Cope vs. Kansas Board of Education is appealed to Supreme Court

COPE’s entire “complaint” is extremely whiney and takes gratuitous offense at everything secular.

They want to frame the teaching of science, history, and social studies as indoctrination into another religion; everything to them is a competing religion. When will these idiots ever grow up and get an education themselves? We don’t live in a theocracy.

These theocrats are fed by a secular economy and are protected by secular laws and a military made up of people from all religions and non-religious backgrounds. There has been an entire history of the Western civilization that has benefited from insights gained from many sources; and Western civilization even went through a period called The Enlightenment. These idiots are living in the Middle Ages.

This is a frivolous law suit.; and it is evident that COPE thinks the political winds are in its favor. I don’t know why the US Supreme Court is wasting time on this case when there are more important cases to be dealt with. I hope the court is up to giving COPE a hard and much-needed slapdown.

Some people just don't know how to cope with evidence-based science.

Henry J said: Some people just don't know how to cope with evidence-based science.

Notice how many times they used "indoctrinate", "inculcate", "dogma", "orthodoxy", "religion", etc.

Why do we have to fight these battles again and again and again and again....

Matt G said: Why do we have to fight these battles again and again and again and again....

COPE - needs a better descriptor.

Chemists' Oppositional Palaver on Evolution

Christians Openly Pissing on Education

OK. Let's say they somehow win. Let's say it actually becomes illegal to teach science to anyone who is offended because of their religious beliefs. What then? Is it the end of science in public schools? Is it the end of science in colleges and universities? What then?

To deal with COPE, how about starting a group in response? I suggest Militant Atheists Refuting Specious Hermeneutics.

I don’t know why the US Supreme Court is wasting time on this case when there are more important cases to be dealt with.

Man, talk about tilting at windmills. Calvert has been churning out the same tired, weak, fallacious arguments about science being atheistic for 15 years now. I can't believe the Supreme Court would bother with this.

Matt Young said:

I don’t know why the US Supreme Court is wasting time on this case when there are more important cases to be dealt with.

Perhaps I should have said so, but I do not think that the Court has agreed to hear the case, which has just been filed, and I have no reason to think that they will do so. Cope, I suppose, is hoping for a (bite my tongue!) Trump victory and a Court full of Scalias.

To deal with COPE, how about starting a group in response? I suggest Militant Atheists Refuting Specious Hermeneutics.

Matt G said: Why do we have to fight these battles again and again and again and again....

eric said:

Matt G said: Why do we have to fight these battles again and again and again and again....

Cheer up, its probably all over but for the final "no." There's something like 100 SCOTUS petitions submitted for each one that gets accepted. Adding to that unlikeliness, the court is in a 4-4 ideological deadlock; I can see Thomas and Alito wanting to hear this, but I can't really see them getting Roberts or Breyer to sign on.

I like the activision on behalf of truth, freedom, and good guys everywhere.
Yet i don't like wording and concepts.
Its unlikely any court would agree that the government is forcing a non theistic program by exclusion of theistic alternative options.
the equation is right(ish). but still wrong.

It should be a simple claim the American people understand instantly.
THAT the the state in its censorship of certain options for discussion of origins, with a goal of accuracy in knowledge, in public institutions is saying SAME options are not true WHICH is illegal by the very law invoked to justify the censorship.

This would strike at the whole concept of state censorship, like in the old English/French days,
The people would understand the demand for truth and freedom and the existing rights in the government from a long precedent in history of the nation.

I hate to be the nay-sayer, but I would think that any organization that starts by calling itself "militant atheist" anything is going to be of inconsiderable political influence, in the United States.

Then again, there is that saying about making the iron hot by striking...

I hate to be the nay-sayer, but I would think that any organization that starts by calling itself "militant atheist" anything is going to be of inconsiderable political influence, in the United States.

Then again, there is that saying about making the iron hot by striking...

Dave Luckett said: Then again, there is that saying about making the iron hot by striking...

Matt Young said:

I don’t know why the US Supreme Court is wasting time on this case when there are more important cases to be dealt with.

Perhaps I should have said so, but I do not think that the Court has agreed to hear the case, which has just been filed, and I have no reason to think that they will do so. Cope, I suppose, is hoping for a (bite my tongue!) Trump victory and a Court full of Scalias.

W. H. Heydt said: Actually...it's the other way around..."Strike while the iron is hot". That is, shape the iron while it is hot enough from the forge to still be plastic, or--in more extreme cases--hot enough to forge-weld pieces together.

W. H. Heydt said:

Dave Luckett said: Then again, there is that saying about making the iron hot by striking...

Actually...it's the other way around..."Strike while the iron is hot". That is, shape the iron while it is hot enough from the forge to still be plastic, or--in more extreme cases--hot enough to forge-weld pieces together.

stevaroni said:

W. H. Heydt said: Actually...it's the other way around..."Strike while the iron is hot". That is, shape the iron while it is hot enough from the forge to still be plastic, or--in more extreme cases--hot enough to forge-weld pieces together.

Ahhh!!! now I get it. I had heard that phrase all my life and always wondered about it, because I always imagined it referred to using the iron as a weapon, that is, striking with the iron, possibly in some medievally inspired moment. Which, like a lot of old aphorisms, never made any sense because it's just as easy to brain somebody with a cold iron as it is with a hot iron and you don't run the risk of burning yourself.

To gild refined gold, to paint the lily, To throw a perfume on the violet, To smooth the ice, or add another hue Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish, Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.

Was I too subtle? The name was intended to be read as an acronym. COPE vs. MARSH. What, no paleontology fans here?

John Harshman said: Was I too subtle? The name was intended to be read as an acronym. COPE vs. MARSH. What, no paleontology fans here?

John Harshman said: Was I too subtle? The name was intended to be read as an acronym. COPE vs. MARSH. What, no paleontology fans here?

Matt Young said: It's Shakespeare -- King John, a play I think I have never seen:

To gild refined gold, to paint the lily, To throw a perfume on the violet, To smooth the ice, or add another hue Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish, Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.

You think he cribbed it from the Bible?

Aren't they appealing the decision to dismiss the case? So if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case and if they win the appeal, the only thing they would have won is the right to a trial. They still would have to prove their case in court. Although I hope it never goes to trial (they could win in Kansas), their arguments would be comedic gold.

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."

- William Butler Yeats

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williambut133313.html

Robert Byers said: I like the activision on behalf of truth, freedom, and good guys everywhere. Yet i don't like wording and concepts.

Its unlikely any court would agree that the government is forcing a non theistic program by exclusion of theistic alternative options.

the equation is right(ish). but still wrong.

It should be a simple claim the American people understand instantly. THAT the the state in its censorship of certain options for discussion of origins, with a goal of accuracy in knowledge, in public institutions is saying SAME options are not true WHICH is illegal by the very law invoked to justify the censorship. This would strike at the whole concept of state censorship, like in the old English/French days, The people would understand the demand for truth and freedom and the existing rights in the government from a long precedent in history of the nation.

Robert Byers said: I like the activision...

Matt Young said:

I don’t know why the US Supreme Court is wasting time on this case when there are more important cases to be dealt with.

Perhaps I should have said so, but I do not think that the Court has agreed to hear the case, which has just been filed, and I have no reason to think that they will do so. Cope, I suppose, is hoping for a (bite my tongue!) Trump victory and a Court full of Scalias.

Scott F said: So, if teachers are free to compare and contrast science with religion, what do you think most of them are going to do? Do you want your children to go to school and be explicitly told (rather than implicitly) that the Bible is full of shit and wrong about every scientific concept? Do you want Catholic teachers to tell Protestant children that they're going to go to hell? Do you want Mormon teachers to ridicule Catholic children? Do you want Protestant children to be graded on their understanding, their acceptance of Hindu creationist stories? Freedom of religion, also means from from religion. Specifically, your freedom from other people's religions. So, don't pray for something that you really, really aren't going to like.

Yeah, if those different from the ones in charge can be picked on at will, then only the ones like those in charge are free from it. So anybody pushing for such a thing is gambling that their group will be the one in charge.

Well, it might be. For a while.

But with a system like that, things can change. Evolve, even.

The biggest danger to Mr. Byers, if he were to win his argument, would be when some other religion--whether one of the other (of a large number) of Christian religions--or some group who aren't Christian gains a majority. Then *his* group with become the "embattled minority" and actually subject to everything he complains about now.

W. H. Heydt said: The biggest danger to Mr. Byers, if he were to win his argument, would be when some other religion--whether one of the other (of a large number) of Christian religions--or some group who aren't Christian gains a majority. Then *his* group with become the "embattled minority" and actually subject to everything he complains about now.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said: The biggest danger to Mr. Byers, if he were to win his argument, would be when some other religion--whether one of the other (of a large number) of Christian religions--or some group who aren't Christian gains a majority. Then *his* group with become the "embattled minority" and actually subject to everything he complains about now.

I think creationism has the winning judicial case Just the right case, right layers, and right amount of publicity. This would win in the public awareness. There is a problem with these selection judges as posters here complain about Trump/Clinton picking them for paritsen reasons. Its true for the liberal side. The conservative didn't do this but instead tries for judges without agendas. Anyways. There is no danger to truth and freedom to to discern truth in academia. IAfter state censorship is destroyed THEN the people will decide what is taught in subjects about origins. They will not pick obscure things but the common , historic, famous positions. It will work fine and fair finally.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said: The biggest danger to Mr. Byers, if he were to win his argument, would be when some other religion--whether one of the other (of a large number) of Christian religions--or some group who aren't Christian gains a majority. Then *his* group with become the "embattled minority" and actually subject to everything he complains about now.

I think creationism has the winning judicial case Just the right case, right layers, and right amount of publicity. This would win in the public awareness. There is a problem with these selection judges as posters here complain about Trump/Clinton picking them for paritsen reasons. Its true for the liberal side. The conservative didn't do this but instead tries for judges without agendas.

Anyways. There is no danger to truth and freedom to to discern truth in academia. IAfter state censorship is destroyed THEN the people will decide what is taught in subjects about origins. They will not pick obscure things but the common , historic, famous positions. It will work fine and fair finally.

SLC said: If, in fact, the Donald wins, which has become increasingly plausible lately, he will, indeed, appoint more clowns like Scalia. In particular, he will appoint a Scalia clone to replace Scalia and one to replace Ginsburg who is unlikely to last until 2020. Not only will Roe vs Wade and Obergefell be reversed, Epperson and McLean will also be reversed. The SCOTUS is the most important issue in this campaign, and putting the Donald in a position to make appointments therein is equivalent to putting gasoline in the hands of a pyromaniac.

Matt Young said:

I don’t know why the US Supreme Court is wasting time on this case when there are more important cases to be dealt with.

Perhaps I should have said so, but I do not think that the Court has agreed to hear the case, which has just been filed, and I have no reason to think that they will do so. Cope, I suppose, is hoping for a (bite my tongue!) Trump victory and a Court full of Scalias.

Robert Byers said: It will work fine and fair finally.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It will work fine and fair finally.

To who? While you try to claim that belief in creationism is growing (the actual evidence doesn't support that), you are pinning your hopes on having a majority, or at least a sizable plurality, that supports your specific beliefs. You really shouldn't count on that. Consider, for the moment your own country--Canada. It's pretty likely that if any religious group got to write the rules on these source of issues, it would be the CofE. Do you agree with the CofE positions on these issues? What would do or say if the CofE positions became enshrined in Canadian law?

Not to mention his religions wrongs.

(Did I say that?)

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It will work fine and fair finally.

To who? While you try to claim that belief in creationism is growing (the actual evidence doesn't support that), you are pinning your hopes on having a majority, or at least a sizable plurality, that supports your specific beliefs. You really shouldn't count on that. Consider, for the moment your own country--Canada. It's pretty likely that if any religious group got to write the rules on these source of issues, it would be the CofE. Do you agree with the CofE positions on these issues? What would do or say if the CofE positions became enshrined in Canadian law?

TomS said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It will work fine and fair finally.

To who? While you try to claim that belief in creationism is growing (the actual evidence doesn't support that), you are pinning your hopes on having a majority, or at least a sizable plurality, that supports your specific beliefs. You really shouldn't count on that. Consider, for the moment your own country--Canada. It's pretty likely that if any religious group got to write the rules on these source of issues, it would be the CofE. Do you agree with the CofE positions on these issues? What would do or say if the CofE positions became enshrined in Canadian law?

It seems that the largest religious group in Canada, with about 40% of the population, is Cathoic. All the other varieties of Christian account for about 30%, and that would include CoE and Orthodox churches, etc. About 20% are not of any religion, and 10% are religions other than Cristian.

Hundreds of people came to a Massachusetts church on Wednesday for a glimpse of the glass-encased heart of a celebrated Roman Catholic saint, the first time the religious relic has left Italy. Many of the faithful who filled Immaculate Conception Church in Lowell to see the heart of St. Padre Pio clutched rosaries, even though the relic was difficult to view through its largely opaque container. Janet Black, from Boston's Charlestown neighborhood, was moved nearly to tears. "I'm all full of emotions," Black told The Sun of Lowell. "It's just beautiful that people could come together for one purpose. If the world was like this, we'd have no problems." -- ABC

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It will work fine and fair finally.

To who? While you try to claim that belief in creationism is growing (the actual evidence doesn't support that), you are pinning your hopes on having a majority, or at least a sizable plurality, that supports your specific beliefs. You really shouldn't count on that. Consider, for the moment your own country--Canada. It's pretty likely that if any religious group got to write the rules on these source of issues, it would be the CofE. Do you agree with the CofE positions on these issues? What would do or say if the CofE positions became enshrined in Canadian law?

No, the people will not decide the basic things about origins. This isn't a question of law, nor of selection of government, nor legislation. Facts don't care about democracy. And evolution, common descent and a four billion year old earth are all facts.

Dave Luckett said: No, the people will not decide the basic things about origins. This isn't a question of law, nor of selection of government, nor legislation. Facts don't care about democracy. And evolution, common descent and a four billion year old earth are all facts.

it has everything to do with religious groups. its not just the peopole geberally like any thing.
Whether at the fed level or local, in canada, the people would decide the basic things about geo centrism. Or rathyer simply include god/bible in as options and criticisms of helio centrism etc. like all subjects it would not be much. Just ignoring the scientific truth and substituting unimportant opinions on these matters.
otherwise real scientists will; decide scientific issues as has rightly been.
Democracy where experts are ignored is worthless and doomed to failure. Perform this idiotic experiment in canada and suffer the consequences.

Robert Byers said: ... simply include God/Genesis in as options and criticisms of evolution etc. like all subjects it would not be much. Just the truth about the important opinions on these matters.

I must admit, Robert's "it has nothing to do with religious groups...simply include God/Genesis in as options" tickled me. Its kind of like the Mel Brooks' "what hump" gag. That much obliviousness is just plain funny.

