booby shows that he has no idea what science is with every post, yet he wants to decide what is taught in science classes. And religion is not "Truth" either. That's why he is so frustrated. He cannot show that his religion is "true" any more than he can show that other religions are "false". SO the only thing he can do is to keep repeating himself over and over.

What happened to the policy of only letting booby post once on a thread? That was a wise policy, since all of his posts are the same anyway. He has the "Truth", he just knows it. If you let him preach the "Truth", it's censorship and the government should not censor the "Truth". End of story. He simply can't understands why this "argument" is not convincing. The "Truth" is that he is just bat shit insane and incapable of ever learning how wrong he really is.

Robert Byers said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Robert, Doesn't your view indicate that "truth" is only what the majority in a place decides it is? It is not objective? What place gets to decide? Is it on a town by town or county by county or state by state or nation by nation basis? Should colleges be able to deny matriculation to students it deemed were taught the wrong "truths?" I don't think you have thought two seconds about the implications of your proposal.

Sure I have. its simple. the people must be the ones to decide what is censored or nothing. not elites. Those days are over and over in these still obscure matters. The people can be trusted and would allow equal time to worthy ideas. historic and modern creationism and evolutionism etc(not so worthy we all know) . they wouldn't for foreign unpopular ideas.

So what would booby say if we had as referendum in the next election and evolution won and creationism lost? Would he still claim that creationism should be taught? Would he still say he knows the Truth? Would he still say the people should decide? I think we all know the answer to that.

booby will never change his mind. He will never admit that he was wrong. He will never answer any question that shows him up for the lying hypocrite that he really is. Facts mean nothing to him. Evidence means nothing to him. Reality means nothing to him.

Robert Byers said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Robert, Doesn't your view indicate that "truth" is only what the majority in a place decides it is? It is not objective? What place gets to decide? Is it on a town by town or county by county or state by state or nation by nation basis? Should colleges be able to deny matriculation to students it deemed were taught the wrong "truths?" I don't think you have thought two seconds about the implications of your proposal.

Sure I have. its simple. the people must be the ones to decide what is censored or nothing. not elites. Those days are over and over in these still obscure matters. The people can be trusted and would allow equal time to worthy ideas. historic and modern creationism and evolutionism etc(not so worthy we all know) . they wouldn't for foreign unpopular ideas.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Then what do you mean by "people?" "Elites" are people last time I looked. What if the "people" vote against you Robert? Will you never bring up creationism again?

We should all keep asking Robert this question until he answers. Of course he never will, because the answer will reveal the illogic and depravity of his unassailable position. He might make up some bullshit about how he could never lose and how he trusts the "people" to do the "right" thing, but he will never admit that creationism should not be taught under any circumstances, even the ones he himself described.

If you choose to allow booby to post here with impunity, then we should all make it out mission to hold his feet to the coals of reality.

Just Bob said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Then what do you mean by "people?" "Elites" are people last time I looked. What if the "people" vote against you Robert? Will you never bring up creationism again?

Robert, the PEOPLE in this "town" (Panda's Thumb) HAVE voted, and by a WIDE margin we chose evolution as the truth. So why do you continue to preach your UNtruths here, that we voted against? You're actually trying to CENSOR our democratically chosen truth by taking up a lot of screen space and people's time trying to wedge in your UNtruth, that we all voted against. If we didn't have to waste so much time fighting your CENSORSHIP, we'd have more time to discuss the stuff you're censoring! So why don't you go to some YEC blog where your views are welcomed, and the very posting of them (over and over) is not an act of censorship, in that it isn't wasting the time of people who don't care to hear it?

EVOLUTION: Aye

(2 to 0 so far)

RB to the BW: Aye

EVOLUTION: Aye

RB to the BW: Nay (for reasons previously offered)

On Evolution: Aye.

On RB to the BW: Nay. He's pure gold.

Just Bob said: EVOLUTION: Aye (2 to 0 so far) RB to the BW: Aye

Evolution: Aye, Sí, Oui, Ya, Da, etc.

Of course booby will claim that the right people didn't vote. And he will be completely oblivious to the fact that this completely eviscerates his argument, even after I already pointed it out.

Short summary of the above:

Voting is for deciding what to do, not for determining what is.

But if you haven't got reality on your side, the only thing you can do is ignore what is and decide to do the wrong thing. As booby is about to find out, that strategy is self defeating.

Henry J said: Short summary of the above: Voting is for deciding what to do, not for determining what is.

Just Bob said:

Henry J said: Short summary of the above: Voting is for deciding what to do, not for determining what is.

Yet our Congress regularly votes, in essence, on what is, e.g. climate change. Not directly, perhaps, but certainly indirectly by, say, denying funding for ameliorating the above because it 'isn't real'. Would Paul Broun vote for funds for anything that had the name 'evolution' in it, when what evolution is, is a 'lie from the pit of Hell'?

Robert Byers said: The equation is simple. if the state censors a religious opinion in a subject where the truth is the objective then its saying said opinion is wrong. SO its making a state opinion on religion and breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship in the first place. No one shows me why this equation is wrong as I present it!! If it was wrong a simple few lines would knock it to the mat. This is one of the things we have discussed.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: The equation is simple. if the state censors a religious opinion in a subject where the truth is the objective then its saying said opinion is wrong. SO its making a state opinion on religion and breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship in the first place.

Robert, it's always trying to parse your points. I can virtually feel you frothing as you type, so let me recap your argument so I get it right. I think your argument goes like this.... 1) The court examines a question of fact, in this case, "Is ID factually robust enough to be considered objective fact, therefore qualifying it to be taught in science class?" 2) The court examines the evidence, and finds it factually lacking. 3) The court further finds, in the absence of actual evidence of accuracy, a wholly religious motive behind it's promotion. 4) The court decides that it cannot be taught in science class because it violates at least two prongs of the Lemon test. You are saying this creates... 5) By determining that ID is strictly religious, and preventing its teaching as science, the court is performing a religious act. That is, by censoring creationism's "truth" it is effectively substituting some other "truth", which, by definition, is an alternate religion. Do I have that right?

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The equation is simple. if the state censors a religious opinion in a subject where the truth is the objective then its saying said opinion is wrong. SO its making a state opinion on religion and breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship in the first place. No one shows me why this equation is wrong as I present it!! If it was wrong a simple few lines would knock it to the mat. This is one of the things we have discussed.

But Robert, why should we have to prove anything to you? What you just said is only a "line of reasoning". Circular reasoning, at that. See Robert? That's how you dismiss Evolution. You claim that Evolution is just "a line of reasoning", and you're finished. Well Robert, what you wrote is simply a "line of reasoning." Done. In that one sentence, I have used "Robert's Rules of Logic" to completely dismantle your "line of reasoning". All I had to do was give it a label. So. Do you have anything else besides a "simple" "equation"? Any facts? Any evidence? Until you present those, all you have is a "line of reasoning", which you tell us is not sufficient to "prove" anything.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The equation is simple. if the state censors a religious opinion in a subject where the truth is the objective then its saying said opinion is wrong. SO its making a state opinion on religion and breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship in the first place. No one shows me why this equation is wrong as I present it!! If it was wrong a simple few lines would knock it to the mat. This is one of the things we have discussed.

But Robert, why should we have to prove anything to you? What you just said is only a "line of reasoning". Circular reasoning, at that. See Robert? That's how you dismiss Evolution. You claim that Evolution is just "a line of reasoning", and you're finished. Well Robert, what you wrote is simply a "line of reasoning." Done. In that one sentence, I have used "Robert's Rules of Logic" to completely dismantle your "line of reasoning". All I had to do was give it a label. So. Do you have anything else besides a "simple" "equation"? Any facts? Any evidence? Until you present those, all you have is a "line of reasoning", which you tell us is not sufficient to "prove" anything.

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. .... No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

The state is not everything it pays for. The state is a real governing body. nOthing to do with schools.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The equation is simple. if the state censors a religious opinion in a subject where the truth is the objective then its saying said opinion is wrong. SO its making a state opinion on religion and breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship in the first place. No one shows me why this equation is wrong as I present it!! If it was wrong a simple few lines would knock it to the mat. This is one of the things we have discussed.

But Robert, why should we have to prove anything to you? What you just said is only a "line of reasoning". Circular reasoning, at that. See Robert? That's how you dismiss Evolution. You claim that Evolution is just "a line of reasoning", and you're finished. Well Robert, what you wrote is simply a "line of reasoning." Done. In that one sentence, I have used "Robert's Rules of Logic" to completely dismantle your "line of reasoning". All I had to do was give it a label. So. Do you have anything else besides a "simple" "equation"? Any facts? Any evidence? Until you present those, all you have is a "line of reasoning", which you tell us is not sufficient to "prove" anything.

A legal point is not the same as scientific investigation. Lines of reasoning are essential to law. However they are not science. Evolution does do lines of reasoning in place of bio sci because, I say, they have no bio sci.

Pandas Thumb should do threads on bio sci, say top three, and hold the fort from attackers.

Robert Byers said: However the censoring is a attack by the state on religion.

The court/state ... censors it in classes about what is true in origins. Its not censored because its not science but because its religious.

(from Kitzmiller) In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Robert Byers said: The equation is simple. if the state censors a religious opinion in a subject where the truth is the objective then its saying said opinion is wrong.

It is only a line of reasoning.

Robert Byers said: I''ll respond using this post of yours. Promoting science by the state is not giving the constitution/state the legal right and duty to determine what science is and is not. Thats reading into a good idea a later concept of methodology judgement.

OK the voting is closed. The final count is five for evolution, zero for creationism. booby loses. The people have voted, booby can no longer demand that anybody vote for anything and he can no longer demand that creationism be taught because the people want it. Hell, even booby didn't vote for creationism. What an asshole,

DId anybody else notice that booby insists that saying that something is religion is saying that it is not true? I guess even he knows that all religion is just made up bullshit. None of it is true! And according to booby, that is so glaringly obvious to everyone that merely calling something religion is equivalent to saying that it is not true. What an asshole.

And of course he is still spouting his idiotic bullshit about evolution not being based on "bio sci". Fossils don't count cause they is just rocks, Genetics don't count cause it's "atomic and unproven" (whatever the hell that means). Comparative anatomy don't count cause booby don't know how to spell it! In five years he has never answered the question of what he would consider to be valid evidence. Of course we all know the answer to that one. No wonder he refuses to answer the question. What an asshole.

DS said: OK the voting is closed. The final count is five for evolution, zero for creationism. booby loses. The people have voted, booby can no longer demand that anybody vote for anything and he can no longer demand that creationism be taught because the people want it. Hell, even booby didn't vote for creationism.

But he won't. He won't bow to the result of the vote. He will just keep insisting that he is right and that he doesn't have to change just because most people disagree. Of course he is too dense to realize that in so doing he will expose the utter hypocrisy of his vacuous posturing. He will undoubtedly continue to claim that he knows the truth and that no vote will ever change that. What an asshole.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: The court/state ... censors it in classes about what is true in origins. Its not censored because its not science but because its religious.

No. The court is clearly saying that it is 'censored', that is it is unteachable, because it is not science but is only religion.

Not to mention the word "but". Or if worded differently it might be "and". Hey, conjunctions can be tricky, after all! :)

Henry J said: Not to mention the word "but". Or if worded differently it might be "and". Hey, conjunctions can be tricky, after all! :)

stevaroni said: First thing's first. It's become something of a right wing shibboleth that there is no such thing as the separation between church and state, and even if there were, "the schools" are not the same thing as "the state" Leave aside for a moment the delicious irony that the phrase "Wall between Church and State", and the desirability thereof, go back to the Jefferson administration, responding to the request of the Danbury Baptist Church for an assurance that the new government would not be interfering with the church's religious practices ( "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, "thus building a wall of separation between church and State." ). For our purposes the foundational law regarding religion in Public schools is Everson v. Board of Education, 1947

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. .... No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

There you go, Robert, those are the the "few lines" you keep claiming nobody can find for you give you.

The state is not everything it pays for. The state is a real governing body. nOthing to do with schools.

PA Poland said:

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The equation is simple. if the state censors a religious opinion in a subject where the truth is the objective then its saying said opinion is wrong. SO its making a state opinion on religion and breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship in the first place. No one shows me why this equation is wrong as I present it!! If it was wrong a simple few lines would knock it to the mat. This is one of the things we have discussed.

But Robert, why should we have to prove anything to you? What you just said is only a "line of reasoning". Circular reasoning, at that. See Robert? That's how you dismiss Evolution. You claim that Evolution is just "a line of reasoning", and you're finished. Well Robert, what you wrote is simply a "line of reasoning." Done. In that one sentence, I have used "Robert's Rules of Logic" to completely dismantle your "line of reasoning". All I had to do was give it a label. So. Do you have anything else besides a "simple" "equation"? Any facts? Any evidence? Until you present those, all you have is a "line of reasoning", which you tell us is not sufficient to "prove" anything.

A legal point is not the same as scientific investigation. Lines of reasoning are essential to law. However they are not science. Evolution does do lines of reasoning in place of bio sci because, I say, they have no bio sci.

Given you are willfully ignorant of, well, pretty much everything, it is a good thing no sane or rational person CARES what 'you say'. In REALITY, evolution is based on bio sci; the FACT you can close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'MAGICAL SKY PIXIE DIDIT !!1!!!1!' at the top of your lungs to maintain your willful ignorance changes nothing.

Pandas Thumb should do threads on bio sci, say top three, and hold the fort from attackers.

You actually 'think' creationuts and IDiots are a threat ? Their 'attacks' are religious and political, NOT scientific. Which means they can only win if they can fool enough people into accepting their willful ignorance (which explains why they want access to students who haven't learned enough to recognize their addle-pated gibberings for what it really is) Creationism and ID have no scientific support (and no, numerology, misinformation theory and willful incredulity are not evidence against evolution or for creatorism). I know you are unwilling and unable to answer this, but WHAT THE FRECK WOULD YOU ACCEPT AS 'BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE' SUPPORTING EVOLUTION ? What, EXACTLY, would it take to convince you that the combined knowledge gathered from thousands of researchers over the last 150 years is a valid explanation of the relatedness of all living things ? Your pious idiot routine is quite predictable : ANY evidence presented will be hand-waved away by blubbering 'it not be biological science !!1!1!!' As if you had the authority to dictate what is or is not bio science. Or even capable of understanding any evidence presented. Or your answer will demonstrate just how little you actually know about real world biology.

Hi Robert.

If schools that are paid for by the state government, run by the state government, where all the employees are employed by the state government, if those schools are not an operation of the state government, then who the heck is running them?

Santa's elves, perhaps? God's fairy pixies?

Why do you think they call it the "California State College System"? Or "Oregon State University"? Or "California Public Schools"? Or "Oregon Public Schools"? Or the "Texas State Board of Education"? They are owned, bought, paid for, and run by the state government for the betterment of the public in those respective states.

Are you saying that the Texas State Board of Education is not appointed by the State Government, and is not making curriculum decisions for the schools run by and paid from that State Board of Education?

How can a "state run school" not be an "operation of the state"?

Oh. I know how. Because you said so, that's why.

A school that is run by the state government is an "operation of the state" by the very definition of those words. There is no other definition.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: However the censoring is a attack by the state on religion.

Ah. No. It is not an attack by the state on religion, it is an attack in the courts on teaching religion. You can't. Not in public school. Nobody can. Any religion. That's why you can't teach creationism. You also can't teach Buddhist Creation, Hindu Creation, Rastafarian Creation, Pastafarian Creation, or Last Thursday Pink Unicorn-ism-ation. You can have all you want of all these things at home as much as you want. In your own time. At your own expense. You just can't promote them in school. But you can't spend any taxpayer money, time or facilities on it ( Everson v. Board of Education (1947) ). And, let's be realistic, Robert, if your local school district did sit students down and tell explain to them the teachings of Budhism, Hindusism, or (gasp!) Islam, you would totally loose your shit, and please, don't insult me by telling me you wouldn't. I realize that the idea that a neutral law applies not just to all those wrong heathen religions but to Christianity too is hard for you to understand, but that's the rule. If you don't like it, you can, ironically, blame the Virgina Baptist churches. They're the ones who drove the bargain at the constitutional convention of 1788. Concerned that the constitution contained no prohibition of a national religion, and fearing they'd be on the loosing end of the choice, they withheld the votes for ratification until they had a deal that included freedom on (and from) religion as the opening item in the Bill of Rights.

The court/state ... censors it in classes about what is true in origins. Its not censored because its not science but because its religious.

No. The court is clearly saying that it is 'censored', that is it is unteachable, because it is not science but is only religion.

(from Kitzmiller) In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Again, Robert, this is easy. It may be difficult to define religion, but it is not difficult to define fact either legally or practically. If you can find just one tiny little scrap of evidence your crackpot Creation theories suddenly become science, and therefore are legal. This is why AiG and ICR were so very enthusiastic to put their experts on the stand in Dover. They thought that they were going to show their irrefutable evidence, get their "fact" ticket stamped, and go their merry way teaching children that the world was created one sunny Spring afternoon in the middle of the bronze age. The problem was that once you're on the stand you have to answer under oath. You aren't allowed to Gish Gallop^TM and people will stop and ask embarrassing, probing questions when you attempt to bullshit.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The equation is simple. if the state censors a religious opinion in a subject where the truth is the objective then its saying said opinion is wrong.