Robert Byers said: it has nothing to do with religious groups. its just the peopole geberally like any thing. Whether at the fed level or local, in America, the people would decide the basic things about origins. Or rathyer simply include God/Genesis in as options and criticisms of evolution etc. like all subjects it would not be much. Just the truth about the important opinions on these matters. otherwise some velite is deciding as has been. Democracy where elites are prohibitive about contentions.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It will work fine and fair finally.

To who? While you try to claim that belief in creationism is growing (the actual evidence doesn't support that), you are pinning your hopes on having a majority, or at least a sizable plurality, that supports your specific beliefs. You really shouldn't count on that. Consider, for the moment your own country--Canada. It's pretty likely that if any religious group got to write the rules on these source of issues, it would be the CofE. Do you agree with the CofE positions on these issues? What would do or say if the CofE positions became enshrined in Canadian law?

it has nothing to do with religious groups. its just the peopole geberally like any thing. Whether at the fed level or local, in America, the people would decide the basic things about origins. Or rathyer simply include God/Genesis in as options and criticisms of evolution etc. like all subjects it would not be much. Just the truth about the important opinions on these matters. otherwise some velite is deciding as has been. Democracy where elites are prohibitive about contentions.

you *should* see our point about “no establishment of religion”.

eric said:

Dave Luckett said: No, the people will not decide the basic things about origins. This isn't a question of law, nor of selection of government, nor legislation. Facts don't care about democracy. And evolution, common descent and a four billion year old earth are all facts.

Even if it was a matter of law, the Constitution (via the first amendment) says "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion." Public schools represent the state. If they teach one religion as being true (vs. others and vs. none), the state is establishing religion. Robert (being Canadian) may not understand this but in the US, when majority support for some policy conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins and the majority loses, and the majority's preferred policy does not pass. Note this does NOT prevent the government from saying or doing things that impact a religion, it just means that the government must have a fairly strong non-religious reason for its statements. Limiting ritual drug use by religion A does not 'establish' that its wrong, as long as the government has a compelling reason to limit that drug's use. Likewise, teaching teaching that science's best and most compelling theory for the explanation of the origin of species is evolution does not 'establish' that creationism is wrong, because the government has a compelling reason to teach kids science, its leading theories, and so on. In contrast, the government does not have any compelling non-religious reason to teach kids what Christian creationists believe...except in a comparative religion class, where the reason might 'to give them a broad understanding of the types of religion predominant in the US today.' And, indeed, there it can be taught. There could also be good non-religious reasons to teach about literalism in a bible-as-literature class. That, again, is perfectly legal. But including some religious belief on origins in a biology class just because the believers want it taught? No, not constitutional...no matter how many of them vote that they want that.

Michael Fugate said:

Robert Byers said: it has nothing to do with religious groups. its just the peopole geberally like any thing. Whether at the fed level or local, in America, the people would decide the basic things about origins. Or rathyer simply include God/Genesis in as options and criticisms of evolution etc. like all subjects it would not be much. Just the truth about the important opinions on these matters. otherwise some velite is deciding as has been. Democracy where elites are prohibitive about contentions.

Yes, why Genesis out of all the world's creation narratives? Since it is North America, why not Raven or Coyote?

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It will work fine and fair finally.

To who? While you try to claim that belief in creationism is growing (the actual evidence doesn't support that), you are pinning your hopes on having a majority, or at least a sizable plurality, that supports your specific beliefs. You really shouldn't count on that. Consider, for the moment your own country--Canada. It's pretty likely that if any religious group got to write the rules on these source of issues, it would be the CofE. Do you agree with the CofE positions on these issues? What would do or say if the CofE positions became enshrined in Canadian law?

it has nothing to do with religious groups. its just the peopole geberally like any thing. Whether at the fed level or local, in America, the people would decide the basic things about origins. Or rathyer simply include God/Genesis in as options and criticisms of evolution etc. like all subjects it would not be much. Just the truth about the important opinions on these matters. otherwise some velite is deciding as has been. Democracy where elites are prohibitive about contentions.

Facts about the world do not depend on religion or popular opinion. A majority can be wrong. I picked CofE because that used to be your state religion, but for this, let's go with phhht's numbers and use Catholicism. Do you think that schools should teach the RCC position on creation and Genesis? If not, why not? Once you think through the ramifications of that, you *should* see our point about "no establishment of religion".

Robert Byers said:

Michael Fugate said:

Robert Byers said: it has nothing to do with religious groups. its just the peopole geberally like any thing. Whether at the fed level or local, in America, the people would decide the basic things about origins. Or rathyer simply include God/Genesis in as options and criticisms of evolution etc. like all subjects it would not be much. Just the truth about the important opinions on these matters. otherwise some velite is deciding as has been. Democracy where elites are prohibitive about contentions.

Yes, why Genesis out of all the world's creation narratives? Since it is North America, why not Raven or Coyote?

its won its spurs. its historic and commonly held. Its up to the people what is censored or nothing.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It will work fine and fair finally.

To who? While you try to claim that belief in creationism is growing (the actual evidence doesn't support that), you are pinning your hopes on having a majority, or at least a sizable plurality, that supports your specific beliefs. You really shouldn't count on that. Consider, for the moment your own country--Canada. It's pretty likely that if any religious group got to write the rules on these source of issues, it would be the CofE. Do you agree with the CofE positions on these issues? What would do or say if the CofE positions became enshrined in Canadian law?

it has nothing to do with religious groups. its just the peopole geberally like any thing. Whether at the fed level or local, in America, the people would decide the basic things about origins. Or rathyer simply include God/Genesis in as options and criticisms of evolution etc. like all subjects it would not be much. Just the truth about the important opinions on these matters. otherwise some velite is deciding as has been. Democracy where elites are prohibitive about contentions.

Facts about the world do not depend on religion or popular opinion. A majority can be wrong. I picked CofE because that used to be your state religion, but for this, let's go with phhht's numbers and use Catholicism. Do you think that schools should teach the RCC position on creation and Genesis? If not, why not? Once you think through the ramifications of that, you *should* see our point about "no establishment of religion".

Oh. I didn't know what that CofE was! that was a long time ago. the people would not pick anything other then basic concepts in God and genesis. Any conversation about origins is just about this. The people are more to be trusted to respect and be inclusive then a elite with a desperate agenda. anyways the law is on creationisms side. just like equality for men is on the citizens side in law though it was ignored and ruled against. Time will come soon for obediance to the law.

Henry J said:

you *should* see our point about “no establishment of religion”.

Ah, but "you should" doesn't have the same push as "thou shalt".

Robert Byers said:

Michael Fugate said:

Robert Byers said: it has nothing to do with religious groups. its just the peopole geberally like any thing. Whether at the fed level or local, in America, the people would decide the basic things about origins. Or rathyer simply include God/Genesis in as options and criticisms of evolution etc. like all subjects it would not be much. Just the truth about the important opinions on these matters. otherwise some velite is deciding as has been. Democracy where elites are prohibitive about contentions.

Yes, why Genesis out of all the world's creation narratives? Since it is North America, why not Raven or Coyote?

its won its spurs. its historic and commonly held. Its up to the people what is censored or nothing.

Robert Byers said:

Michael Fugate said:

Robert Byers said: it has nothing to do with religious groups. its just the peopole geberally like any thing. Whether at the fed level or local, in America, the people would decide the basic things about origins. Or rathyer simply include God/Genesis in as options and criticisms of evolution etc. like all subjects it would not be much. Just the truth about the important opinions on these matters. otherwise some velite is deciding as has been. Democracy where elites are prohibitive about contentions.

Yes, why Genesis out of all the world's creation narratives? Since it is North America, why not Raven or Coyote?

its won its spurs. its historic and commonly held. Its up to the people what is censored or nothing.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It will work fine and fair finally.

To who? While you try to claim that belief in creationism is growing (the actual evidence doesn't support that), you are pinning your hopes on having a majority, or at least a sizable plurality, that supports your specific beliefs. You really shouldn't count on that. Consider, for the moment your own country--Canada. It's pretty likely that if any religious group got to write the rules on these source of issues, it would be the CofE. Do you agree with the CofE positions on these issues? What would do or say if the CofE positions became enshrined in Canadian law?

it has nothing to do with religious groups. its just the peopole geberally like any thing. Whether at the fed level or local, in America, the people would decide the basic things about origins. Or rathyer simply include God/Genesis in as options and criticisms of evolution etc. like all subjects it would not be much. Just the truth about the important opinions on these matters. otherwise some velite is deciding as has been. Democracy where elites are prohibitive about contentions.

Facts about the world do not depend on religion or popular opinion. A majority can be wrong. I picked CofE because that used to be your state religion, but for this, let's go with phhht's numbers and use Catholicism. Do you think that schools should teach the RCC position on creation and Genesis? If not, why not? Once you think through the ramifications of that, you *should* see our point about "no establishment of religion".

Oh. I didn't know what that CofE was! that was a long time ago. the people would not pick anything other then basic concepts in God and genesis. Any conversation about origins is just about this. The people are more to be trusted to respect and be inclusive then a elite with a desperate agenda. anyways the law is on creationisms side. just like equality for men is on the citizens side in law though it was ignored and ruled against. Time will come soon for obediance to the law.

Robert Byers said: ... basic concepts in God and genesis.

I have seen claims that there are anywhere from 11,000 to over 43,000 discrete branches of Christianity. If it were as simple as you say, there would be–at most–a mere handful.

DS said:

Robert Byers said:

Michael Fugate said:

Robert Byers said: it has nothing to do with religious groups. its just the peopole geberally like any thing. Whether at the fed level or local, in America, the people would decide the basic things about origins. Or rathyer simply include God/Genesis in as options and criticisms of evolution etc. like all subjects it would not be much. Just the truth about the important opinions on these matters. otherwise some velite is deciding as has been. Democracy where elites are prohibitive about contentions.

Yes, why Genesis out of all the world's creation narratives? Since it is North America, why not Raven or Coyote?

its won its spurs. its historic and commonly held. Its up to the people what is censored or nothing.

bullshit name just one article in a peer reviewed journal that supports creationism of any kind there isnt one compare to millions of articles in hundreds of journals providing evidence for the truth of evolution your just lying is that what jesus would do booby find a new hobby horse to ride this one is getting old and tired

For the benefit of Mr. Byers and others who may be confused about the issue, there is no constitutional obligation that public schools teach "the truth" or "both sides" or afford "equal time" or "fairness." The only constitutional issue is whether we teach religion. We can legally teach any sort of nonsense as long as we are not teaching religion as such. (We can teach about religion, as an academic subject, and probably should. But nobody wants that, either because we'll make a hash of it or because that would involve exposing the youngsters to different religious ideas, or, even worse, to the very idea that there are different religious ideas, which would result in some of the youngsters actually thinking about them as ideas and evaluating them accordingly.)
We see politically-motivated interventions in social studies all the time, and all perfectly legal. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a public school from teaching, as a fact, as my school did, that the Civil War was not about slavery. Nothing in the Constitution prevents pushing "politically correct" history, whether it is about the virtues of American capitalism, the way we refer to the Turkish massacre of Armenians, or whatever. There are practical differences with science. Even though nothing in the Constitution prevents public schools from teaching phlogiston chemistry, or other bad science, we usually don't do that because we don't want our chemical plants to blow up and we like our smartphones. Until the Koch brothers start bribing schools to teach climate science denialism, we won't see bad science taught for secular reasons. As a matter of notorious historical fact, we interfere with science teaching only because it upsets someone's religious beliefs. It would be perfectly Constitutional to satisfy these people by not teaching science at all, but we can't do it by teaching their religious views. And since, as a matter of fact, that is all claims for equal time or fairness ever amount to, they lose.

And of course, if they were to succeed in making nearly everybody ignorant of science, they'd lose even more. When they standard of living dropping, they'd wonder what caused that.

Henry J said: And of course, if they were to succeed in making nearly everybody ignorant of science, they'd lose even more. When [their] standard of living [started] dropping, they'd wonder what caused that.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It will work fine and fair finally.

To who? While you try to claim that belief in creationism is growing (the actual evidence doesn't support that), you are pinning your hopes on having a majority, or at least a sizable plurality, that supports your specific beliefs. You really shouldn't count on that. Consider, for the moment your own country--Canada. It's pretty likely that if any religious group got to write the rules on these source of issues, it would be the CofE. Do you agree with the CofE positions on these issues? What would do or say if the CofE positions became enshrined in Canadian law?

it has nothing to do with religious groups. its just the peopole geberally like any thing. Whether at the fed level or local, in America, the people would decide the basic things about origins. Or rathyer simply include God/Genesis in as options and criticisms of evolution etc. like all subjects it would not be much. Just the truth about the important opinions on these matters. otherwise some velite is deciding as has been. Democracy where elites are prohibitive about contentions.

colnago80 said: If the universe is only 6000 years old as YECs like you claim, how did light from the Andromeda Galaxy which is 6 million light years away arrive in 6000 years?

CJColucci said: For the benefit of Mr. Byers and others who may be confused about the issue, there is no constitutional obligation that public schools teach "the truth" or "both sides" or afford "equal time" or "fairness." The only constitutional issue is whether we teach religion. We can legally teach any sort of nonsense as long as we are not teaching religion as such. (We can teach about religion, as an academic subject, and probably should. But nobody wants that, either because we'll make a hash of it or because that would involve exposing the youngsters to different religious ideas, or, even worse, to the very idea that there are different religious ideas, which would result in some of the youngsters actually thinking about them as ideas and evaluating them accordingly.) We see politically-motivated interventions in social studies all the time, and all perfectly legal. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a public school from teaching, as a fact, as my school did, that the Civil War was not about slavery. Nothing in the Constitution prevents pushing "politically correct" history, whether it is about the virtues of American capitalism, the way we refer to the Turkish massacre of Armenians, or whatever. There are practical differences with science. Even though nothing in the Constitution prevents public schools from teaching phlogiston chemistry, or other bad science, we usually don't do that because we don't want our chemical plants to blow up and we like our smartphones. Until the Koch brothers start bribing schools to teach climate science denialism, we won't see bad science taught for secular reasons. As a matter of notorious historical fact, we interfere with science teaching only because it upsets someone's religious beliefs. It would be perfectly Constitutional to satisfy these people by not teaching science at all, but we can't do it by teaching their religious views. And since, as a matter of fact, that is all claims for equal time or fairness ever amount to, they lose.

Robert Byers said: the state is not to say religion is not true.

To be sure, anti-evolutionists at times have been their own worst enemies during court cases. For example, it's well know that the Discovery Institute and the Thomas More Law Center - both advocating so-called Intelligent Design - had bitter infighting with each other as TMLC lawyers represented the defense during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. If this was not bad enough for the ID side, two members of the defense (that happened to be YECs) came dangerously close to facing perjury charges when it became evident these two lied under oath. Still, it can be said in retrospect that even sans these difficulties would made little difference in the eventual outcome of the Dover trial.

But even when religious anti-evolutionists did "get things together" as Byers touched on, they still could not win. Even adversaries of attorney Wendell Bird recognized that Bird is an exceptionally brilliant lawyer. Bird's tireless and determined efforts led to a Louisiana pro-YEC "balanced treatment of evolution" law being advanced all way to the US Supreme Court in the form of the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard case. But despite the dissent of justices Rehinquist and Scalia that had at least some sympathy for YECism (if not actual YECs themselves), even Edwards v. Aguillard went down in a stunning defeat for YEC anti-evolutionists.

While it can be said that anything can happen in the legal world, Eric earlier alluded to the point that religious anti-evolutionists have likely long lost what little opportunity they had in advancing their cause in higher courts in the United States. Especially considering that the Edwards v. Aguillard US Supreme Court decision was later backed up by the overwhelming victory of pro-science advocates in Kitzmiller v. Dover..... even though Dover was only a US District Court level case.

colnago80 said: If the universe is only 6000 years old as YECs like you claim, how did light from the Andromeda Galaxy which is 6 million light years away arrive in 6000 years?

since Adam and Eve were not born in the regular way, the idea is that they were created without good ol belly buttons.

Henry J said: Not that any of this matters, since nobody on record would have seen Adam or Eve anyway, and there certainly aren't any photographs.

Tenncrain said:...so-called "naval" model...

Tenncrain said:

colnago80 said: If the universe is only 6000 years old as YECs like you claim, how did light from the Andromeda Galaxy which is 6 million light years away arrive in 6000 years?

When I was growing up a fundamentalist, I read how Henry Morris and other leading YECs proclaimed that light was created already en route to Earth.

One minor nitpick about the various branches of Christianity:

Leaving out a few very aberrant strands such as the Mormons, the actual doctrinal differences about matters of the Faith between the Christian churches are tiny, peripheral and mostly not the cause for their schisms. Nearly all the splits in the Christian faith were over purely secular causes - personalities, property, governance, establishment, authority, money and power, if they were not purely cosmetic. That applies to the Great Schism - which, oddly enough, does not refer to the split between Catholic and Protestant, but to the earlier one between the western and eastern Churches. That was about who is Top Dog in the Christian Church.

Similarly, the Catholic-Protestant split wasn't over different doctrines. Oh, you can bang on all you like about indulgences, but that foofaraw was really about whether the Pope had the authority to issue and sell them. That is, money and power. Sure, sure, the Real Presence, transubstantiation, the number of Sacraments, Marian Perpetual Virginity... yadayadayada. They really came later, and it's easy to see them as reinforcements to the split, to consolidate the authority of the various establishments.

The later Protestant schisms among themselves are really the same, at heart. Mostly it was a group, usually led by a charismatic ideologue, that wanted to change a customary practice in some detail, or refused authority - and dues - to a hierarchy. The hierarchy balked at a challenge to its authority and income. Church history is littered with that process, which is practically endlessly repeatable.

Look at the career of Ken Ham. He was a member of some sect in Queensland who found himself at odds with its hierarchy. Not over doctrine, lord, no - they're still peddling creationist tracts in Ipswich to this day - but over whether he, Ken Ham, should lead it. They said no, so he split off, and he's now his own Pope, Patriarch and College of Cardinals, all rolled into one, which is just how he likes it.

But that, scaled up, is the real cause of the many wars that the various Christian sects have fought among themselves. It's almost never doctrine, really, even though the footsoldiers who slaughtered each other might have thought so, for they mostly wouldn't have had the faintest clue what the differences were, if any. No, it's nearly always about money, power, authority, property. Which is of course the best evidence that the Christian Church isn't divinely inspired, right there.

It was that evidence, plus the doctrine of eternal damnation - common to them all, bar a very few outriders - and actually reading the Bible that turned me atheist. Christians really should read the Bible closely, and the history and dogmas of their own Faith. Honest, they should.

I believe you mean “navel” model.

I think that Elvis was the reincarnation of Christ. Because public schools refuse to teach that, they are censoring the truth. Every day, teachers are required to tell the students that Elvis is not Jesus. Their censorship and lies are offensive to the people, and when there are honest judges and politicians, the people will decide, and the schools will stop censoring what we all know (the real people) - that Elvis is Jesus.

I know it doesn't really work as a Poe - far more coherent than the target. Thank goodness I am not like R. Byers! If I believed in God, I guess I would thank her. I may be not as open-minded sometimes as I should be - but that guy is pathetic.

Tenncrain said:

colnago80 said: If the universe is only 6000 years old as YECs like you claim, how did light from the Andromeda Galaxy which is 6 million light years away arrive in 6000 years?

When I was growing up a fundamentalist, I read how Henry Morris and other leading YECs proclaimed that light was created already en route to Earth. In other words, along the lines of the so-called "naval" model (I say model as Morris's idea of creating light en route is of course not exactly scientific); since Adam and Eve were not born in the regular way, the idea is that they were created without good ol belly buttons. This "naval" model is not the only explanation YECs have tried to squeeze into the distant starlight issue, but it was what I adhered to....... until I became an ex-YEC and ex-antievolutionist that is.

Matt Young said:

I believe you mean “navel” model.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You can't get more off task than this, but that reminds me of a gag I heard countless years ago: What is dancing? Naval engagement without loss of seamen.

In making this comment on another website, a response was that the Andromeda Galaxy was closer to us 6000 years ago. The problem with that is that our current observations indicate that the Andromeda Galaxy is moving toward us, not away from us.

its the moral and intellectual right of a people to demand truth in education.

Indeed it is. It's just not their legal right. If the governing authorities decide, with or without the backing of the people, to peddle nonsense in the schools, the only remedies are political, not legal. The only exception is the one the Constitution prescribes: they can't teach religion, whether religion is true or false. That doesn't mean that people whose religious beliefs clash with the information taught in history or science, for example, can complain because that information, if true, would imply that their religious beliefs are wrong. The government cannot explicitly teach that religion A, or religion B, or every religion, is wrong. But they can provide any secular information, or misinformation, they see fit, and let the religious accept them or not.
Incidentally, you can be tested on your knowledge and understanding of things you do not accept for religious reasons, and failed if you don't demonstrate sufficient knowledge or understanding. If you take biology, you don't have to "accept" evolution, but you'll fail the course if you get questions on it wrong, just as an atheist who takes a course in comparative religion doesn't have to accept what any -- or all -- of the religions studied have to say, but he'll fail the course if he gets questions on it wrong.

colnago80 said: There has also been a claim by YEC Jason Lisle, who has a genuine degree in astrophysics from the Un. of Colorado, that the speed of light is not isotropic, e.g. it depends on the direction from which it is observed. This claim actually explains the result mathematically of the Michelson/Morley experiment. The trouble is that the interferometer used by those researchers is a two way device, which is why Lisle's claim works mathematically. Unfortunately for Dr. Lisle, this claim was falsified 400 years ago when a device called a tooth tweedle made the first relatively accurate measurement of the speed of light. This latter device is a one way device and Lisle's claim fails.

Robert Byers said: its won its spurs. its historic and commonly held. Its up to the people what is censored or nothing.

Because the actual reasoning doesn’t matter to you, only the outcome.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: its won its spurs. its historic and commonly held. Its up to the people what is censored or nothing.

According to Gallup, 50% of the population accepts some form of evolution while only 42% accept creationism. Your "teach the idea that has won its spurs. Teach the most commonly held belief" argument actually supports the teaching of evolution, not creationism. Not that I buy the argument ad populum. But if you do (like you say you do), you should support the teaching of evolution in schools. Now, I'm guessing you'll come up with some anti-populist argument for why we should teach creationism. Because the actual reasoning doesn't matter to you, only the outcome.

Data from a Biologos poll:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/creationism_poll_how_many_americans_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html
A majority of those polled - definitely not YECs.

Also Pew poll:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/creationism_poll_how_many_americans_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html

CJColucci said: its the moral and intellectual right of a people to demand truth in education. Indeed it is. It's just not their legal right. If the governing authorities decide, with or without the backing of the people, to peddle nonsense in the schools, the only remedies are political, not legal. The only exception is the one the Constitution prescribes: they can't teach religion, whether religion is true or false. That doesn't mean that people whose religious beliefs clash with the information taught in history or science, for example, can complain because that information, if true, would imply that their religious beliefs are wrong. The government cannot explicitly teach that religion A, or religion B, or every religion, is wrong. But they can provide any secular information, or misinformation, they see fit, and let the religious accept them or not. Incidentally, you can be tested on your knowledge and understanding of things you do not accept for religious reasons, and failed if you don't demonstrate sufficient knowledge or understanding. If you take biology, you don't have to "accept" evolution, but you'll fail the course if you get questions on it wrong, just as an atheist who takes a course in comparative religion doesn't have to accept what any -- or all -- of the religions studied have to say, but he'll fail the course if he gets questions on it wrong.

Everybody. i just heard on DISCOVER INSTITUTE podcasts about president Zimmer of UoC saying frredom of speech will not be allowed at that university especially concerning creationism.
the absurd climate/movement to control speech in universities is not already in retreat.
As with this university so will it be with the nation.
Censorship in academia was surely not going to last long.
Someone will be writing books about the 80;s-2000;s censorship years and get a prize.
Bring on those courts cases ID/YEC/freedom lovers of america.
Time has come today.

Robert Byers said:

CJColucci said: its the moral and intellectual right of a people to demand truth in education. Indeed it is. It's just not their legal right. If the governing authorities decide, with or without the backing of the people, to peddle nonsense in the schools, the only remedies are political, not legal. The only exception is the one the Constitution prescribes: they can't teach religion, whether religion is true or false. That doesn't mean that people whose religious beliefs clash with the information taught in history or science, for example, can complain because that information, if true, would imply that their religious beliefs are wrong. The government cannot explicitly teach that religion A, or religion B, or every religion, is wrong. But they can provide any secular information, or misinformation, they see fit, and let the religious accept them or not. Incidentally, you can be tested on your knowledge and understanding of things you do not accept for religious reasons, and failed if you don't demonstrate sufficient knowledge or understanding. If you take biology, you don't have to "accept" evolution, but you'll fail the course if you get questions on it wrong, just as an atheist who takes a course in comparative religion doesn't have to accept what any -- or all -- of the religions studied have to say, but he'll fail the course if he gets questions on it wrong.

First things first. Of coarse its the moral/intellectual right of a people to demand truth in education. Then its a legal right. Otherwise you would have to prove where they denied themselves this legal right WHILE believing in their moral/intellectual right. This is not a winning case for your side!!! You admit , ALSO, that the state can't teach religious ideas are wrong. WELL. In censoring creationism, on the claim they are religious conclusions, IN SUBJECTS ABOUT ACCURACY IN SCIENCE(which is about accuracy in a subject) THEN they ARE saying same conclusions arte false. The state is dictating about accuracxy in conclusions and so is breaking the very law it invokes for the original censorship. The state is interfering in church doctrines before a audience. Creationists already have the winning case and just need to get it together.

Robert Byers said: Of coarse its the moral/intellectual right of a people to demand truth in education. Then its a legal right. Otherwise you would have to prove where they denied themselves this legal right WHILE believing in their moral/intellectual right.

You admit , ALSO, that the state can't teach religious ideas are wrong. WELL. In censoring creationism, on the claim they are religious conclusions, IN SUBJECTS ABOUT ACCURACY IN SCIENCE(which is about accuracy in a subject) THEN they ARE saying same conclusions arte false.

Creationists already have the winning case and just need to get it together.

Robert does your getting to heaven depend on truth of YEC? Really?

[C]reationists argue that their particular religiously based origin belief is superior to those of other belief systems, in particular those made through secular or scientific rationale.

Yes, Mr. Byers, I have no reason to think your (or anybody's really) interpretation of the Bible is true. You have been invited hundreds and maybe thousands of times to give us reasons to think it is. Until you produce, your claims to be truth-seeking deserve to be treated as unserious.

There are true things that nonetheless are not considered to be appropriate for public school. Like the truth that your lot is a bunch of dangerous fanatics who don't know what they are talking about. I reiterate my statement that your habit of making shit up and tying to defend it is indefensibly stupid. Don't you have any shame?

Your boring and dishonest claim of censorship is serial bearing of false witness. You are unable even to adhere to the moral code you claim to follow. Sinner, hypocrite. Nobody is censoring conservative Christianity. Period.

I still think that Byers never should be banned. But maybe let's disemvowel posts that claim his views are censored. It might be fun.

booby is screwed again hes censored effectively by laws he cant understand hes impotent to do anything about it he cant even vote in this country to bad for booby

Henry J said:

since Adam and Eve were not born in the regular way, the idea is that they were created without good ol belly buttons.

Well, if a mammal (of whatever species) were manufactured rather than being born, then unless the manufacturing process emulated the birth process, there wouldn't be scar tissue where it occurs on born mammals. (At least not unless some aesthetic surgery were also performed on the manufactured mammal.) Not that any of this matters, since nobody on record would have seen Adam or Eve anyway, and there certainly aren't any photographs.

MRCA studies still suggest Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve probably lived no where near each other.

Just Bob said:

Tenncrain said:

colnago80 said: If the universe is only 6000 years old as YECs like you claim, how did light from the Andromeda Galaxy which is 6 million light years away arrive in 6000 years?

When I was growing up a fundamentalist, I read how Henry Morris and other leading YECs proclaimed that light was created already en route to Earth.

That rationalization always amuses me, because it makes God a LIAR: the light "says," to an astronomer, that it has traveled for 6 million years, but the 'truth' is that it has only been 6 thousand. It's like those mature trees in the Garden that are mere minutes old, but have a hundred or so annual growth rings. Or Adam's navel, or even his apparently adult body. All LIES.

I have to post this.

I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on a ledge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

"Well, there's so much to live for." "Like what?" "Well, are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist." "Wow, me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God." "Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1789 or Reformed Baptist Church of God, 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."God is the Potter - Not Harry

I said, "Die, heretic scum!!" And pushed him off the bridge.

richard09 said: I was walking across a bridge one day...

Tenncrain said:

Just Bob said:

Tenncrain said:

colnago80 said: If the universe is only 6000 years old as YECs like you claim, how did light from the Andromeda Galaxy which is 6 million light years away arrive in 6000 years?

When I was growing up a fundamentalist, I read how Henry Morris and other leading YECs proclaimed that light was created already en route to Earth.

That rationalization always amuses me, because it makes God a LIAR: the light "says," to an astronomer, that it has traveled for 6 million years, but the 'truth' is that it has only been 6 thousand. It's like those mature trees in the Garden that are mere minutes old, but have a hundred or so annual growth rings. Or Adam's navel, or even his apparently adult body. All LIES.

For me personally, one major factor in ditching my YECism was my college geology class teaching me - among many things - how radiometric dating actually works (apart from YECism's warped views of radiometric dating I had grown up on). I eventually found it difficult to imagine how any supreme deity would make 6000 year old rocks but create these rocks with their radioactivity already partially decayed to give only the mere "appearance" of millions/billions of years of age. Such a deity would seem either inept, deceitful, or loves to yank the chains of us mortals.