No Robert. This first sentence is wrong. It is only your opinion. Because this fundamental feature of your "line of reasoning" is false, the whole rest of your "simple equation" falls apart. There is no "equivalence". The government is not saying religion is wrong. The government is saying that the government cannot express an opinion about religion. The government cannot say that one religion is right, and another other religion is wrong. The government cannot give more weight to one religion, and less weight to another. The government is allowed to treat all religions fairly, and to treat them all equally. The government is allowed to describe the religious beliefs of the people who adhere to a religion. The government is not allowed to agree or disagree with those beliefs. The government is allowed to teach in public schools what all people agree are "facts". For example, it is a fact that 99.99% of scientists believe that it is a fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (give a take a few million years here or there). The government is allowed to teach the definition of evolution. It is allowed to tell students what scientists mean when they say "evolution". Similarly, the government can teach in public schools that it is a fact that ~70% of the people in the US are Christians (of various flavors), ~6% are other religions, and ~20% are "non-religious". Those are facts, and the government is not taking sides by reporting facts. If the definition of "science" happens to disagree with the tenants of one religion or another, the government is not saying those religions are "wrong". The government is merely not expressing any opinion. It is not "censoring" anything. At worst, the government is simply pointing out that "science" and that particular religion are not in agreement. That is also a fact. Science and Christian Creationism do not agree. The government is allowed to teach facts in public schools. It is only your opinion, Robert, that the government is saying that Creationism is "false". That is your belief. You also happen to believe in a magical sky fairy. You also happen to believe that you know more about government than the Supreme Court, and every judge in the country. You also happen to believe that you know more about Science, Creationism, Christianity, and Intelligent Design that actual scientists do. So, you have demonstrated in the past that about 99% of your beliefs are wrong. Your belief that the government is saying that Creationism is "wrong", is just another one of your false beliefs. It is your opinion. It is only a line of reasoning.

Robert Byers said: Jefferson rightly said only actions and not OPINIONS are to be affected by the legislature.

So censoring creationist opinions is against the very essence of the separation idea.

Anyways the state is not everything the state pays for. Taxes used for school can not mean the school is a operation of the state. The state is the government and its power. School content is not a state operation.

AltairIV said:

Robert Byers said: I''ll respond using this post of yours. Promoting science by the state is not giving the constitution/state the legal right and duty to determine what science is and is not. Thats reading into a good idea a later concept of methodology judgement.

The people: So, the constitution has given you the right and duty to promote science, right? The state: Yes, that's correct. The people: Great! Well, we want you to promote this. Is it science? The state: Umm... sorry, but we aren't allowed to tell you that. The people: Oh, um, ok. Well, what about this then? Is it science? Can you promote it for us? Or how about this one? Or this? Can you promote any of these? The state: Well, you see, it's kind of complicated. We can't say anything about those either. We weren't given the right to decide what is and isn't science. The people: What!? You mean you have the responsibility to promote science, but you don't have the power to determine what things are actually scientific? The state: Yep, pretty much. The people: Just who decided this? The state: Well, there's this obscure creationist living up in Canada somewhere who likes to believe he's an expert on U.S. constitutional law. He told us. The people: Oh, well. That's different then. It all makes perfect sense now.

Robert:

I can't help but notice that your writing style swings wildly night by night. It's always the same phrases and arguments, but on nights like tonight you write in reasonably lucid, full sentences with proper punctuation.

Other nights you don't seem to understand spelling, sentence structure, or the uses of punctuation marks. You drop a lot of really weird typos.

Are you OK? (And I mean that in all seriousness)

Robert Byers said: The courts in these decisions never banned ID because it was not science. They didn't say this. They banned because they said it was religious.

So Robert, we took a vote. You lost. aMEN to that! But it didn't stop you from posting the same nonsense again now did it? What's the matter, don't you think that voting is the way to decide? The people voted bobby, not the elites. You are going to go with the popular vote aren't you? You don't just piss and moan about voting because you want to get your way do you? You aren't really that big of a hypocrite are you? Just free everyone up to use the powers of the people booby. Where am i wrong here?

As for the favorite top three booby, I already named them. I can name many more. Science has lots of evidences booby. But you can just go on ignoring them, thats ok. its no difference from the ways you are ignoring all of the journals and evidences already to be founded. HMMMMMMM .

Here you go Robert, the top twenty nine:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now bobby, when you have successfully refuted all twenty nine evidences, then you can piss and moan about how evolution has not made it's case. We'll be waiting for the top three evidences of creationism, just like we have been waiting for the last five hundred years.

Robert, QUIT CENSORING what I want to read by burying and diluting it among all your YECcing!

(Or do you not believe in democracy so much when people vote down YOUR ideas?)

DS said: Here you go Robert, the top twenty nine: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Now bobby, when you have successfully refuted all twenty nine evidences, then you can piss and moan about how evolution has not made it's case. We'll be waiting for the top three evidences of creationism, just like we have been waiting for the last five hundred years.

Robert Byers said:

PA Poland said:

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The equation is simple. if the state censors a religious opinion in a subject where the truth is the objective then its saying said opinion is wrong. SO its making a state opinion on religion and breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship in the first place. No one shows me why this equation is wrong as I present it!! If it was wrong a simple few lines would knock it to the mat. This is one of the things we have discussed.

But Robert, why should we have to prove anything to you? What you just said is only a "line of reasoning". Circular reasoning, at that. See Robert? That's how you dismiss Evolution. You claim that Evolution is just "a line of reasoning", and you're finished. Well Robert, what you wrote is simply a "line of reasoning." Done. In that one sentence, I have used "Robert's Rules of Logic" to completely dismantle your "line of reasoning". All I had to do was give it a label. So. Do you have anything else besides a "simple" "equation"? Any facts? Any evidence? Until you present those, all you have is a "line of reasoning", which you tell us is not sufficient to "prove" anything.

A legal point is not the same as scientific investigation. Lines of reasoning are essential to law. However they are not science. Evolution does do lines of reasoning in place of bio sci because, I say, they have no bio sci.

Given you are willfully ignorant of, well, pretty much everything, it is a good thing no sane or rational person CARES what 'you say'. In REALITY, evolution is based on bio sci; the FACT you can close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'MAGICAL SKY PIXIE DIDIT !!1!!!1!' at the top of your lungs to maintain your willful ignorance changes nothing.

Pandas Thumb should do threads on bio sci, say top three, and hold the fort from attackers.

You actually 'think' creationuts and IDiots are a threat ? Their 'attacks' are religious and political, NOT scientific. Which means they can only win if they can fool enough people into accepting their willful ignorance (which explains why they want access to students who haven't learned enough to recognize their addle-pated gibberings for what it really is) Creationism and ID have no scientific support (and no, numerology, misinformation theory and willful incredulity are not evidence against evolution or for creatorism). I know you are unwilling and unable to answer this, but WHAT THE FRECK WOULD YOU ACCEPT AS 'BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE' SUPPORTING EVOLUTION ? What, EXACTLY, would it take to convince you that the combined knowledge gathered from thousands of researchers over the last 150 years is a valid explanation of the relatedness of all living things ? Your pious idiot routine is quite predictable : ANY evidence presented will be hand-waved away by blubbering 'it not be biological science !!1!1!!' As if you had the authority to dictate what is or is not bio science. Or even capable of understanding any evidence presented. Or your answer will demonstrate just how little you actually know about real world biology.

Name your favourite top three or two. Thats what scientific evidence is meant to do. Persuade on the facts. Then yet the public vote on whether there is bio sci evidence to sustain the great claims of evo.

I don't think you can do it either. Real threads and not here on this one.

stevaroni said: Robert: I can't help but notice that your writing style swings wildly night by night. It's always the same phrases and arguments, but on nights like tonight you write in reasonably lucid, full sentences with proper punctuation. Other nights you don't seem to understand spelling, sentence structure, or the uses of punctuation marks. You drop a lot of really weird typos. Are you OK? (And I mean that in all seriousness)

PA Poland said: Humans have egg protein genes - they are inactive and badly mutated, but present. Evolution not only explains why we have them, but why they're the way they are. How does creationism 'explain' it ? Oh right - 'GOD WILLED IT THUS !! SIT DOWN, SHUT UP, AND WORSHIP !!' Or 'THE WAY OF GAWD IS UNKNOWABLE !!! DO NOT INVESTIGATE FURTHER !!!!!'