TomS said:

Tenncrain said:

Just Bob said:

Tenncrain said:

colnago80 said: If the universe is only 6000 years old as YECs like you claim, how did light from the Andromeda Galaxy which is 6 million light years away arrive in 6000 years?

When I was growing up a fundamentalist, I read how Henry Morris and other leading YECs proclaimed that light was created already en route to Earth.

That rationalization always amuses me, because it makes God a LIAR: the light "says," to an astronomer, that it has traveled for 6 million years, but the 'truth' is that it has only been 6 thousand. It's like those mature trees in the Garden that are mere minutes old, but have a hundred or so annual growth rings. Or Adam's navel, or even his apparently adult body. All LIES.

For me personally, one major factor in ditching my YECism was my college geology class teaching me - among many things - how radiometric dating actually works (apart from YECism's warped views of radiometric dating I had grown up on). I eventually found it difficult to imagine how any supreme deity would make 6000 year old rocks but create these rocks with their radioactivity already partially decayed to give only the mere "appearance" of millions/billions of years of age. Such a deity would seem either inept, deceitful, or loves to yank the chains of us mortals.

One might make the argument that it is impossible to make the world as it is without giving it the appearance of age. God then told us the truth about the short age of the world in the Bible. On the other hand, one might make the argument that God works by different rules, whereby "telling things that are not true" is not lying. It isn't, after all, that we deserve the truth (being, after all, hopelessly reprobate people). Just as that Nazi doesn't deserve to know the truth about where Jews are hiding, so it isn't lying to tell him falsehoods. (God isn't subject to the same rules about murder or robbery, either.) Or it could be that God has good reasons for letting us be deceived. That, unfortunately, would mean that we can't trust anything that God says. BTW, about things having the appearance of age: one thing about making a world functioning from scratch with adults is that we need to have knowledge in order to survive, experimental knowledge. Certain things we know because we came to learn them. We remember seeing where that water hole was. Adam had to had such memories from the first day of his adult existence. He had to have had memories of a lifetime of experiences. (As is the case for all mammals. Young mammals have to know their mothers and mothers have to know their young.)

Mike Elzinga said:

colnago80 said: There has also been a claim by YEC Jason Lisle, who has a genuine degree in astrophysics from the Un. of Colorado, that the speed of light is not isotropic, e.g. it depends on the direction from which it is observed. This claim actually explains the result mathematically of the Michelson/Morley experiment. The trouble is that the interferometer used by those researchers is a two way device, which is why Lisle's claim works mathematically. Unfortunately for Dr. Lisle, this claim was falsified 400 years ago when a device called a tooth tweedle made the first relatively accurate measurement of the speed of light. This latter device is a one way device and Lisle's claim fails.

I claim Lisle is blatantly dishonest. His “mathematics” is dead wrong on everything he calculates, and he has no clue about relativity and its history. Lisle claims that the speed of light is c/(1 – cosθ) where θ is the angle between the path of a photon and the line-of-site between the observer and the photon. Think about that for a second; light travels at infinite speed toward every point in space and at c/2 away from every point in space. If that is how the speed of light works, how does one calculate the index of refraction of any material? What is the meaning of Maxwell’s equations? The most charitable interpretation of Lisle’s screeds about science is that he is grotesquely incompetent and doesn’t know it. He fakes “desperate” scientific responses to his calculations in order to convince his followers that he is swatting down scientific objections to his “theories.” He pretends that he has thought of every possible answer to his calculations; but he doesn’t have a clue about what he is talking about. On the other hand, if he really knows what the correct science and correct calculation are; then he is a liar. His “calculation” of the rate of recession of the Moon’s orbit is just as ridiculous. He either doesn’t know how to do the real calculation or he is lying.

colnago80 said: The point of Lisle's calculation is based on the fact that the arms of an interferometer are at 90 degrees. Thus, the light moving parallel to one arm of the device moving towards the observer is moving at infinite speed and the light moving at 90 degrees is moving at speed c while moving away from the observer and at infinite speed when moving toward the observer. The light which is moving away from the observer along the parallel arm is moving at c/2. If you do the math, you get the same result as assuming the the speed of light is isotropic and invariant relative to the speed of the observer. Again, the whole argument is based on the interferometer being a 2 way device. The toothed tweedle I mentioned is a one way device so, in fact, if the speed were infinite moving toward the observer, or, in fact at any speed v much greater then c, the latter device would have indicated an estimate for v which would not satisfy Lisle's equations. As you point out, Lisle's hypothesis also leads to difficulty with issues like refraction and the value that derives from Maxwell's equations, which, if I recall correctly, is the product of the vacuum permitivity and the vacuum permeability i.e. those constants are also not isotropic. We might also query Lisle as to what value of c should be used in Einstein's equation E = mc^2 in his model.

Mike Elzinga said:

colnago80 said: There has also been a claim by YEC Jason Lisle, who has a genuine degree in astrophysics from the Un. of Colorado, that the speed of light is not isotropic, e.g. it depends on the direction from which it is observed. This claim actually explains the result mathematically of the Michelson/Morley experiment. The trouble is that the interferometer used by those researchers is a two way device, which is why Lisle's claim works mathematically. Unfortunately for Dr. Lisle, this claim was falsified 400 years ago when a device called a tooth tweedle made the first relatively accurate measurement of the speed of light. This latter device is a one way device and Lisle's claim fails.

I claim Lisle is blatantly dishonest. His “mathematics” is dead wrong on everything he calculates, and he has no clue about relativity and its history. Lisle claims that the speed of light is c/(1 – cosθ) where θ is the angle between the path of a photon and the line-of-site between the observer and the photon. Think about that for a second; light travels at infinite speed toward every point in space and at c/2 away from every point in space. If that is how the speed of light works, how does one calculate the index of refraction of any material? What is the meaning of Maxwell’s equations? The most charitable interpretation of Lisle’s screeds about science is that he is grotesquely incompetent and doesn’t know it. He fakes “desperate” scientific responses to his calculations in order to convince his followers that he is swatting down scientific objections to his “theories.” He pretends that he has thought of every possible answer to his calculations; but he doesn’t have a clue about what he is talking about. On the other hand, if he really knows what the correct science and correct calculation are; then he is a liar. His “calculation” of the rate of recession of the Moon’s orbit is just as ridiculous. He either doesn’t know how to do the real calculation or he is lying.

colnago80 said: The point of Lisle's calculation is based on the fact that the arms of an interferometer are at 90 degrees. Thus, the light moving parallel to one arm of the device moving towards the observer is moving at infinite speed and the light moving at 90 degrees is moving at speed c while moving away from the observer and at infinite speed when moving toward the observer. The light which is moving away from the observer along the parallel arm is moving at c/2. If you do the math, you get the same result as assuming the the speed of light is isotropic and invariant relative to the speed of the observer. Again, the whole argument is based on the interferometer being a 2 way device. The toothed tweedle I mentioned is a one way device so, in fact, if the speed were infinite moving toward the observer, or, in fact at any speed v much greater then c, the latter device would have indicated an estimate for v which would not satisfy Lisle's equations. As you point out, Lisle's hypothesis also leads to difficulty with issues like refraction and the value that derives from Maxwell's equations, which, if I recall correctly, is the product of the vacuum permitivity and the vacuum permeability i.e. those constants are also not isotropic. We might also query Lisle as to what value of c should be used in Einstein's equation E = mc^2 in his model.

harold said:

colnago80 said: The point of Lisle's calculation is based on the fact that the arms of an interferometer are at 90 degrees. Thus, the light moving parallel to one arm of the device moving towards the observer is moving at infinite speed and the light moving at 90 degrees is moving at speed c while moving away from the observer and at infinite speed when moving toward the observer. The light which is moving away from the observer along the parallel arm is moving at c/2. If you do the math, you get the same result as assuming the the speed of light is isotropic and invariant relative to the speed of the observer. Again, the whole argument is based on the interferometer being a 2 way device. The toothed tweedle I mentioned is a one way device so, in fact, if the speed were infinite moving toward the observer, or, in fact at any speed v much greater then c, the latter device would have indicated an estimate for v which would not satisfy Lisle's equations. As you point out, Lisle's hypothesis also leads to difficulty with issues like refraction and the value that derives from Maxwell's equations, which, if I recall correctly, is the product of the vacuum permitivity and the vacuum permeability i.e. those constants are also not isotropic. We might also query Lisle as to what value of c should be used in Einstein's equation E = mc^2 in his model.

Mike Elzinga said:

colnago80 said: There has also been a claim by YEC Jason Lisle, who has a genuine degree in astrophysics from the Un. of Colorado, that the speed of light is not isotropic, e.g. it depends on the direction from which it is observed. This claim actually explains the result mathematically of the Michelson/Morley experiment. The trouble is that the interferometer used by those researchers is a two way device, which is why Lisle's claim works mathematically. Unfortunately for Dr. Lisle, this claim was falsified 400 years ago when a device called a tooth tweedle made the first relatively accurate measurement of the speed of light. This latter device is a one way device and Lisle's claim fails.

I claim Lisle is blatantly dishonest. His “mathematics” is dead wrong on everything he calculates, and he has no clue about relativity and its history. Lisle claims that the speed of light is c/(1 – cosθ) where θ is the angle between the path of a photon and the line-of-site between the observer and the photon. Think about that for a second; light travels at infinite speed toward every point in space and at c/2 away from every point in space. If that is how the speed of light works, how does one calculate the index of refraction of any material? What is the meaning of Maxwell’s equations? The most charitable interpretation of Lisle’s screeds about science is that he is grotesquely incompetent and doesn’t know it. He fakes “desperate” scientific responses to his calculations in order to convince his followers that he is swatting down scientific objections to his “theories.” He pretends that he has thought of every possible answer to his calculations; but he doesn’t have a clue about what he is talking about. On the other hand, if he really knows what the correct science and correct calculation are; then he is a liar. His “calculation” of the rate of recession of the Moon’s orbit is just as ridiculous. He either doesn’t know how to do the real calculation or he is lying.

I agree with your comments in general, but can you provide a reference for the "toothed tweedle"? Galileo made an ingenious but unsuccessful effort to measure the speed of light by having people open lanterns on mountain tops or some such thing; however, he understandably underestimated the speed of light, and his equipment was nowhere near sensitive enough. That was approximately 400 years ago, and if some lesser known figure was successfully measuring the speed of light at the same time, that would be most interesting. This toothed wheel methodology is from a mere 180 years ago... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau%E2%80%93Foucault_apparatus

My recollection as to the toothed tweedle is from a lecture given in a course in optics by a Prof. Burton Moyer at UC Berkeley when I was a sophomore.

colnago80 said: The issue isn't whether Lisle's hypothesis has any merit, it has none. My only point is that, owing to the interferometer being a two way system and the two arms being at 90 degrees his equations give the same answer as the conventional approach with c a fixed constant independent of the speed of the observer. What he of course, is trying to do is to overcome the distant starlight problem by inventing a preposterous hypothesis, which, as you point out has any number of problems. My only point is that mathematically, he gets the same answer as conventional relativity for this particular apparatus in this particular configuration. It gives the wrong answer for the toothed tweedle because it is a one way system.

Why argue about the math?

Consider a light source on the Moon directed toward a detector on Earth. According to Lisle, an observer on the Moon would measure the speed of light leaving the source at c/2, while an observer on Earth would measure the light approaching the detector at infinite speed. If this is consistent with his "theory", how does he explain the acceleration of the photons/particles?

gnome de net said: Why argue about the math? Consider a light source on the Moon directed toward a detector on Earth. According to Lisle, an observer on the Moon would measure the speed of light leaving the source at c/2, while an observer on Earth would measure the light approaching the detector at infinite speed. If this is consistent with his "theory", how does he explain the acceleration of the photons/particles?

Young man, are you constantly told
By your teacher, that the Earth is real old
I say young man, if that fact leaves you cold
There's no need to be unhappy

Young man, there's a place you can go
You’ll be welcomed, if you put up some dough
You can join them and I'm sure you will find
They are totally supportive

Go, go, go, go, go
Get on the phone to the C.O.P.E.
Get on the phone to the C.O.P.E.
They have everything for a young man like you
Who wants to stay a Y.E.C.

Get on the phone to the C.O.P.E.
Get on the phone to the C.O.P.E.
You can stand up and fight for your ignorance right
You can think anything you like

Young man, are you listening to me
I said young man, what do you wanna be
I said young man, you can be Y.E.C.
But you've got to know this one thing

No-one should acknowledge out loud
That they’re part of the proponentsist crowd
You’re “objective”, like the C.O.P.E.
That’s the term we’re using today

One, two, three, six, eight,
Creation Science? Not C.O.P.E.
Intelligent Design? Not C.O.P.E.
Sudden Emergence and Teach the Controversy
Have got nothing to do with us…

Critical Thinking? Not C.O.P.E.
We don’t do these things at C.O.P.E.
Our sole mission, you see, is objectivity
In public school curriculae

Young Man, I was once in your shoes
At Kitzmiller, I thought I couldn’t lose
But a fiendish, materialist ruse
Brought Intelligent Design down

That's when someone came up to me
And said: “Young man, conceal your history!”
Come and join us at the C.O.P.E.
Where we call ourselves “objective”

Got the idea now?
Come on and join us at C.O.P.E.
Become “objective” at C.O.P.E.
Young man, young man there's no need to feel down
Young man, young man we’re the new guise in town

C.O.P.E.
We’re “objective” at the C.O.P.E.
“Parental rights” is the new S.O.P.
Informing children so generously
Of our concept of “objectivity” …

Of coarse its the moral/intellectual right of a people to demand truth in education. Then its a legal right.

It's the "then" that's the problem, Robert. The class of moral and intellectual rights that most of us accept is far larger than the class of legal rights. A moral or intellectual right doesn't become a legal right until some authoritative legal source says it does. No authoritative legal source requires "truth" or "balance" in what the public schools teach. One authoritative legal source, here in the USA, says whatever else the public schools teach, they can't teach religion. They can't teach that it's true, and they can't teach that it's false. But it is simply impossible to teach much of anything without teaching something that some religion disagrees with. If you teach that Asian peoples wandered across what is now the Bering Strait about 50,000 years ago and peopled the Americas, that the next visitors were the Vikings about 1,000 years ago, and that the next visitors were Columbus and his crew in 1492, do the Mormons get to complain because their religion tells them that a bunch of ancient Israelites came some time between the Asians and the Vikings? Do certain Native Americans get to complain because their religion tells them that their ancestors did not wander over from Asia, but sprung from the earth in North America? I'll save you the trouble of looking it up, Robert. They don't.

phhht said:

That joke is due to Emo Philips.