Robert Byers said: The equation stands well. you didn't answer it. aMEN to the state not saying any religious ideas are wrong(or right). In teaching about truth in conclusions in origin subjects the censoring of creationist conclusions could only mean the state is saying they are wrong. Since they censor based on the religious aspect, they accuse, then they ARE saying certain religious conclusions are wrong. How not? Its a class dealing with what is true! Censorship must be a opinion on what is and is not true if the class is dedicated to the discovery of truth. Science class is, or should be, more dedicated then social studies or history. The equation stands because its right on the nerve of this legal matter.

Robert Byers said: The gov't can make these decisions and not the courts. Just free everyone up to use the powers of the people.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: The courts in these decisions never banned ID because it was not science. They didn't say this. They banned because they said it was religious.

No, Again, they banned it for both reasons. Go re-read Kitzmiller: "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" Again 1) no on science, 2) yes on religion. If you can cure problem number 1, problem number 2 does not matter. That was the whole legal strategy of AiG, ICR and the like throughout the late 90's and 00's. Sadly, they never got door number one open, because they just didn't have the key. Any key. Even a teeny, tiny little key that could put a nick in Lemon.

Robert Byers said: The court doesn't have the authority to judge science.

Robert Byers said: The courts have no such power over these things.

Robert Byers said: why do you want lawyers deciding what science is and what science is right? They can only decide if some teaching is religious.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The equation stands well. you didn't answer it. aMEN to the state not saying any religious ideas are wrong(or right). In teaching about truth in conclusions in origin subjects the censoring of creationist conclusions could only mean the state is saying they are wrong. Since they censor based on the religious aspect, they accuse, then they ARE saying certain religious conclusions are wrong. How not? Its a class dealing with what is true! Censorship must be a opinion on what is and is not true if the class is dedicated to the discovery of truth. Science class is, or should be, more dedicated then social studies or history. The equation stands because its right on the nerve of this legal matter.

Robert, your "equation" was answered and refuted multiple times over, just in the last few pages. You simply ignored all the refutations. Simply repeating the same thing over and over is not an "argument". It is not a "reason". All you ever do is repeat yourself, and say "No. I'm right." The state is not saying that your religious viewpoint is wrong. The state is prevented from saying anything of the sort. That is your biased conclusion based on nothing, except perhaps your persecution complex. The state is not censoring your religious view point. I have taken classes in religion in public high school, and it was perfectly legal. The ACLU did not come and shut the school down. The state is not giving an opinion on whether religion is "true" or not. The state is saying that these scientific facts are known to be true by 99.99% of all scientists. The state is allowed to present facts that are known to be true. Evolution is a scientific fact (as well as a theory). It is a scientific fact that the Earth is billions of years old. Plate tectonics is a scientific fact (as well as a theory). The speed if light is a scientific fact. You simply have no idea what the "legal matter" is. You said that law doesn't allow it. Well, you have been shown the law, and you ignore it. You said that the Constitution doesn't allow it. Well, you have been shown the Constitution, and you ignore it. You have been shown the evidence, and you ignore it. Simply ignoring reality is not a "life skill". SImply ignoring the other persons facts is not an "argument".

Robert Byers said: its simply a construction of lines in a legal document to invent state control over school content without the public having a say.

Robert, I am sure Jefferson would find you dumber than a post. He was a product of the Enlightenment, but modern creationists are a product of the anti-Enlightenment - instead of progressive - they are regressive. Modern creationism has absolutely no redeeming features - it is historically, philosophically and scientifically barren. For all your maunderings about censorship and freedom, if creationism were taught in schools to the exclusion of evolution, you would be the first to censor evolution and oppose any mention of it in public schools. So don't try to plead fairness - that is just crap and you know it. Creationists are authoritarian to the hilt - and if had power - would squelch any opposing views. You have made this clear in your dismissal of other creation myths.

But creationism is also its own worst enemy - if it were able to make a case in multiple court cases that it had even the slightest intellectual substance it would have won. As you say, there are people who would vote to have creationism taught locally, but what would they teach? Creationism has no curriculum - there is nothing behind the facade of God did it -as demonstrated when the bright shining stars of creationism turned into black holes during court cases sucking any intelligence from the proceeding into oblivion of mindless space.

Don't forget that the government is the people and it is when the decisions it makes are ones you favor and when they are ones you abhor.

PA Poland said:

Robert Byers said:

PA Poland said:

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The equation is simple. if the state censors a religious opinion in a subject where the truth is the objective then its saying said opinion is wrong. SO its making a state opinion on religion and breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship in the first place. No one shows me why this equation is wrong as I present it!! If it was wrong a simple few lines would knock it to the mat. This is one of the things we have discussed.

But Robert, why should we have to prove anything to you? What you just said is only a "line of reasoning". Circular reasoning, at that. See Robert? That's how you dismiss Evolution. You claim that Evolution is just "a line of reasoning", and you're finished. Well Robert, what you wrote is simply a "line of reasoning." Done. In that one sentence, I have used "Robert's Rules of Logic" to completely dismantle your "line of reasoning". All I had to do was give it a label. So. Do you have anything else besides a "simple" "equation"? Any facts? Any evidence? Until you present those, all you have is a "line of reasoning", which you tell us is not sufficient to "prove" anything.

A legal point is not the same as scientific investigation. Lines of reasoning are essential to law. However they are not science. Evolution does do lines of reasoning in place of bio sci because, I say, they have no bio sci.

Given you are willfully ignorant of, well, pretty much everything, it is a good thing no sane or rational person CARES what 'you say'. In REALITY, evolution is based on bio sci; the FACT you can close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'MAGICAL SKY PIXIE DIDIT !!1!!!1!' at the top of your lungs to maintain your willful ignorance changes nothing.

Pandas Thumb should do threads on bio sci, say top three, and hold the fort from attackers.

You actually 'think' creationuts and IDiots are a threat ? Their 'attacks' are religious and political, NOT scientific. Which means they can only win if they can fool enough people into accepting their willful ignorance (which explains why they want access to students who haven't learned enough to recognize their addle-pated gibberings for what it really is) Creationism and ID have no scientific support (and no, numerology, misinformation theory and willful incredulity are not evidence against evolution or for creatorism). I know you are unwilling and unable to answer this, but WHAT THE FRECK WOULD YOU ACCEPT AS 'BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE' SUPPORTING EVOLUTION ? What, EXACTLY, would it take to convince you that the combined knowledge gathered from thousands of researchers over the last 150 years is a valid explanation of the relatedness of all living things ? Your pious idiot routine is quite predictable : ANY evidence presented will be hand-waved away by blubbering 'it not be biological science !!1!1!!' As if you had the authority to dictate what is or is not bio science. Or even capable of understanding any evidence presented. Or your answer will demonstrate just how little you actually know about real world biology.

Name your favourite top three or two. Thats what scientific evidence is meant to do. Persuade on the facts. Then yet the public vote on whether there is bio sci evidence to sustain the great claims of evo.

PREDICTION CONFIRMED - you are unable and unwilling to answer my question. Evidence is persuasive TO THOSE THAT UNDERSTAND IT - given that you are willfully unable to understand anything, presenting you with evidence would be pointless. Since you REFUSED to answer the question of 'what do YOU consider biological science that would support evolution ?', you can always run away from anything presented with 'IT NOT BE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE !! EVOLUTION NOT SUPPORTED !! ME WIN !!! ME WIN !!' Which is WHY you refused to answer, isn't it ? By answering my question, you'd lose access to your main reality evasion technique. But what could one expect from someone that actually claimed 'genetics isn't biological !!' ? Science and reality are NOT amenable to popular vote - WHY the freck would you even 'think' that it is ? Or ever was ? Or ever SHOULD BE ? Science has never been done that way, and it is possibly the WORST way it could be done ! Without an understanding of the question, HOW CAN ONE JUDGE THE MERITS OF THE ANSWERS ? Upon what basis would the ignoranti 'decide' between reality-based, well-evidenced evolution, and the howling glorifications of ignorance known as 'creationism' and 'intelligent design'? Initiating standard creationut arrogant posturing in 3.. 2.. 1.. :

I don't think you can do it either. Real threads and not here on this one.