Thank you, I had no idea where it originated. It has spread all over the place, and I haven't seen any attribution before. But I agree it is the best religion joke ever.

CJColucci said: Of coarse its the moral/intellectual right of a people to demand truth in education. Then its a legal right. It's the "then" that's the problem, Robert. The class of moral and intellectual rights that most of us accept is far larger than the class of legal rights. A moral or intellectual right doesn't become a legal right until some authoritative legal source says it does. No authoritative legal source requires "truth" or "balance" in what the public schools teach. One authoritative legal source, here in the USA, says whatever else the public schools teach, they can't teach religion. They can't teach that it's true, and they can't teach that it's false. But it is simply impossible to teach much of anything without teaching something that some religion disagrees with. If you teach that Asian peoples wandered across what is now the Bering Strait about 50,000 years ago and peopled the Americas, that the next visitors were the Vikings about 1,000 years ago, and that the next visitors were Columbus and his crew in 1492, do the Mormons get to complain because their religion tells them that a bunch of ancient Israelites came some time between the Asians and the Vikings? Do certain Native Americans get to complain because their religion tells them that their ancestors did not wander over from Asia, but sprung from the earth in North America? I'll save you the trouble of looking it up, Robert. They don't.

you is censored booby roll over and take it up your favorite orifice you is impotent to do anything about it the state is not neutral it is discriminating against lying liars like you go out and vote to change it if you think you can oh wait you cant even do that you lose loser yopu origin subjects is rejected by the government and all normal peoples cause it isnt truth it is lies youre side beat itself over the head and passed out the law is the law separation of your lies and state too bad the state is not nuetral you lose

If yopu can’t teach religion is right then you can’t teach its wrong.

The age of the earth is not religion. A flood is not religion.

richard09 said:

phhht said:

That joke is due to Emo Philips.

Thank you, I had no idea where it originated. It has spread all over the place, and I haven't seen any attribution before. But I agree it is the best religion joke ever.

Religions are so diversified, who can say what is outside the bounds of religion?

Robert Byers said: The state is not nuetral but aggressively being used to say creationism is false.

Those blockquote things are tricky. Oh well.

harold said:

If yopu can’t teach religion is right then you can’t teach its wrong.

Correct. You cannot directly single out a religion and teach that it is wrong. However, you can teach science. Anyone can always make up a religion that contradicts anything. Therefore the idea that you get to censor science class based on the claim that, while your religion is never mentioned, some of the science conflicts with the dogma of your religion (even though the teacher may not even be aware of this), is silly. The scientific explanation for lightening contradicts both Greek and Norse mythology, at a minimum. Norse mythology has ostensible modern adherents. This does NOT mean that schools can't teach the scientific explanation for lightening. You don't get to shut down the teaching of science by making up an arbitrary religious claim that contradicts science. You do have protection, in the US at least, from having your arbitrary religious dogma specifically brought up and contradicted. The teacher can't say "Little Olaf's family worship Thor, but the worship of Thor is a false religion". The teacher can, however, teach the standard scientific treatment of electricity. Little Olaf will just have to work that out with his spiritual advisor. If the mainstream, neutral teaching of facts from the realm of science, math, history, or any other such field unintentionally conflicts with some arbitrary dogma of your sect, you'll have to deal with that. Obviously, otherwise, nothing could ever be taught. Activists could simply enter into a conspiracy to make up at least one religion that contradicts or objects to every possible fact.

you cant have it both way booby you cant teach Genesis/bullshit is true and it is science its not true and its not science you lose you are censored you cant change it and you cant overthrow nothin

Robert Byers said: if you can teach God/Genesis is false, so attacking religious doctrines for many, then you can teach its true. Nothing to do with science. the state is saying its religious conclusions that are illegal in subjects dedicated to truth.

Each province deals differently with private religious schools. In Ontario the Catholic system continues to be fully publicly funded while other faiths are not. Ontario has several private Jewish, Muslim, and Christian schools all funded through tuition fees. Since the Catholic schools system is entrenched in the constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that this system is constitutional. [emphasis added]

It is a sin to bear false witness. Stop sinning, Mr. Byers; no one is censoring creationism. I thought you're a Christian.

If there is any "censoring" about creationism going on, it is by those who will not allow discussion about what goes on to account for the variety of the world of life.

gnome de net said: Robert Byers's inability or refusal to understand may be due to an important difference between school funding in Canada and in the United States. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada,

Each province deals differently with private religious schools. In Ontario the Catholic system continues to be fully publicly funded while other faiths are not. Ontario has several private Jewish, Muslim, and Christian schools all funded through tuition fees. Since the Catholic schools system is entrenched in the constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that this system is constitutional. [emphasis added]

So, Robert, do you now see that this is a critical difference between our two countries' Constitutions? Yours allows what you advocate while ours prohibits it.

Robert Byers said: i'm presenting the way a winning case can , and will, be brought to end state censorship in public institutions.

Robert Byers said: Nothing to do with canada. i'm presenting the way a winning case can , and will, be brought to end state censorship in public institutions. The catholic funding was made from French canadian days in order to unite the country and then the later massive immigration from people group who were Catholic took advantage of the wording. Obviously its unjust and dumb but thats Canada.

Robert Byers said: FIURTHER. since the state is censoring religious conclusions in origin subjects then its officially sayimng they are wrong since its the CLEAR INTENT of the class to teach the truth. in fact using science ios to better come to the truth.

The state endorsing religion by teaching creationism is endorsing religion as false by censopring it.

Robert Byers said: Nothing to do with canada. i'm presenting the way a winning case can , and will, be brought to end state censorship in public institutions. The catholic funding was made from French canadian days in order to unite the country and then the later massive immigration from people group who were Catholic took advantage of the wording. Obviously its unjust and dumb but thats Canada.

DS said: obviously its unjust and dumb but thats what you want to do to the usa...

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Nothing to do with canada. i'm presenting the way a winning case can , and will, be brought to end state censorship in public institutions. The catholic funding was made from French canadian days in order to unite the country and then the later massive immigration from people group who were Catholic took advantage of the wording. Obviously its unjust and dumb but thats Canada.

DS said: obviously its unjust and dumb but thats what you want to do to the usa...

Perhaps "its unjust and dumb" because you're not Catholic? Some better questions would be: What have you done to promote the teaching of "religious conclusions in origin subjects" in Canadian schools? Why are you so obsessive/compulsive about the subjects taught in U.S. classrooms that don't affect you?

So, Robert, do you agree that the Mormons have a case? If not, you're inconsistent; if so, you're just wrong. Which is it?

Mr. Byers, it is a sin to bear false witness. Since there is no censorship of creationism, you are so bearing. I thought you're a Christian.

Somehow I think this guy's views on following the Commandments are also pretty flexible depending on the skin colour and cultural heritage of those being killed, robbed, or possessions coveted.

As to the Canadian schools, theoretically they are more flexible as to religious teaching; in practice, the fundy kooks have gotten a lot less traction here. And this not just in education. Religious fundamentalism has been and remains very marginal as compared to the U.S. Thank the Goddess. The social justice thread of Protestantism has been far more influential, so even Mr. Byers is entitled to health care from the state. Ungrateful blackguard probably thinks Tommy Douglas was a Satanist.

Robert Byers said: Nothing to do with canada.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: FIURTHER. since the state is censoring religious conclusions in origin subjects then its officially sayimng they are wrong since its the CLEAR INTENT of the class to teach the truth. in fact using science ios to better come to the truth.

This is not quite true. Science is a method. We can teach the conclusions that method reaches without proclaiming them to be absolute, philosophical, truth. So in science classes, we teach what science says. We don't say some religion is true or false, we just teach what conclusions science leads to. And that is how we adhere to the first amendment while still providing kids with a decent education. After all, the point (of science classes) is to teach kids how to do science, and what science says. Its still part of science to understand what conclusions science reaches, whether you agree with them or disagree with them.

The state endorsing religion by teaching creationism is endorsing religion as false by censopring it.

No, this is entirely untrue. "Not teaching x" /= "saying X is false."

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Nothing to do with canada. i'm presenting the way a winning case can , and will, be brought to end state censorship in public institutions. The catholic funding was made from French canadian days in order to unite the country and then the later massive immigration from people group who were Catholic took advantage of the wording. Obviously its unjust and dumb but thats Canada.

DS said: obviously its unjust and dumb but thats what you want to do to the usa...

Perhaps "its unjust and dumb" because you're not Catholic? Some better questions would be: What have you done to promote the teaching of "religious conclusions in origin subjects" in Canadian schools? Why are you so obsessive/compulsive about the subjects taught in U.S. classrooms that don't affect you?

CJColucci said: So, Robert, do you agree that the Mormons have a case? If not, you're inconsistent; if so, you're just wrong. Which is it?

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: Nothing to do with canada.

Actually...quite a bit to do with Canada. You are sufficiently steeped in Canadian law and practice that you almost certainly have a decent grasp of Canadian law even if you aren't actually aware of it and can't articulate any of the details. You lack that familiarity with US law. As a result, you frequently make major mistakes about what US law says and how it is applied, whether in theory or practice.

Robert Byers said: America is based on freedom and rights and the peoples will. Canada is not. Canada is a british parliamentary nation and so prone to authority control. Americans easily can destroy attacks on important truth and on freedom of thought/speech. I'm helping.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: Nothing to do with canada.

Actually...quite a bit to do with Canada. You are sufficiently steeped in Canadian law and practice that you almost certainly have a decent grasp of Canadian law even if you aren't actually aware of it and can't articulate any of the details. You lack that familiarity with US law. As a result, you frequently make major mistakes about what US law says and how it is applied, whether in theory or practice.

the American laws on this were made hundreds of years ago. They are not complicated but clear and direct. THE STATE has no legal right to teach god/Genesis/any faith stuff is wrong. The state is to be separate from religious conclusions. SETTLED Therefore the state can not censor creationism in public institutions where the conclusions are about relgious ideas in origins. The state must be neutral and so both sides must be allowed. The idea that any esteemed, or optherwise, founders of america would make the government ban God/Genesis where origins etc are discussed is an absurdity and a ignorance of the ideas of those people long ago. So its impossible to find in the constitution any demand for censoprship. its a humbug. I show this by USING their own reasoning against them for the justification for censorship. .

Byers says: Canada is a british parliamentary nation and so prone to authority control.

Robert Byers said: America is based on freedom and rights and the peoples will. Canada is not. Canada is a british parliamentary nation and so prone to authority control. Americans easily can destroy attacks on important truth and on freedom of thought/speech. I'm helping.

Robert Byers said: The censorship is not based on whether creationism is science. its based on it being said to be religious. So my case stands fine.

In teaching conclusions truth is a clear objective, using scientific methodology as even more evidence on how determined to reach the truth, SO the state censoring someone is the state saying that someone is wrong.

Robert Byers said: the American laws on this were made hundreds of years ago. They are not complicated but clear and direct. THE STATE has no legal right to teach god/Genesis/any faith stuff is wrong. The state is to be separate from religious conclusions. SETTLED Therefore the state can not censor creationism in public institutions where the conclusions are about relgious ideas in origins. The state must be neutral and so both sides must be allowed. The idea that any esteemed, or optherwise, founders of america would make the government ban God/Genesis where origins etc are discussed is an absurdity and a ignorance of the ideas of those people long ago. So its impossible to find in the constitution any demand for censoprship. its a humbug. I show this by USING their own reasoning against them for the justification for censorship. .

Robert Byers said:

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Nothing to do with canada. i'm presenting the way a winning case can , and will, be brought to end state censorship in public institutions. The catholic funding was made from French canadian days in order to unite the country and then the later massive immigration from people group who were Catholic took advantage of the wording. Obviously its unjust and dumb but thats Canada.

DS said: obviously its unjust and dumb but thats what you want to do to the usa...

Perhaps "its unjust and dumb" because you're not Catholic? Some better questions would be: What have you done to promote the teaching of "religious conclusions in origin subjects" in Canadian schools? Why are you so obsessive/compulsive about the subjects taught in U.S. classrooms that don't affect you?

America is based on freedom and rights and the peoples will. Canada is not. Canada is a british parliamentary nation and so prone to authority control. Americans easily can destroy attacks on important truth and on freedom of thought/speech. I'm helping.

So its impossible to find in the constitution any demand for censorship.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

eric said:Personally, I think a class in comparative religions is a good idea. But I don't think its make-it-a-requirement-for-graduation good. But I also think that's an opinion on which reasonable people can disagree, so if you think a comparative religion class should be a requirement for graduation, I'll just shrug and say 'okay.'

W. H. Heydt said:

eric said:Personally, I think a class in comparative religions is a good idea. But I don't think its make-it-a-requirement-for-graduation good. But I also think that's an opinion on which reasonable people can disagree, so if you think a comparative religion class should be a requirement for graduation, I'll just shrug and say 'okay.'

While I agree that--in principle--a high school course in comparative religion would be a very good idea, the problem is that "the devil is in the details." In areas that really need such courses, they would almost certainly be "captured" by religious extremists and would be--in practice--religious indoctrination by pursuing a "my religion good, all other religions bad" approach. It would be extremely difficult to teach actual *comparative* religion from a neutral standpoint. It's pity, really, but I think it's inevitable that in all too many places, it would end badly.

I think an ethics class would be a much better idea.

I ran across a book by a theologian Michael Hanby "No God, No Science". He concludes that intelligent design is bad science, bad philosophy and bad theology. He is really arguing for a pre-scientific view of creation. ID/creationists of today and even those post-1600 have bought into living things as machines with God as an engineer. There is much to disagree with on science, but it should give creationists (if they read - do they?) food for thought.

I’m only saying the constitution can not be used to censor the people.

You may say that, but the Supreme Court, and everyone who actually understands the Constitution, says different. If it were true that the Constitution can't be used to censor the people, we would have achool-run, sectarian, Christian prayer in public schools. We don't, at least not in schools run by law-abiding administrators.

W. H. Heydt said: While I agree that--in principle--a high school course in comparative religion would be a very good idea, the problem is that "the devil is in the details." In areas that really need such courses, they would almost certainly be "captured" by religious extremists and would be--in practice--religious indoctrination by pursuing a "my religion good, all other religions bad" approach. It would be extremely difficult to teach actual *comparative* religion from a neutral standpoint. It's pity, really, but I think it's inevitable that in all too many places, it would end badly.

Robert Byers said: America is based on freedom and rights and the peoples will. Canada is not. Canada is a british parliamentary nation and so prone to authority control. Americans easily can destroy attacks on important truth and on freedom of thought/speech. I'm helping.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: America is based on freedom and rights and the peoples will. Canada is not. Canada is a british parliamentary nation and so prone to authority control. Americans easily can destroy attacks on important truth and on freedom of thought/speech. I'm helping.

Actually...most of the basic US law (the Constitution) is based on the idea of constraining the government. That is, enumerating things the government may NOT do, such as establishing a religion. Since creationism is an inherently religious idea, unless one can show scientific evidence for it, which has never been done, the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, coupled with the 14th Amendment extending restrictions on the Federal government to the states, absolutely bars the teaching of creationism in public schools. In addition to that, the Constitution protects minorities from being steamrolled by majorities. The usual phrase is "majority rule, but minority rights". Mr. Byers, the problem here is that you have internalized Canadian law, but you lack the same familiarity with American law. You need to explicitly *study* American law and jurisprudence in order to understand why your arguments are silly and would be laughed out of court. Something else you have signally failed to comprehend is that science does not deal in "Truth". Scientific results are tentative, and can be changed in light of additional evidence. Some of the results are better established than others, but none are absolutes.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: The censorship is not based on whether creationism is science. its based on it being said to be religious. So my case stands fine.

The Supreme Court has said both, that creationism is religion and that it is not science. I'll ask you again: if you're so sure you're going to win, which five members of the US Supreme Court do you think will vote in favor of creationism being science and not religion? Because I only see two doing so: Alito and Thomas. And IMO your personal argument that it's not religion is just laughable. You say you want people to be taught/learn about the Genesis story in the bible. That's very clearly religion, Robert. Reading some religion's holy book and talking about it is practically the definition of studying a religion. I guarantee you that if an ID case does reach the supreme court, the lawyers on your side will be doing everything they can to deny that ID is about Genesis. They will lie about it. Because they will know that if they talk about Genesis the way you do, they will lose on the grounds that they are discussing a religious idea of origins.

In teaching conclusions truth is a clear objective, using scientific methodology as even more evidence on how determined to reach the truth, SO the state censoring someone is the state saying that someone is wrong.

At the high school level, the state doesn't teach quantum mechanics. So you're claiming the state is saying QM is wrong? The state also doesn't teach (at the high school level) nuclear physics, practically every form of engineering, law, how to do surgery on humans, veterinary science, Swahili language, how to read Aztec...the list is endless. In none of these cases is the state making any value claim about these subjects. The real fact of the matter is that there is more stuff we want kids to learn than we have time in the day to teach them. So we prioritize. And that means some stuff doesn't make the cut. Failing to make the cut doesn't imply the state thinks a subject is erroneous, it implies the state feels its more important that the kid learn math. Or English. Or, yes, mainstream science. Personally, I think a class in comparative religions is a good idea. But I don't think its make-it-a-requirement-for-graduation good. But I also think that's an opinion on which reasonable people can disagree, so if you think a comparative religion class should be a requirement for graduation, I'll just shrug and say 'okay.'

eric said: Byers on the Constitution:

So its impossible to find in the constitution any demand for censorship.

Actual Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

That's pretty much a limitation - a censoring, if you will - on what Congress is allowed to do. They are censored/prevented from passing laws that establish religion above non-religion, or one religion above others. But as already discussed, neutrality does not mean silence. It simply means you must have good non-religious reasons for doing something that impacts a religion. The good non-religious reason for teaching the leading scientific theories of the day in science classes should be pretty obvious.

CJColucci said: I’m only saying the constitution can not be used to censor the people. You may say that, but the Supreme Court, and everyone who actually understands the Constitution, says different. If it were true that the Constitution can't be used to censor the people, we would have achool-run, sectarian, Christian prayer in public schools. We don't, at least not in schools run by law-abiding administrators.

Robert Byers said: [T]o have the state TEACH that Christian doctrines etc are false is just plain attack of the state on religion.

Robert Byers said: The supreme court has no authority to jeudge if creationism is science. it only judges if its religion. Thats all it can rule on. watch your law here.

The state is banning creationism as not a option in subjects about origins.

Robert Byers said: The supreme court has no authority to jeudge if creationism is science. it only judges if its religion. Thats all it can rule on. watch your law here.

The state is banning creationism as not a option in subjects about origins.

wah wah wah the supreme court kicked your ass booby it is you who has no right to judge it is you who is censored it is your bullshit religion that is screwed cry all you want asshole you is never going to preach in a school wah wah wah

Robert Byers said: the federal gov never paid for schools when the constitution was made. they never meant a twisting of this to interfere in truth in schools or interfere in gods place in schools.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: The supreme court has no authority to jeudge if creationism is science. it only judges if its religion. Thats all it can rule on. watch your law here.

1982, McClean vs. Arkansas, SCOTUS ruled that creation-science wasn't science. They also ruled it was religion, but you're just plain wrong in thinking they haven't addressed the 'is it science' question. Read the ruling if you don't believe me. The part you believe doesn't exist (but actually does) is section IV(C) of the ruling.

But really, how ignorant do you have to be to think that a case called “Epperson vs. Arkansas” is about a federal law? Didn’t the word “Arkansas” clue you in?

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said:

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Nothing to do with canada. i'm presenting the way a winning case can , and will, be brought to end state censorship in public institutions. The catholic funding was made from French canadian days in order to unite the country and then the later massive immigration from people group who were Catholic took advantage of the wording. Obviously its unjust and dumb but thats Canada.

DS said: obviously its unjust and dumb but thats what you want to do to the usa...

Perhaps "its unjust and dumb" because you're not Catholic? Some better questions would be: What have you done to promote the teaching of "religious conclusions in origin subjects" in Canadian schools? Why are you so obsessive/compulsive about the subjects taught in U.S. classrooms that don't affect you?

America is based on freedom and rights and the peoples will. Canada is not. Canada is a british parliamentary nation and so prone to authority control. Americans easily can destroy attacks on important truth and on freedom of thought/speech. I'm helping.

I'm unable to interpret your response as an answer to any of my three questions, so let me make this easy for both of us by asking one question at a time: What have you done to promote the teaching of "religious conclusions in origin subjects" in Canadian schools?

Robert Byers said: This is not a difficult legal issue. its common sense. Its right for the gov't not to interfere with religion or pick sides. thats the whole purpose of the establishment clause. church and state to be separate in their authority. However when the schools, you call them the state, determines to talk about subjects that religion also makes conclusions about then the STATE has interfered or rather is making a establishment about religion. The state is saying, in this case, religion is wrong about certain things. They are attacking religion. So religion demands defence and they invoke censorship by saying its the religion attacking the state.

gnome de net said:

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said:

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Nothing to do with canada. i'm presenting the way a winning case can , and will, be brought to end state censorship in public institutions. The catholic funding was made from French canadian days in order to unite the country and then the later massive immigration from people group who were Catholic took advantage of the wording. Obviously its unjust and dumb but thats Canada.

DS said: obviously its unjust and dumb but thats what you want to do to the usa...

Perhaps "its unjust and dumb" because you're not Catholic? Some better questions would be: What have you done to promote the teaching of "religious conclusions in origin subjects" in Canadian schools? Why are you so obsessive/compulsive about the subjects taught in U.S. classrooms that don't affect you?

America is based on freedom and rights and the peoples will. Canada is not. Canada is a british parliamentary nation and so prone to authority control. Americans easily can destroy attacks on important truth and on freedom of thought/speech. I'm helping.

I'm unable to interpret your response as an answer to any of my three questions, so let me make this easy for both of us by asking one question at a time: What have you done to promote the teaching of "religious conclusions in origin subjects" in Canadian schools?

Since you choose to ignore that question, let's move on to the other one (slightly rephrased): Why do you feel threatened by subjects taught in U.S. classrooms that don't affect you as a citizen/resident of Canada?

Henry J said:

But really, how ignorant do you have to be to think that a case called “Epperson vs. Arkansas” is about a federal law? Didn’t the word “Arkansas” clue you in?

It's not one of the ten provinces, therefore...

W. H. Heydt said: Now when it comes to science classes, the field of discourse is, "this is what science has found". Religion doesn't enter into it. The teacher may NOT go on to say ",,,therefore, this or that religious belief is wrong (or right, for that matter)". If the *students* conclude that there is a conflict between the science and their beliefs, it is up to them to resolve that issue. If they need help, that help may NOT come from the state funded school personnel, but must come from their parents, religious leaders, friends, what have you. That is none of the state's business.

W. H. Heydt said: *I* can think of a reasonable answer that Mr. Byers might use in response to that question, but I will refrain from posting so as not to give him an out from answering it himself. (Though I am dubious that he will, or that--in the off chance that he does--his answer will be at all rational or reasonable.

Oh, and he knows that he can't pull that bullshit in Canada, so he tries to push it in the US. He doesn't like it that the Canadian school system was taken over by a religion (not his) but that's exactly what he wants for the US (only his religion this time), just because he thinks he can get away with it. He cannot. End of story. And of course he doesn't recognize the utter hypocricy and moral decrepitude of his position.

DS said: Oh, and he knows that he can't pull that bullshit in Canada, so he tries to push it in the US. He doesn't like it that the Canadian school system was taken over by a religion (not his) but that's exactly what he wants for the US (only his religion this time), just because he thinks he can get away with it. He cannot. End of story. And of course he doesn't recognize the utter hypocricy and moral decrepitude of his position.

W. H. Heydt said:The extension of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment by the 14th Amendment to the several states applies to all subsidiary parts of states...state departments (of education in the cases under discussion), counties (and county boards of education), cities (and city school districts), all the way down to individual teachers, who are acting as agents of the state, because their jobs and authority derive from the state.

DS, it depends on what you mean by 'knows'.

It is unclear that the dangerous authoritarian genuinely, consciously is aware of the vacuity of his position. Actually, having read his comments for Goddess-knows how many years, there is strong evidence that RB really believes - honestly believes - that scientists just sit in offices in universities making up bullshit, same as him. That all spin-off technology is a magic, easy triviality.

The evidence suggests to me that he believes, honestly and wholeheartedly, that we're all doing the same bald speculation as him, and thus the only criterion of what should be taught is his empirically-unevidenced view that 'the people' want creationism in the school. A kind of half-assed postmodernism.

I am not insisting on this view; I could be dead wrong. And obviously I don't really care about Mr. Authoritarian as an individual - the social-political trends are what is important to me. As I've asserted before, with ID so embarrassingly routed now over 10 years ago, RB and his ilk really are the best focus of a blog like this.

gnome de net said:

DS said: Oh, and he knows that he can't pull that bullshit in Canada, so he tries to push it in the US. He doesn't like it that the Canadian school system was taken over by a religion (not his) but that's exactly what he wants for the US (only his religion this time), just because he thinks he can get away with it. He cannot. End of story. And of course he doesn't recognize the utter hypocricy and moral decrepitude of his position.

You're probably right about what Robert doesn't like, but you're mistaken about the Canadian school system. That privilege really applies to only Catholic schools only in Ontario and does not apply to public schools. A Catholic school receives tax support only from families with children who actually attend that particular school. Each province deals differently with private religious schools. The attitude in Canada re: Evolution/Creationism seems to be indifference, or just more tolerance of differences of opinions. Many public schools avoid the controversy by simply omitting Evolution from the curriculum. See this three-year-old appraisal: http://thefeed.blackchicken.ca/2013/07/09/creationism-in-canada-part-4/

Bobsie said: However, if they don't teach accepted science, their students can't be accepted to state universities to continue science studies (e.g. California)

I do however agree that the real motivation of a guy like this - whether he realizes it or not - is morally turbid and covetous fear and hatred of scientists and secularists.

A friendly correction. McClean v. Arkansas was actually a United States District Court ruling from a District Court in Little Rock. While not a SCOTUS ruling, the 1982 McClean v. Arkansas decision is never-the-less regarded as a powerful ruling as the plaintiffs are considered to have put together a very sound case. Conversely , the defense (YECs) were given black eyes by testimony from at least some of the defendants. As Eric demonstrated, Judge William Overton's legal decision in McClean v. Arkansas is well worded and hard hitting; it remains a key benchmark to this day regarding religious based anti-evolutionary pseudoscience in US courts. BTW, while some of the plaintiffs were of course scientists and science organizations, most of the plaintiffs were actually religious people and religious organizations (McClean himself was a minister) that strongly felt Arkansas's YEC "balanced treatment of evolution" bill promoted one specific kind of Christianity at the expense of not only other Christian views but other religions as well and thus violating the US Constitution.

Indeed, in the same way ID anti-evolutionists knew it would be legal suicide to even try to appeal the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, YEC anti-evolutionists in 1982 knew that it would be fruitless to even try to appeal McClean v. Arkansas. So YECs instead refocused on a somewhat similar YEC "balanced treatment of evolution" law from Louisiana. Among other things, the Louisiana law had somewhat more generalized wording and thus could be better exploited by YECs. It was this particular case that brilliant YEC attorney Wendell Bird helped appeal all way to the SCOTUS (1987 Edwards v. Aguillard). But YECs still lost Edwards v. Aguillard in a 7-2 decision that was likely the final nail in the coffin for YECs in US courts.

While we're doing friendly corrections... While the ID/Creationists might have feared the results of appealing Kitzmiller v. Dover, the reason there was no appeal was that 8 of the 9 school board members were replaced in the election held between the end of the trial and the handing down of the decision. The new board was only too happy to accept Judge Jones decision in the case.

W. H. Heydt said: While we're doing friendly corrections... While the ID/Creationists might have feared the results of appealing Kitzmiller v. Dover, the reason there was no appeal was that 8 of the 9 school board members were replaced in the election held between the end of the trial and the handing down of the decision. The new board was only too happy to accept Judge Jones decision in the case.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: The supreme court has no authority to jeudge if creationism is science. it only judges if its religion. Thats all it can rule on. watch your law here.

1982, McClean vs. Arkansas, SCOTUS ruled that creation-science wasn't science. They also ruled it was religion, but you're just plain wrong in thinking they haven't addressed the 'is it science' question. Read the ruling if you don't believe me. The part you believe doesn't exist (but actually does) is section IV(C) of the ruling. When you say something like 'watch your law there,' have you ever even bothered reading a SCOTUS decision? Have you ever even bothered reading the key creationist rulinngs? Because it seems to me that your understanding of law is not based on any part of the actual, historical record of law, but just on wishful thinking. Robert's understanding of US law is merely how Robert would choose to interpret it if he were in charge - nothing more.

The state is banning creationism as not a option in subjects about origins.

Because its religion, and even according to you, SCOTUS has the authority to decide that it's religious, and thus decide that it is not constitutional to teach in a public school because that would be establishing a specific religion's idea of origins.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: the federal gov never paid for schools when the constitution was made. they never meant a twisting of this to interfere in truth in schools or interfere in gods place in schools.