DS already did with his link to Talk Origins '29+ Evidences of Common Descent' link. My personal favorites are molecular data, both 'fossil genes' and the nested hierarchy. Humans have egg protein genes - they are inactive and badly mutated, but present. Evolution not only explains why we have them, but why they're the way they are. How does creationism 'explain' it ? Oh right - 'GOD WILLED IT THUS !! SIT DOWN, SHUT UP, AND WORSHIP !!' Or 'THE WAY OF GAWD IS UNKNOWABLE !!! DO NOT INVESTIGATE FURTHER !!!!!' Examination of genes performing many different tasks from many different organisms PRODUCE THE SAME TREE OF RELATEDNESS. Evolution explains that observation; and creationisms 'explanation' is what again ? Oh, right : 'IT BE MERE COINCIDENCE !!! THE WAY OF THE MAGICAL SKY PIXIE IS UNKNOWABLE, SO DO NO INVESTIGATE FURTHER !!!' But, since you refused to state WHAT THE FRECK YOU CONSIDER TO BE 'BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE EVIDENCE', you'll just scream your mantra and run away. As always. And why not here ? You seem to be under the delusion that you can dictate terms to other people on a public site.

Robert Byers said: Mr Poland this is a thread about law. Not my thread. I get punished if I stray. Just suggest threads dealing with bio sci evidence.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: Mr Poland this is a thread about law. Not my thread. I get punished if I stray. Just suggest threads dealing with bio sci evidence.

Well, Robert, to be fair, it's a thread about how the law should treat ID in the absence of any actual evidence of its truth. So, you could address that point by providing some, actual evidence that ID isn't just a bunch of made-up stories. You know, like, ahem, "Bio-Sci" has been providing for their explanation for the last 15 decades or so. Or, I suppose you could just whine about being censored and persecuted. Now... given those options, which way will this go, I wonder...?

stevaroni said: Well, Robert, to be fair, it's a thread about how the law should treat ID in the absence of any actual evidence of its truth. So, you could address that point by providing some, actual evidence that ID isn't just a bunch of made-up stories. ]

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Any of our facts are ruled out right at the gate.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to refresh our memories and list some of those facts.

Byers asked for scientific evidence of evolution. He was provided with a hyperlink. Of course he didn't look at it. So I'll lay it out here.

Here are three pieces of evidence for universal common descent, after Talk Origins:

1) Nested hierarchies of characters. That is, all living things can be placed into one and one only "nested" classification of characters, based on their morphologies (ie the forms of their bodies). Any "character" (ie observed feature) of their physical anatomy can be traced to a divergence from another class of living things, and then all members of the divergent class show that particular feature or evidence of having had it once.

"Nested" groups, with no members that fit into two or more ultimate groups, ALWAYS works with ALL living things, but not with non-living things. Try it with cars, or books, or rocks, and it doesn't work. In those cases there are always "chimaeras", things that fit into two or more ultimate classifications. Same with languages, which almost show nested hierarchies, but not quite - because although languages descend from earlier languages, they are also interfertile between widely divergent groups. But all living species fit in one, and only one ultimate divergence, and they group with other living species to form a larger divergence, and that with others to form a still larger one.

The only explanation for this property is heredity, with successful variations passed on. Living species are commonly descended.

2) Transitional forms. If evolution is correct we should be able to show evidence for forms that are somewhere between an ancestor and a descendant. These will not be species that belong in neither group - that is, they won't be chimaeras - but the question of whether they are of the ancestral group or of the descendent group will usually be indeterminate. They'll be somewhere between.

Now, the fossil record is obviously very imperfect. Nevertheless, whole series of intermediate forms exist, living things with a "mosaic" of features, some from the ancestral type, others going varying distances towards the descended one. Transitions that have been extensively documented include dinosaur to bird; fish to amphibians; amphibians to reptiles; jawless fish to jawed fish; reptiles to mammals; terrestrial mammals to whales, and, yes, apes to bipedal apes to large-brained bipedal apes aka human beings. Anyone who cares to view the actual evidence, the bones, the casts, the anatomical and biomechanical evidence, will see this. It can't be explained except by evolution, slow change in populations over generational time.

3) Endogenous retroviruses. These are retroviruses that have inserted copies of their own genes into a host's genome. They're inactive, but they're passed to the host's descendants. About 30 000 such retrovirus DNA insertions can be found in the average human genome, about 1% of the total. Sequencing DNA from gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans shows a number of the very same endogenous retroviruses in the same places on the gene. This cannot be explained by design - the endogenous retrovirus DNA does nothing. It can only be explained by common ancestry. An ancestor of all those species must have had these copies inserted, and passed them on to all descendants, even after those descendants diverged into different species. Common ancestry is thus proven.

There, now, Byers. Three of the best. There's at least twenty-five or more others.

But of course, you will now ritually ignore it all.

Dave Luckett said: But of course, you will now ritually ignore it all.

Robert, QUIT CENSORING what I want to read by burying and diluting it among all your YECcing!

Now we can see that you really DON'T believe in democracy so much when people vote down YOUR ideas! YOU proposed that people in a community should determine what 'truths' are discussed and taught. WE, in this community VOTED to determine that 'truth'. Evolution won by a unanimous vote. The polls were open for 24 hours. NOBODY voted for YEC. Not even you. Yet you continue to censor us by burying and diluting our evolutionary truth among all your YECcing!

Why don't you go to some YEC blog, where people WANT to read endlessly repeated YEC arguments? Perhaps an AIG or ICR site. Or do they censor you right quickly, when your brand of YECcing proves too tiresome and embarrassing even for them? Robert, is PT the ONLY site that doesn't censor all your crap about how you're censored?

Robert, How could creationism be anything other than inherently religious? It had been around for thousands of years before science developed. When science did develop creationism formed the basis of the early hypotheses to explain diversity, biogeography, fossil record, anatomy, etc. It failed as an explanation and an old earth coupled with common descent and speciation and extinction replaced it. The only purpose for reintroducing creationism is religious.

If creationism were concerned at all with science (which it isn't), then its story wouldn't change with the audience - there would be a consistent view on the age of the earth, on natural selection, on speciation, etc. but all we get are proselytizing and apologizing - we get stories to convert and keep converts from deconverting - it doesn't matter whether the stories are consistent with each other or even true - as the ends (keeping the faith) justify the means.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The equation stands well. you didn't answer it. aMEN to the state not saying any religious ideas are wrong(or right). In teaching about truth in conclusions in origin subjects the censoring of creationist conclusions could only mean the state is saying they are wrong. Since they censor based on the religious aspect, they accuse, then they ARE saying certain religious conclusions are wrong. How not? Its a class dealing with what is true! Censorship must be a opinion on what is and is not true if the class is dedicated to the discovery of truth. Science class is, or should be, more dedicated then social studies or history. The equation stands because its right on the nerve of this legal matter.

Robert, your "equation" was answered and refuted multiple times over, just in the last few pages. You simply ignored all the refutations. Simply repeating the same thing over and over is not an "argument". It is not a "reason". All you ever do is repeat yourself, and say "No. I'm right." The state is not saying that your religious viewpoint is wrong. The state is prevented from saying anything of the sort. That is your biased conclusion based on nothing, except perhaps your persecution complex. The state is not censoring your religious view point. I have taken classes in religion in public high school, and it was perfectly legal. The ACLU did not come and shut the school down. The state is not giving an opinion on whether religion is "true" or not. The state is saying that these scientific facts are known to be true by 99.99% of all scientists. The state is allowed to present facts that are known to be true. Evolution is a scientific fact (as well as a theory). It is a scientific fact that the Earth is billions of years old. Plate tectonics is a scientific fact (as well as a theory). The speed if light is a scientific fact. You simply have no idea what the "legal matter" is. You said that law doesn't allow it. Well, you have been shown the law, and you ignore it. You said that the Constitution doesn't allow it. Well, you have been shown the Constitution, and you ignore it. You have been shown the evidence, and you ignore it. Simply ignoring reality is not a "life skill". SImply ignoring the other persons facts is not an "argument".

Ain't ignoring nothin'. The equation I make is right on. IS ID censored/banned in classes dealing with origins? Why is it banned? If because they say its religious conclusions then are these conclusions wrong? If the state is not saying they are wrong and yet accurate conclusions is the purpose of the class then why is ID banned? State censorship in world history means the subject being censored is not a option for the public to consider in drawing conclusions and since accurate conclusions is a very specific purpose in science class then the state COULDN'T be more emphatic that ID is wrong as rain. Therefore their accusation that its religious conclusions, justifying their censorship, is PROOF POSITIVE they are saying certain religious conclusions are wrong as heavy rain! Thus breaking their own (invented) law. I am confident Jefferson would laugh to scorn the agenda to censor God/Genesis/anything that is opposed to evolution and friends. He would laugh at how anyone could skewer from glorious lines of great government a agenda to have court dictated state censorship of school content dealing with the oldest and most famous subjects of mankind. ORIGINS!!! The equation stands and I see no answer. You can't beat the equation. Perhaps someone knows a high ranking lawyer to help but it wouldn't help. Come on! Free up scholarship and education or at least leave it in the peoples hands about what is censored if anything. Free nations should pride themselves on freedom of thought, enquiry, teaching, and disagreement especially in very famous popular contentions.

DS said: Here you go Robert, the top twenty nine: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Now bobby, when you have successfully refuted all twenty nine evidences, then you can piss and moan about how evolution has not made it's case. We'll be waiting for the top three evidences of creationism, just like we have been waiting for the last five hundred years.

Robert Byers said:

PA Poland said:

Robert Byers said:

PA Poland said:

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The equation is simple. if the state censors a religious opinion in a subject where the truth is the objective then its saying said opinion is wrong. SO its making a state opinion on religion and breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship in the first place. No one shows me why this equation is wrong as I present it!! If it was wrong a simple few lines would knock it to the mat. This is one of the things we have discussed.

But Robert, why should we have to prove anything to you? What you just said is only a "line of reasoning". Circular reasoning, at that. See Robert? That's how you dismiss Evolution. You claim that Evolution is just "a line of reasoning", and you're finished. Well Robert, what you wrote is simply a "line of reasoning." Done. In that one sentence, I have used "Robert's Rules of Logic" to completely dismantle your "line of reasoning". All I had to do was give it a label. So. Do you have anything else besides a "simple" "equation"? Any facts? Any evidence? Until you present those, all you have is a "line of reasoning", which you tell us is not sufficient to "prove" anything.

A legal point is not the same as scientific investigation. Lines of reasoning are essential to law. However they are not science. Evolution does do lines of reasoning in place of bio sci because, I say, they have no bio sci.

Given you are willfully ignorant of, well, pretty much everything, it is a good thing no sane or rational person CARES what 'you say'. In REALITY, evolution is based on bio sci; the FACT you can close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'MAGICAL SKY PIXIE DIDIT !!1!!!1!' at the top of your lungs to maintain your willful ignorance changes nothing.

Pandas Thumb should do threads on bio sci, say top three, and hold the fort from attackers.

You actually 'think' creationuts and IDiots are a threat ? Their 'attacks' are religious and political, NOT scientific. Which means they can only win if they can fool enough people into accepting their willful ignorance (which explains why they want access to students who haven't learned enough to recognize their addle-pated gibberings for what it really is) Creationism and ID have no scientific support (and no, numerology, misinformation theory and willful incredulity are not evidence against evolution or for creatorism). I know you are unwilling and unable to answer this, but WHAT THE FRECK WOULD YOU ACCEPT AS 'BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE' SUPPORTING EVOLUTION ? What, EXACTLY, would it take to convince you that the combined knowledge gathered from thousands of researchers over the last 150 years is a valid explanation of the relatedness of all living things ? Your pious idiot routine is quite predictable : ANY evidence presented will be hand-waved away by blubbering 'it not be biological science !!1!1!!' As if you had the authority to dictate what is or is not bio science. Or even capable of understanding any evidence presented. Or your answer will demonstrate just how little you actually know about real world biology.

Name your favourite top three or two. Thats what scientific evidence is meant to do. Persuade on the facts. Then yet the public vote on whether there is bio sci evidence to sustain the great claims of evo.

PREDICTION CONFIRMED - you are unable and unwilling to answer my question. Evidence is persuasive TO THOSE THAT UNDERSTAND IT - given that you are willfully unable to understand anything, presenting you with evidence would be pointless. Since you REFUSED to answer the question of 'what do YOU consider biological science that would support evolution ?', you can always run away from anything presented with 'IT NOT BE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE !! EVOLUTION NOT SUPPORTED !! ME WIN !!! ME WIN !!' Which is WHY you refused to answer, isn't it ? By answering my question, you'd lose access to your main reality evasion technique. But what could one expect from someone that actually claimed 'genetics isn't biological !!' ? Science and reality are NOT amenable to popular vote - WHY the freck would you even 'think' that it is ? Or ever was ? Or ever SHOULD BE ? Science has never been done that way, and it is possibly the WORST way it could be done ! Without an understanding of the question, HOW CAN ONE JUDGE THE MERITS OF THE ANSWERS ? Upon what basis would the ignoranti 'decide' between reality-based, well-evidenced evolution, and the howling glorifications of ignorance known as 'creationism' and 'intelligent design'? Initiating standard creationut arrogant posturing in 3.. 2.. 1.. :

I don't think you can do it either. Real threads and not here on this one.

DS already did with his link to Talk Origins '29+ Evidences of Common Descent' link. My personal favorites are molecular data, both 'fossil genes' and the nested hierarchy. Humans have egg protein genes - they are inactive and badly mutated, but present. Evolution not only explains why we have them, but why they're the way they are. How does creationism 'explain' it ? Oh right - 'GOD WILLED IT THUS !! SIT DOWN, SHUT UP, AND WORSHIP !!' Or 'THE WAY OF GAWD IS UNKNOWABLE !!! DO NOT INVESTIGATE FURTHER !!!!!' Examination of genes performing many different tasks from many different organisms PRODUCE THE SAME TREE OF RELATEDNESS. Evolution explains that observation; and creationisms 'explanation' is what again ? Oh, right : 'IT BE MERE COINCIDENCE !!! THE WAY OF THE MAGICAL SKY PIXIE IS UNKNOWABLE, SO DO NO INVESTIGATE FURTHER !!!' But, since you refused to state WHAT THE FRECK YOU CONSIDER TO BE 'BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE EVIDENCE', you'll just scream your mantra and run away. As always. And why not here ? You seem to be under the delusion that you can dictate terms to other people on a public site.

Mr Poland this is a thread about law. Not my thread. I get punished if I stray. Just suggest threads dealing with bio sci evidence. pick your favourite persuasive ONE.

I say there ain't any relative to the great claims of evolution. Prove one exists and you prove me and YEC wrong! How hard can it be if you have heaps of proof.

Yes one can argue over what is evidence. Evolutionist raise the stakes on what is sci evidence when they say ID researchers don't have a clue what sci evidence is! A few lawyers on the bench too.

one can argue over what is biology. Yes I say rocks are not biology but only contain images of a biological thing in a moment of time.

Yes I think biology requires tools used in biology courses and research. Not tools, pickaxes and dynamite, used in moving rocks. Make your case. On a thread by a authority figure.

In a strange coincidence, this week in Wiley Miller's comic strip, 'Non Sequitur' Danae has been dealing with her science homework in full Robert mode.

Wiley connoisseurs should take it from the top.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: The court doesn't have the authority to judge science.

You have been shown the law. You ignore it. You have been shown the Constitution. You ignore it. Even the people at Answers In Genesis, even the strongest advocates of Intelligent Design believe that Courts have the authority to judge science. They keep asking the courts to do so, and they keep losing. If the Courts don't have the authority to judge science, why do creationists ask them to do so? Here's the thing, Robert. Simply repeating your refuted arguments does not magically make your laughable statements true. Simply repeating your statements doesn't change reality. WHY do the Courts not have the authority to judge science? Why do you say that? "Because I don't want them to" is not a reason. Show us the legal basis for your statement. Show us the evidence. Show us in the Constitution where it says that the Courts cannot judge science. Show us in the Law that Courts cannot judge science. Show us the facts that say the Courts cannot judge science. We've quoted the Constitution and The Law to support our proposition. Now you quote the black and white statements in the Constitution and the Laws that prove your statement above. Then maybe we can have a discussion about your facts, and our facts. Until then, we have put our facts on the table. You have presented nothing. All you have said is, "Nope. I don't like those." That's not good enough. That's why creationists continue to lose in the Courts. Show us the facts that make you say that the Courts do not have the authority to judge science. Don't repeat your statement. Support it. Prove it.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Robert, How could creationism be anything other than inherently religious? It had been around for thousands of years before science developed. When science did develop creationism formed the basis of the early hypotheses to explain diversity, biogeography, fossil record, anatomy, etc. It failed as an explanation and an old earth coupled with common descent and speciation and extinction replaced it. The only purpose for reintroducing creationism is religious. If creationism were concerned at all with science (which it isn't), then its story wouldn't change with the audience - there would be a consistent view on the age of the earth, on natural selection, on speciation, etc. but all we get are proselytizing and apologizing - we get stories to convert and keep converts from deconverting - it doesn't matter whether the stories are consistent with each other or even true - as the ends (keeping the faith) justify the means.

Robert Byers said: Making a case is not repeating yourself if your opponent brings up the same point again.

the judges have no authority because the constitution or any law governing power NEVER gave them this authority.