The states pay for local schooling. But as has been explained to you, the 14th amendment applies the constitutional restrictions on federal government to the various state governments too, so the various state government's can't establish religion either; that's just as unconstitutional as the federal government doing it. And it is the various states' infractions that SCOTUS has been ruling on, not federal infractions. You might have been clued into this if you had read the titles of the legal cases, which have names like "Epperson v. Arkansas", "Segraves v. State of California", "McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education", "Webster v. New Lenox School District", and so on. Do you see any mention of the federal government in those names? No, you do not. The organizations being accused of violating the constitution are state government organizations. Local boards of education. You are so ignorant of these cases that you didn't even know they were suits against state governments, which means you didn't even know or remember the titles of the supreme court cases on creationism. Now look, I'm not being elitist here; I would not expect a layperson to remember that Edwards vs. Aguillard was about a Louisiana state law. But really, how ignorant do you have to be to think that a case called "Epperson vs. Arkansas" is about a federal law? Didn't the word "Arkansas" clue you in?

eric said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: The supreme court has no authority to jeudge if creationism is science. it only judges if its religion. Thats all it can rule on. watch your law here.

1982, McClean vs. Arkansas, SCOTUS ruled that creation-science wasn't science. They also ruled it was religion, but you're just plain wrong in thinking they haven't addressed the 'is it science' question. Read the ruling if you don't believe me. The part you believe doesn't exist (but actually does) is section IV(C) of the ruling.

The irony of all this is, of course, that the ID movement owes its very existence to the thing that Robert claims didn't happen. Rebranding creationism as intelligent design was a direct response to the court's finding that creationism wasn't science, and therefore there could be no secular reason to teach it in science class. If the court had found creationism to be religious (but still scientific), creationists could have kept the label, kept the god in, and just made up some BS argument about how there was a secular purpose and effect in teaching it. But MvA ruled that avenue out: there could be no secular purpose for teaching it as science if it wasn't science. And thus, ID was born: to try the same thing again, but under a brand name that the courts had not yet ruled was 'not science.' Until Kitzmiller, that is.

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: The supreme court has no authority to jeudge if creationism is science. it only judges if its religion. Thats all it can rule on. watch your law here.

1982, McClean vs. Arkansas, SCOTUS ruled that creation-science wasn't science. They also ruled it was religion, but you're just plain wrong in thinking they haven't addressed the 'is it science' question. Read the ruling if you don't believe me. The part you believe doesn't exist (but actually does) is section IV(C) of the ruling. When you say something like 'watch your law there,' have you ever even bothered reading a SCOTUS decision? Have you ever even bothered reading the key creationist rulinngs? Because it seems to me that your understanding of law is not based on any part of the actual, historical record of law, but just on wishful thinking. Robert's understanding of US law is merely how Robert would choose to interpret it if he were in charge - nothing more.

The state is banning creationism as not a option in subjects about origins.

Because its religion, and even according to you, SCOTUS has the authority to decide that it's religious, and thus decide that it is not constitutional to teach in a public school because that would be establishing a specific religion's idea of origins.

again your law is wrong. They only can judge is religion is involved. (they even can't do that but thats another point). They do not have the judging authority about what science is. They simply claimed they found ID/yEC not to be science AND THEREFORE it could only be religion. So they found it to be religion. thats all they can claim a right to judge on. (not even that but)

Robert Byers said: not the point. I was saying the constitution was made when the federal state did not control schools. Surely nobody claims the founders meant the schools to be censored on conclusions on origins which included God/Genesis.!! in fact they all would of banned anything opposed to this. Education was not in any way on anyones minds when making the separation clause. This is a post wwII twisting. Freedom of enquiry, thought, conscience, speech on important matters was the ideal. anyways I debunk this strange twisting by my legal point i make here.

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: The supreme court has no authority to jeudge if creationism is science. it only judges if its religion. Thats all it can rule on. watch your law here.

1982, McClean vs. Arkansas, SCOTUS ruled that creation-science wasn't science. They also ruled it was religion, but you're just plain wrong in thinking they haven't addressed the 'is it science' question. Read the ruling if you don't believe me. The part you believe doesn't exist (but actually does) is section IV(C) of the ruling.

The irony of all this is, of course, that the ID movement owes its very existence to the thing that Robert claims didn't happen. Rebranding creationism as intelligent design was a direct response to the court's finding that creationism wasn't science, and therefore there could be no secular reason to teach it in science class. If the court had found creationism to be religious (but still scientific), creationists could have kept the label, kept the god in, and just made up some BS argument about how there was a secular purpose and effect in teaching it. But MvA ruled that avenue out: there could be no secular purpose for teaching it as science if it wasn't science. And thus, ID was born: to try the same thing again, but under a brand name that the courts had not yet ruled was 'not science.' Until Kitzmiller, that is.

The few decisions madse in tiny circles amongst ID/YEC folks in trying to bring back the right to truth is not relevant to the future. just better ideas and more court cases until they conquor. We have the winning case.Nobody here shows why I'm wrong. Nobody makes a good case or a almost good case. Creationism can do this. Just organize and aim better.

Robert Byers said: The few decisions madse in tiny circles amongst ID/YEC folks in trying to bring back the right to truth is not relevant to the future. just better ideas and more court cases until they conquor. We have the winning case.Nobody here shows why I'm wrong. Nobody makes a good case or a almost good case. Creationism can do this. Just organize and aim better.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: This is not a difficult legal issue. its common sense. Its right for the gov't not to interfere with religion or pick sides. thats the whole purpose of the establishment clause. church and state to be separate in their authority. However when the schools, you call them the state, determines to talk about subjects that religion also makes conclusions about then the STATE has interfered or rather is making a establishment about religion. The state is saying, in this case, religion is wrong about certain things. They are attacking religion. So religion demands defence and they invoke censorship by saying its the religion attacking the state.

Mr. Byers...you *really* don't understand the US Constitution, US law, or US court decisions and their effect. The extension of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment by the 14th Amendment to the several states applies to all subsidiary parts of states...state departments (of education in the cases under discussion), counties (and county boards of education), cities (and city school districts), all the way down to individual teachers, who are acting as agents of the state, because their jobs and authority derive from the state. The prohibition of "establishing a religion" applies not just to a specific religion (a teacher may not teach that Catholicism is right and Presbyterianism is wrong) but also in general (Christianity is right and Shintoism is wrong) and even to the point of saying that theism is right and atheism is wrong. It is unconstitutional for anyone in a school receiving public funds to favor any religion (or none at all) over any other religion (or none at all). Now when it comes to science classes, the field of discourse is, "this is what science has found". Religion doesn't enter into it. The teacher may NOT go on to say ",,,therefore, this or that religious belief is wrong (or right, for that matter)". If the *students* conclude that there is a conflict between the science and their beliefs, it is up to them to resolve that issue. If they need help, that help may NOT come from the state funded school personnel, but must come from their parents, religious leaders, friends, what have you. That is none of the state's business. If you want to make assertions about what US law holds in cases like this, you need to study US law and court decisions. Your understanding from your experience with Canadian law and any light weight gloss you've read, seen or heard about US law won't cut it. And particularly, you can't go by what your co-religionists say about US law, because they don't have any clues in this area, either.

Robert Byers said: Your excuse the teaching of God/genesis being wrong by saying they are teaching science.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: This is not a difficult legal issue. its common sense. Its right for the gov't not to interfere with religion or pick sides. thats the whole purpose of the establishment clause. church and state to be separate in their authority. However when the schools, you call them the state, determines to talk about subjects that religion also makes conclusions about then the STATE has interfered or rather is making a establishment about religion. The state is saying, in this case, religion is wrong about certain things. They are attacking religion. So religion demands defence and they invoke censorship by saying its the religion attacking the state.

Mr. Byers...you *really* don't understand the US Constitution, US law, or US court decisions and their effect. The extension of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment by the 14th Amendment to the several states applies to all subsidiary parts of states...state departments (of education in the cases under discussion), counties (and county boards of education), cities (and city school districts), all the way down to individual teachers, who are acting as agents of the state, because their jobs and authority derive from the state. The prohibition of "establishing a religion" applies not just to a specific religion (a teacher may not teach that Catholicism is right and Presbyterianism is wrong) but also in general (Christianity is right and Shintoism is wrong) and even to the point of saying that theism is right and atheism is wrong. It is unconstitutional for anyone in a school receiving public funds to favor any religion (or none at all) over any other religion (or none at all). Now when it comes to science classes, the field of discourse is, "this is what science has found". Religion doesn't enter into it. The teacher may NOT go on to say ",,,therefore, this or that religious belief is wrong (or right, for that matter)". If the *students* conclude that there is a conflict between the science and their beliefs, it is up to them to resolve that issue. If they need help, that help may NOT come from the state funded school personnel, but must come from their parents, religious leaders, friends, what have you. That is none of the state's business. If you want to make assertions about what US law holds in cases like this, you need to study US law and court decisions. Your understanding from your experience with Canadian law and any light weight gloss you've read, seen or heard about US law won't cut it. And particularly, you can't go by what your co-religionists say about US law, because they don't have any clues in this area, either.

A little progress maybe. your first paragraph is excellent. amen. A teacher/state is not to teach this or that religious doctrine is right or wrong. None of their damn business. Then you go off the rail. Your excuse the teaching of God/genesis being wrong by saying they are teaching science. The law is the law. You use the law to censor creationism etc. Then the law must censor you. Thats your law.!! no this is different jazz. Teach both or neither. Actually its a fable the constitution has anything to say about education censorship.

Robert Byers said: Surely nobody claims the founders meant the schools to be censored on conclusions on origins which included God/Genesis.!!

in fact they all would of banned anything opposed to this. Education was not in any way on anyones minds when making the separation clause. This is a post wwII twisting. Freedom of enquiry, thought, conscience, speech on important matters was the ideal.

I debunk this strange twisting by my legal point i make here.

wah wah wah eh

Robert Byers said: no this is different jazz. Teach both or neither. Actually its a fable the constitution has anything to say about education censorship.

W. H. Heydt said: [...]SCOTUS decides what the law *is*, and their decision is final until such time as they accept another case and reverse a prior decision, which is rare.

hey booby question for ya what religion do you think that most of the founding fathers of the usa were hears a hint for ya it aint what you think

Robert Byers said: This is a post wwII twisting.

gnome de net said: Your continuing silence reveals much about you.

A literal reading of Genesis is neither science nor correct. If you want to read it allegorically, then its fine. Trying to take a text that is pre-scientific and force it into a post-scientific world doesn't work. It's bad religion and it's bad science.

Michael Fugate said: ...bad religion and it's bad science.

The NABT statement that evolution is "unplanned", "undirected" and "unpredictable" is not a scientific account. It is a non-religious statement that denies any divine superintedence as a matter of fact. It is essentially reflects the belief of atheists and deists. Therefore, it does amount to a violation of the Establishment clause since it seeks to promulgate non-religion.

Ravi said: The NABT statement that evolution is "unplanned", "undirected" and "unpredictable" is not a scientific account. It is a non-religious statement that denies any divine superintedence as a matter of fact. It is essentially reflects the belief of atheists and deists. Therefore, it does amount to a violation of the Establishment clause since it seeks to promulgate non-religion.

Yardbird said:

Ravi said: The NABT statement that evolution is "unplanned", "undirected" and "unpredictable" is not a scientific account. It is a non-religious statement that denies any divine superintedence as a matter of fact. It is essentially reflects the belief of atheists and deists. Therefore, it does amount to a violation of the Establishment clause since it seeks to promulgate non-religion.

Ravi's back, and he's raving.

Ravi said: The NABT statement that evolution is "unplanned", "undirected" and "unpredictable" is not a scientific account. It is a non-religious statement that denies any divine superintedence as a matter of fact. It is essentially reflects the belief of atheists and deists. Therefore, it does amount to a violation of the Establishment clause since it seeks to promulgate non-religion.

Ravi said: The NABT statement that evolution is "unplanned", "undirected" and "unpredictable" is not a scientific account. It is a non-religious statement that denies any divine superintedence as a matter of fact. It is essentially reflects the belief of atheists and deists. Therefore, it does amount to a violation of the Establishment clause since it seeks to promulgate non-religion.

Mike Elzinga said:

Yardbird said:

Ravi said: The NABT statement that evolution is "unplanned", "undirected" and "unpredictable" is not a scientific account. It is a non-religious statement that denies any divine superintedence as a matter of fact. It is essentially reflects the belief of atheists and deists. Therefore, it does amount to a violation of the Establishment clause since it seeks to promulgate non-religion.

Ravi's back, and he's raving.

Promulgating a non-religion is promulgating a religion? What does that even mean?

The NABT statement that evolution is "unplanned", "undirected" and "unpredictable" is a scientific account. It is a non-religious statement that does not require any divine superintedence as a matter of fact. It essentially reflects the actual facts regardless of beliefs. Therefore, it does not amount to a violation of the Establishment clause since it does not seek to promulgate religion.

Ravi said: The NABT statement that evolution is "unplanned", "undirected" and "unpredictable" is not a scientific account. It is a non-religious statement that denies any divine superintedence as a matter of fact. It is essentially reflects the belief of atheists and deists. Therefore, it does amount to a violation of the Establishment clause since it seeks to promulgate non-religion.

Ravi wants us to think of his God as the Great Mutator - changes in DNA can't be random with respect to fitness, but must be planned by an intelligence. Ravi should we start teaching that genetic diseases are your God's fault? Is that what you would rather students learned?

If people don't like the idea of things happening not determinatedly, do they also object to classical Mendelian genetics, with its use of probabilities? Or quantum indeterminacy? Or the "butterfly effect"? On the other hand, would they prefer a "watchmaker universe", where everything is determined from the beginning, with no need for divine providence?

DS said: The NABT statement that evolution is "unplanned", "undirected" and "unpredictable" is a scientific account. It is a non-religious statement that does not require any divine superintendence as a matter of fact. It essentially reflects the actual facts regardless of beliefs. Therefore, it does not amount to a violation of the Establishment clause since it does not seek to promulgate religion.

Michael Fugate said: Ravi wants us to think of his God as the Great Mutator - changes in DNA can't be random with respect to fitness, but must be planned by an intelligence. Ravi should we start teaching that genetic diseases are your God's fault? Is that what you would rather students learned?

Mike Elzinga said: Promulgating a non-religion is promulgating a religion? What does that even mean?

Ravi said: The word "evolution" originally referred to ontogeny which is, of course, completely directed.

Although it is true that some microevolution may be unplanned and undirected, the same cannot be said for macroevolutionary change.

The Cambrian explosion and many events in evolutionary history could well have been produced by the intervention of an intelligent agent. As such, the NABT statement is indicative of an atheistic/deistic outlook and not a scientific account.

In the 18th century, there was a controversy about the appearance of the individual living things. Many students of natural history believed in preformationism, which said that the individual pre-existed inside the bodies of its ancestors back to the time of creation. The preformationists brought forward many of the same arguments that today's creationists use. One interesting example is the "irreducible complexity" (although not by that name) argument (see the Wikipedia article on IC about its precursors).

Ravi said: The Cambrian explosion and many events in evolutionary history could well have been produced by the intervention of an intelligent agent.

Ravi, fail. Assertions are not evidence. Give us a method for detecting what your God did and what it did not do.

Ravi said: The human lineage is indicative of a complexifying progression of the sort that Lamarck and the proponents of orthogenesis (during the 50 year Eclipse of Darwinism) maintained.