Robert Byers said: creationism is just conclusions. Calling it religion does not make the conclusions wrong.

Byers opines: (T)he judges have no authority because the constitution or any law governing power NEVER gave them this authority. their opinion on science can only be a factor in the important opinion on religion.

Robert Byers said: Yes id asked BECAUSE if the judge said YES iD is science THEN its not religion. so no legal problem. The judge said NO to iD being science and then 92) said it was religion in its methodology etc and so illegal. Simple equation here.

Dave Luckett said: Accordingly, the court ruled that the doctrine of intelligent design, which was not science and which was religion, could not be taught in the State schools, as this was prohibited by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: creationism is just conclusions. Calling it religion does not make the conclusions wrong.

No, but it does make it violate the establishment clause. Demonstrating factual accuracy makes it not violate the establishment clause. Why don't you just do that? Oh yeah, that's right - you can't.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Yes id asked BECAUSE if the judge said YES iD is science THEN its not religion. so no legal problem. The judge said NO to iD being science and then 92) said it was religion in its methodology etc and so illegal. Simple equation here.

Wow. Let me just repeat that. You would ask a judge to decide whether ID is science or not. If he/she gave a 'yes' answer, you would use that decision as precedent and see no legal problem with doing so. But if he/she gave a 'no' answer, you would declare the whole process illegal and say the judge has no authority to decide that question. Did I describe your position correctly? Don't you see anything ethically and legally wrong with that position?

Robert Byers said: Well it all comes down to whether the state MUST censor certain conclusions in origin matters in public institutions like schools. I say the constitution gibves no such order. Its a made up thing since ww11.

I state that if the state censors a religious opinion dealing with subjects that are presented with the purpose of determining the truth THEN the state is saying SAME religious opinions are false.

Robert Byers said: No. The judges have no duty to judge science as a legal duty. Its not in the constitution or any body of law.

Takes a Canadian eh

Robert Byers said: In these case I also add that the judges only decide ID was religious and so "illegal" and they did not have authority to decide iD was not science and so illegal. EVEN though deciding ID was not science was part of their decision. Yet only that. I say its none of their business to say what is science AS a legal matter. THey have no authority to Judge this and enforce it. None of their business.

Therefore ID/YEC should in the next court cases deny any right of Judges to judge what science is. They are not a authority and have no legal authority from written law. Then ID/YEC say the judges can only judge if ID/YEC are religious conclusions. THEN deny the judges can say religious conclusions are illegal, if the judge rules ID/YEC are religious, since it would mean the state is saying they are wrong if the state censors them. Thats all creationists have to do.

The equation I presented here stands tall in the saddle. If a state censors religious conclusions in classes about truth then the state is saying same religious conclusions are false AND THUS breaking the separation concept for the censorship they invoke for the religious conclusions. I think i'm right. Why am I wrong?

Robert, let's try this little test.

I have never in my life expressed an opinion about the quality of the Los Angeles Dodgers, or any of their individual players. Ever.

I say that the New York Yankees have won 27 World Series titles. As of this moment, this is a fact.

Does that mean that I have said that LA shortstop Hanley Ramirez is a bad baseball player?

Similarly, I say that 99.8% of all scientists say that all of the scientific evidence shows that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That statement is a fact. It is indisputable.

Am I allowed to teach children this scientific fact in public, state-run schools?

Why, or why not?

Scott F said: Robert, let's try this little test. I have never in my life expressed an opinion about the quality of the Los Angeles Dodgers, or any of their individual players. Ever. I say that the New York Yankees have won 27 World Series titles. As of this moment, this is a fact. Does that mean that I have said that LA shortstop Hanley Ramirez is a bad baseball player? Similarly, I say that 99.8% of all scientists say that all of the scientific evidence shows that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That statement is a fact. It is indisputable. Am I allowed to teach children this scientific fact in public, state-run schools? Why, or why not?

You guys are just wasting your time and my monitor ink — he won't/can't read it.

Well until the asshole deals with the twenty nine different types of evidence, why bother to correct his bullshit for the fourteenth time? He can repeat that crap for the next two hundred pages without ever learning a thing or even reading any responses. BFD

gnome de net said: You guys are just wasting your time and my monitor ink — he won't/can't read it.

Dave Luckett said: Byers asked for scientific evidence of evolution. He was provided with a hyperlink. Of course he didn't look at it. So I'll lay it out here. Here are three pieces of evidence for universal common descent, after Talk Origins: (...) But of course, you will now ritually ignore it all.

Dave Luckett said: This was back on October 4, 5:56 am:

Dave Luckett said: Byers asked for scientific evidence of evolution. He was provided with a hyperlink. Of course he didn't look at it. So I'll lay it out here. Here are three pieces of evidence for universal common descent, after Talk Origins: (...) But of course, you will now ritually ignore it all.

The three pieces of evidence I laid out were: (1) perfect nesting by taxonomy: (2) fossil evidence of transitional forms between higher taxa; (3) endogenous retroviral insertions. As predicted, Byers has ritually ignored them.

Can we pick one (1) question for Robert and insist that he answer it before moving on?

Don't give him any wiggle room to ignore that single, brief, uncluttered question.

If he Gish Gallups, tries to move the goal posts, or just repeats the same old crap, remind him that any additional points will be addressed after he answers the first question.

Repeatedly insisting that he answer one question at a time, along with his failure to do so, will leave a clear record for posterity.

DS said: RIght. So now it is time to ritually ignore (Byers). Let him wallow in his own crapulence. Let him spew his repetitive filth into a vacuum.

gnome de net said: Can we pick one (1) question for Robert and insist that he answer it before moving on?

stevaroni said:

gnome de net said: Can we pick one (1) question for Robert and insist that he answer it before moving on?

I'd like one tiny little unmistakable bit of positive evidence for Special Creation. Not an argument against Darwin, or evolution or physics, not some testimony about how he knows Jesus exists, not some hand waving abut how the Bible tells all if you only know how to interpret it, not an argument about how 1 billion people believe so it must be real, not a diatribe about how teaching accurate biology inevitably leads to Hitler, but some little scrap of physical thing that is actually evidence for Creation. Something tangible that can be examined. Anyhow, that's my vote.

Please tell us what happens, when and where, which results in the variety of life - as it turns out to be - rather than any of the other possibilities.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: Well it all comes down to whether the state MUST censor certain conclusions in origin matters in public institutions like schools. I say the constitution gibves no such order. Its a made up thing since ww11.

What can I tell you, Robert? Everson v. Board of Education says you’re wrong. “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.” And, though I realize it has become a Fox News shibolleth that there really is such a thing as mandated separation of church and state, no legal scholar seems to seriously doubt that the concept exists. How do I know this? Because in all the "Lets teach Creation" cases in the last few decades, I do not see one serious argument from the God side that the separation issue should be dismissed as a point of law. This is important, Robert, because that's often the first line of defense in constitutional cases and it is argued all the time, often successfully. Don't take my word on it, look at recent history. Let's look at the 2013 Supreme court docket... Clapper v. Amnesty International USA - decided for the administration, on the basis that the FISA act put the activities in question beyond judicial review. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Inc - decided for Shell, on the basis that the Alien Tort Act did not put the crimes in question within the reach of the US justice system. Hollingsworth v. Perry - decided for defendants, on the basis that the plaintiffs could not articulate a legally reviewable case given their standing. Nearly all the recent cases about the limits of government surveillance or the status of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay run into the brick wall of various constitutional interpretations that seem to put the issues beyond judicial review. Yet, despite the clear record of successfully arguing the constitutionality of a given law, these "Teach ID" cases never really turn on them. It's almost as if the highly paid, highly skilled lawyers from AiG and ICR realize that there's such an enormous amount of settled case law that making those arguments is going be totally useless and only come off as being petulant and argumentative.

I state that if the state censors a religious opinion dealing with subjects that are presented with the purpose of determining the truth THEN the state is saying SAME religious opinions are false.

Again, the state never says that your religion is false. It merely teaches, correctly, that as far as we can measure the Earth is 4 billion years old and the stars even more ancient, and if we dig in the Earth and in our DNA we find an unbroken line of evolved thingies that we can seamlessly trace back to little tiny worms two billion years ago. That statement has everything to do with honest measurement, and nothing to do with religion. It may be theologically inconvenient if you have a religion that wants to pretend that the Earth was created on a sunny afternoon in the middle of the Bronze age, but that's what happens when you have a religion that has chosen to pick a fight with easily measured reality.

Scott F said: Robert, let's try this little test. I have never in my life expressed an opinion about the quality of the Los Angeles Dodgers, or any of their individual players. Ever. I say that the New York Yankees have won 27 World Series titles. As of this moment, this is a fact. Does that mean that I have said that LA shortstop Hanley Ramirez is a bad baseball player? Similarly, I say that 99.8% of all scientists say that all of the scientific evidence shows that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That statement is a fact. It is indisputable. Am I allowed to teach children this scientific fact in public, state-run schools? Why, or why not?

stevaroni said:

Scott F said: Robert, let's try this little test. I have never in my life expressed an opinion about the quality of the Los Angeles Dodgers, or any of their individual players. Ever. I say that the New York Yankees have won 27 World Series titles. As of this moment, this is a fact. Does that mean that I have said that LA shortstop Hanley Ramirez is a bad baseball player? Similarly, I say that 99.8% of all scientists say that all of the scientific evidence shows that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That statement is a fact. It is indisputable. Am I allowed to teach children this scientific fact in public, state-run schools? Why, or why not?

Better yet: Let's say Robert belongs to a religion that holds, as an unquestionable article of faith, that the Dodgers have won every single World Series since their inception in 1883. There are, of course, other religions that have similar articles of faith about their teams. Since the claims are all mutually exclusive, at least most of them have to be incorrect.* You Scott, are employed to teach a required course in baseball history at a local high school, which all students, regardless of who they root for, are required to take. There will be a test. To some extent you can rely on the first-person testimony of current and retired players and fans, and this shows that there has been a good bit of back-and-forth trading of the Title in recent decades, but this is only so accurate and only goes back so far. To explore the history of the title before living memory, you have to use... Dum!..Dumm!!.. DummmM!!!...** Historical Records! (Gasp!) Fortunately, for Scott, there seems to be a rather rich pile of evidence to examine. It's not perfect, particularly in the early days when the Leagues were small and informal, but eventually, when you put it all together it tells an extremely congruent story, one that cross-references through multiple chains of evidence. And then Beyers takes Scott to court, claiming that by teaching the best available amalgam of existing evidence - evidence which refutes Beyers Omnipotent Dodgers Dogma, Scott is expressing a defaminatory opinon about the Didgers, and therefore Beyers has a legal right to respond and have his Dodgers Domination Doctrine taught in schools as an equally valid hypothesis. Oddly, though, Beyers sees no reason why anyone else should get to teach their Omnipotent Oriels, Indomitable Indians, or Peerless Pirates positions. And don't even get me started on the Cubs fans. * _{As I type this I realize that so far this scenario doesn't really seem that farfetched} ** _{Sadly, typed HTML seems to make no accommodation for a dramatic moment of theme music. A grievous oversight.}

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said: Robert, let's try this little test. I have never in my life expressed an opinion about the quality of the Los Angeles Dodgers, or any of their individual players. Ever. I say that the New York Yankees have won 27 World Series titles. As of this moment, this is a fact. Does that mean that I have said that LA shortstop Hanley Ramirez is a bad baseball player? Similarly, I say that 99.8% of all scientists say that all of the scientific evidence shows that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That statement is a fact. It is indisputable. Am I allowed to teach children this scientific fact in public, state-run schools? Why, or why not?

Not a accurate analogy. What is better is saying NY winning all those means LA did not. Thats our case here. WE say LA won them and not NY. You say NY and so it means NOT LA and we can't legally say ITS LA. In fact if we say lets debate you censor our LA opinion but tell us your not really doing this. You can't by law and so we are reading this wrong. Thats the analogy here.

Byers writes twaddle, as usual.

The First Amendment is interpreted by the courts, because interpreting the law is what the courts do. The facts about ID are as the courts determine, because making findings of fact from evidence is also what courts do. The courts have ruled that the First Amendment means that the State cannot fund a religion, which means it cannot allow any religious doctrine to be taught in the schools it funds and runs. They have ruled that ID is creationism in disguise, and that special creation is a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory. Since it is a religious doctrine, the State cannot allow it to be taught in the schools it funds and runs.

That's the law.

Byers thinks he can read the minds of the Founders. He can't; nobody can. Fortunately, nobody has to. We have their words, in the First Amendment to the Constitution. That's what matters, That's what the Courts interpret, as is their function and duty. That's the Law, not what Byers thinks was in the minds of the Founders.

The rest of the above is the same old, same old.

Well the ignoramus can ignore the evidence every midnight for the next two thousand years and everyone will still be able to see that he ignored it. He cannot win until he addresses the evidence, even if he is too stupid too realize it. BI BIM BOP he loses now and forever.

Robert Byers said: The state is not involved in the schools. only pays for them.

Robert Byers said: Thats why there is a need for equal time. To get to the truth.

Robert Byers said: Thats why there is a need for equal time. To get to the truth.

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: The state is not involved in the schools. only pays for them.

Paying for schools is not involvement?

Seems like this thread has run its course.
It was strange. A humble thread turned into a major intellectual dustup about the essence of law and law decisions.
I thought it went well and was informative for anyone thinking carefully about origin matters in these days.
stevearoni took me on with enough civility and scottF and it was a cage match.
It sharpened me and clarified some things to me about these matters.
I was not in any way persuaded off my positions and don't think anyone should be.
I do think my opponents should of been persuaded.
Somebody is right and somebody wrong.
We are on the side of truth seeking and freedom of enquiry and its full teaching in public institutions.
We also see the public institutions as belonging exclusively to the people and their desires relative to elected government.
The past problems in the Judiciary can be fixed by better lawyering from aggresive organized creationism.
The right famous cases with full public attention should bring , once again, down the walls of hostility, error, and its child called censorship.

I wish Pandas Thumb would do threads about whether there is or is not scientific biological evidence to justify evolution as a explanation for biology and as a real theory of science.
I am as ready to rumble on these matters as this one.
Somebody talk to the Royal family.!

Robert Byers said: THE STATE has no business in religious ideas. religious ideas have no business in the state.

however if the state bans religious ideas in subjects about truth then THE STATE has spoken about whats not true.

Robert Byers said: Seems like this thread has run its course. It was strange. A humble thread turned into a major intellectual dustup about the essence of law and law decisions.

Somebody is right and somebody wrong. We are on the side of truth seeking and freedom of enquiry and its full teaching in public institutions.

I wish Pandas Thumb would do threads about whether there is or is not scientific biological evidence to justify evolution as a explanation for biology and as a real theory of science.

Robert Byers said: Seems like this thread has run its course. It was strange. A humble thread turned into a major intellectual dustup about the essence of law and law decisions.

I thought it went well and was informative for anyone thinking carefully about origin matters in these days.

stevearoni took me on with enough civility and scottF and it was a cage match. It sharpened me and clarified some things to me about these matters. I was not in any way persuaded off my positions and don't think anyone should be.

I do think my opponents should of been persuaded.

Somebody is right and somebody wrong.

We are on the side of truth seeking and freedom of enquiry and its full teaching in public institutions.

We also see the public institutions as belonging exclusively to the people and their desires relative to elected government.

The past problems in the Judiciary can be fixed by better lawyering from aggresive organized creationism.

The right famous cases with full public attention should bring , once again, down the walls of hostility, error, and its child called censorship.

I wish Pandas Thumb would do threads about whether there is or is not scientific biological evidence to justify evolution as a explanation for biology and as a real theory of science.

I am as ready to rumble on these matters as this one. Somebody talk to the Royal family.!

CCDOnce again what is the alternative account of what happens and when so that the world of life turns out as it does?

Robert Byers said: Seems like this thread has run its course. It was strange. A humble thread turned into a major intellectual dustup about the essence of law and law decisions. I thought it went well and was informative for anyone thinking carefully about origin matters in these days. stevearoni took me on with enough civility and scottF and it was a cage match. It sharpened me and clarified some things to me about these matters. I was not in any way persuaded off my positions and don't think anyone should be. I do think my opponents should of been persuaded. Somebody is right and somebody wrong. We are on the side of truth seeking and freedom of enquiry and its full teaching in public institutions. We also see the public institutions as belonging exclusively to the people and their desires relative to elected government. The past problems in the Judiciary can be fixed by better lawyering from aggresive organized creationism. The right famous cases with full public attention should bring , once again, down the walls of hostility, error, and its child called censorship. I wish Pandas Thumb would do threads about whether there is or is not scientific biological evidence to justify evolution as a explanation for biology and as a real theory of science. I am as ready to rumble on these matters as this one. Somebody talk to the Royal family.!

By the way, it's "should have", not "should of". That you can't even get this tiny bit of elementary-school level grammar correct -- after having it pointed out to you before -- speaks volumes about your knowledge and intelligence.

This thread has had it, folks. Thanks for participating.