Ravi said:

Mike Elzinga said: Promulgating a non-religion is promulgating a religion? What does that even mean?

No. Teaching evolution as entirely unguided, unsupervised and unplanned amounts to a profession of atheism/deism and so violates the Establishment clause. Let's face it, the likes of Coyne, Myers, Dennett and Dawkins see evolution as a means to propagate atheism. The NABT and NCSE are willing partners in this war on religion.

Ravi, if your version of biological science is truly superior (and blessed by God?) then why hasn't it taken over?

I don't mean by winning court cases, but just by overwhelming that atheistic and morally bankrupt "darwinism" with a flood of discoveries in medicine and biology by creationist and IDist researchers, using creation-informed insights that would never occur to "materialist" scientists.

If your crap worked, Ravi, those money-grubbing capitalist biotech corporations would be all over it, because it would MAKE MONEY. Why do you suppose they aren't?

And are you Joseph Bozorgmehr?

Whatever is your opinion of Coyne, Myers, Dennett and Dawkins, they clearly and obviously don't advance evolution as a means of promoting atheism. Rather, they think that both evolution-acceptance and atheism are compelled by the evidence together with principles of rationality. I happen to agree.

Don't bear false witness, Ravi. It's a sin. I checked! You're a paranoid, dangerous authoritarian who would lock me up if you could. You are the aggressor; the war is on you.

phhht said: By whom?

There is no distinction like the one you propose: "micro" vs "macro" evolution. That's nothing but pseudoscience.

But there is not the slightest bit of testable evidence that that is true. Just because something could well have been produced by the intervention of an intelligent agent is no reason to believe that is the case. That's nothing but superstitious nonsense.

Just Bob said: Ravi, if your version of biological science is truly superior (and blessed by God?) then why hasn't it taken over? I don't mean by winning court cases, but just by overwhelming that atheistic and morally bankrupt "darwinism" with a flood of discoveries in medicine and biology by creationist and IDist researchers, using creation-informed insights that would never occur to "materialist" scientists.

TomS said: In the 18th century, there was a controversy about the appearance of the individual living things. Many students of natural history believed in preformationism, which said that the individual pre-existed inside the bodies of its ancestors back to the time of creation. The preformationists brought forward many of the same arguments that today's creationists use. One interesting example is the "irreducible complexity" (although not by that name) argument (see the Wikipedia article on IC about its precursors).

RJ said: Whatever is your opinion of Coyne, Myers, Dennett and Dawkins, they clearly and obviously don't advance evolution as a means of promoting atheism. Rather, they think that both evolution-acceptance and atheism are compelled by the evidence together with principles of rationality. I happen to agree.

Ravi said:

RJ said: Whatever is your opinion of Coyne, Myers, Dennett and Dawkins, they clearly and obviously don't advance evolution as a means of promoting atheism. Rather, they think that both evolution-acceptance and atheism are compelled by the evidence together with principles of rationality. I happen to agree.

No. They want to use public schools to conduct a form of social engineering - not too dissimilar from that practised by the Nazis and communists - in trying to undermine religious faith through promulgating the atheist/deist worldview about the origin of biodiversity. That is what the Supreme Court must consider. The leadership of the NABT, NAS and NCSE (virtually all of whom are atheists) are trying to establish non-religion in public education.

Ravi said: No. They want to use public schools to conduct a form of social engineering - not too dissimilar from that practised by the Nazis and communists - in trying to undermine religious faith through promulgating the atheist/deist worldview about the origin of biodiversity. That is what the Supreme Court must consider. The leadership of the NABT, NAS and NCSE (virtually all of whom are atheists) are trying to establish non-religion in public education.

Ravi said:

Just Bob said: Ravi, if your version of biological science is truly superior (and blessed by God?) then why hasn't it taken over? I don't mean by winning court cases, but just by overwhelming that atheistic and morally bankrupt "darwinism" with a flood of discoveries in medicine and biology by creationist and IDist researchers, using creation-informed insights that would never occur to "materialist" scientists.

Because many scientists and educators are committed to Darwinism and prefer to ignore its flaws.

It is the only game in town for them. Without it, they would be forced to accept the existence of an intelligent agent.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: This is not a difficult legal issue. its common sense. Its right for the gov't not to interfere with religion or pick sides. thats the whole purpose of the establishment clause. church and state to be separate in their authority. However when the schools, you call them the state, determines to talk about subjects that religion also makes conclusions about then the STATE has interfered or rather is making a establishment about religion. The state is saying, in this case, religion is wrong about certain things. They are attacking religion. So religion demands defence and they invoke censorship by saying its the religion attacking the state.

Mr. Byers...you *really* don't understand the US Constitution, US law, or US court decisions and their effect. The extension of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment by the 14th Amendment to the several states applies to all subsidiary parts of states...state departments (of education in the cases under discussion), counties (and county boards of education), cities (and city school districts), all the way down to individual teachers, who are acting as agents of the state, because their jobs and authority derive from the state. The prohibition of "establishing a religion" applies not just to a specific religion (a teacher may not teach that Catholicism is right and Presbyterianism is wrong) but also in general (Christianity is right and Shintoism is wrong) and even to the point of saying that theism is right and atheism is wrong. It is unconstitutional for anyone in a school receiving public funds to favor any religion (or none at all) over any other religion (or none at all). Now when it comes to science classes, the field of discourse is, "this is what science has found". Religion doesn't enter into it. The teacher may NOT go on to say ",,,therefore, this or that religious belief is wrong (or right, for that matter)". If the *students* conclude that there is a conflict between the science and their beliefs, it is up to them to resolve that issue. If they need help, that help may NOT come from the state funded school personnel, but must come from their parents, religious leaders, friends, what have you. That is none of the state's business. If you want to make assertions about what US law holds in cases like this, you need to study US law and court decisions. Your understanding from your experience with Canadian law and any light weight gloss you've read, seen or heard about US law won't cut it. And particularly, you can't go by what your co-religionists say about US law, because they don't have any clues in this area, either.

A little progress maybe. your first paragraph is excellent. amen. A teacher/state is not to teach this or that religious doctrine is right or wrong. None of their damn business. Then you go off the rail. Your excuse the teaching of God/genesis being wrong by saying they are teaching science. The law is the law. You use the law to censor creationism etc. Then the law must censor you. Thats your law.!! no this is different jazz. Teach both or neither. Actually its a fable the constitution has anything to say about education censorship.

Sigh... Not only are you ignorant and wrong about US law, but you can't count, either. The statements you agree with are the *second* paragraph, not the first. (Unless you are explicitly agreeing that you are completely ignorant of US law, but the rest of your remarks don't support that reading of your post.) And, no, science teachers do not teach that Genesis is wrong. If they are doing their jobs properly, they say *nothing* about Genesis either way. All they do is to teach what science says. The teachers we are talking about are, after all, hired and paid to teach *science*. If science conflicts with religious belief, it is not the science teachers job to resolve that conflict. That is a matter for the students, their parents and their religious leaders. If *you* believe that science is wrong, that is your problem, not mine. There is no censorship going on. Saying *nothing* about a subject that is not relevant to the course material is not censorship. You are trying to assert that irrelevant material (religious beliefs) should be inserted into a science class. They don't fit, they don't belong, and the Constitution bars picking any religion over any other. Were your wishes honored, the teacher would have to address the beliefs of every religion in the world and science would be pushed out of the way...as, very likely, would *your* particular beliefs. Yours is a losing proposition...and you should be glad that it is.

Sorry, but that is all for the moment from Messrs. Ravi and phhht. They are invited to continue on the Bathroom Wall, but not here, and I will remove further comments as soon as I see them.

Robert Byers said: The present state censorship can and will be overthrown along with all misusses of the peoples constitution.

Robert Byers said: I said , MAYBE, we were making progress.

your saying a teacher/state doesn't teach creationism is wronmg when they censor crerationism in a subject about seeeking the historical truth of origins. Sure they are teaching its wrong for banning it as a option. Its crazy to ban a option and say your seeking truth. in fact science is to all the more establish the truth by superior methodology. Its all about accurate conclusions. censoring a option is the state saying its not true. So breaking the separation clause. i'm only showing how accurate legal reasoning makes the crazy invented prohibition show its innate error.

the founders never would of censored anything in education especially the famous, popular, impoprtant conclusions of God/Genesis.

This twisting is a fraud. I strive here to show that EVEN THIS twisting doesn't work. Creationism has a winning case based on the great principals of truth, freedom, liberity, and common sense of government.

THE state can't claim neutrality when picks sides. thats the equation to beat these dumb left wing decisions.

The present state censorship can and will be overthrown along with all misusses of the peoples constitution. it needs to move into more awareness and out of obscure small circles.

Matt Young said: Sorry, but that is all for the moment from Messrs. Ravi and phhht. They are invited to continue on the Bathroom Wall, but not here, and I will remove further comments as soon as I see them.

My apologies. I was composing my post(which, as you can see, ifs fairly extensive) while you were posting.

Ravi said:

Just Bob said: Ravi, if your version of biological science is truly superior (and blessed by God?) then why hasn't it taken over? I don't mean by winning court cases, but just by overwhelming that atheistic and morally bankrupt "darwinism" with a flood of discoveries in medicine and biology by creationist and IDist researchers, using creation-informed insights that would never occur to "materialist" scientists.

Because many scientists and educators are committed to Darwinism and prefer to ignore its flaws. It is the only game in town for them. Without it, they would be forced to accept the existence of an intelligent agent.

For those who read the thoughtful, informative and even eloquent comments to Robert Byers, and who are mystified by his repetitive replies that seem to ignore >95% of the comment's content, you must remember this:

Robert does not read a comment; he only scans it looking for "triggers", i.e., words or phrases that trigger a pre-scripted response that is usually lengthy, often tangential and/or only marginally relevant.

Robert has no room for anything new in his vast store of knowledge because he already knows everything he needs to know; nor is there any nuance because everything is either black or white in his very special separate reality (apologies to Carlos Castaneda).

Thus he does not — he cannot — deviate from his script.

Thus he does not — he cannot — deviate from his script.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: The present state censorship can and will be overthrown along with all misusses of the peoples constitution.

Without five SCOTUS votes the current rulings won't be overthrown, because SCOTUS is the only governmental body with the authority to do the overthrowing. Without four SCOTUS votes, an appeal to teach creationism won't even be heard by the court. So once again, which five Supreme Court Justices do you think will vote your way? And as I count it, you maybe have two. Which means no overthrow will come for years. And if Clinton wins, you're probably looking at at least several decades.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: I said , MAYBE, we were making progress.

I suppose that depends on whose standard is used to measure "progress". So far as I can tell...You aren't making any, since you keep repeating the same mistakes year in and year out and fail to learn anything. You are a living embodiment of the movie Groundhog Day.

your saying a teacher/state doesn't teach creationism is wronmg when they censor crerationism in a subject about seeeking the historical truth of origins. Sure they are teaching its wrong for banning it as a option. Its crazy to ban a option and say your seeking truth. in fact science is to all the more establish the truth by superior methodology. Its all about accurate conclusions. censoring a option is the state saying its not true. So breaking the separation clause. i'm only showing how accurate legal reasoning makes the crazy invented prohibition show its innate error.

If you have a testable hypothesis to put forth for a creationist origin of species, let's see it. Let us also see what actual *evidence* you have to support your hypothesis. Let us also see what evidence you think, if found, with disprove your hypothesis. Until you can do that you have nothing. When religious claims are put forward that are testable--e.g. prayer helps people heal--scientists device tests to see if there is any validity to the claims. That particular one has been determined to be without merit. So...make a claim that can be tested, and either a study will be found that has already done so, or someone will decide to test it. But the claim has to be *testable* and *falsifiable* (which is to say that it can be found not to be supported by actual evidence). Also note that, in this very thread, it has been pointed out more that once that science doesn't deal in truth. Science deals in tentative conclusions based on evidence. In addition, scientists continue to test their hypotheses when new evidence, or new test methods arise. Claims to have truth--and in particular, absolute truth--falls in the realm of religion.

the founders never would of censored anything in education especially the famous, popular, impoprtant conclusions of God/Genesis.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. The founder of the US were men of the Enlightenment.

This twisting is a fraud. I strive here to show that EVEN THIS twisting doesn't work. Creationism has a winning case based on the great principals of truth, freedom, liberity, and common sense of government.

Every time creationism in schools, in whatever form, gets into court, it loses. Every. Single. Time.

THE state can't claim neutrality when picks sides. thats the equation to beat these dumb left wing decisions.

Left wing, eh? You mean like Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case? A registered Republican appointed to the bench by Pres. George W. Bush after a recommendation by Sen. Rick Santorum? Or are you now asserting that any judge who actually follows the law (I.e. does his job honestly) is some how "left wing"? Your statement amounts to "Waaa! I don't *like* that decision!"

The present state censorship can and will be overthrown along with all misusses of the peoples constitution. it needs to move into more awareness and out of obscure small circles.

Again, there is no censorship here. In science classes, science is taught. The teachers stay religiously neutral, and that's a good thing. As for public awareness...every time a major case comes along, it is widely and energetically reported. These cases get national news coverage, and even international at times. Really, Mr. Byers, you are picking a fight where you are both ill-equipped to be effective and you don't know what the rules are. What you *should* be doing is working to try to get what you want taught in the *Canadian* schools, rather than whining that the US system is somehow wrong when you clearly have no idea how US law works.

Nonsense You haven't got anything like a case. All you have is the holy babble. Science is the only way to knowledge and understanding of the aspects of the world under dicussion here.

Are you familiar with the word and concept of evidence? Or do you rate 2000 years old scriptures as reliable sources on a par with 20th/21st century science?

Let's start from the bottom: What, from where you pull your arguments, is the age of the Earth? Are you familiar with any evidence contrary to your favoured estimate of the age of the Earh?

Robert Byers said: Science class is about truth.

Robert Byers said: How to overcome supreme court decisions was shown by Lincoln's remedy in the Dred scott case. The priority is to make a great, yet simple, powerful case that persuades the thinking public and then the general public to enough of a percentage. Then its effect is felt in the judiciary. then they can change, or be seen as worthless, and new Judgfes more easily selected that naturally would see it the right way. I hate judges being picked for conclusions already settled. Thats the problem these days. Its breaking social contract with the people. Its not about the mere people on the courts right now. their only decision should be its not their decision. Its the people who decide .

Robert Byers said: How to overcome supreme court decisions was shown by Lincoln's remedy in the Dred scott case.

The priority is to make a great, yet simple, powerful case that persuades the thinking public and then the general public to enough of a percentage. Then its effect is felt in the judiciary. then they can change, or be seen as worthless, and new Judgfes more easily selected that naturally would see it the right way.

I hate judges being picked for conclusions already settled. Thats the problem these days. Its breaking social contract with the people. Its not about the mere people on the courts right now. their only decision should be its not their decision. Its the people who decide .

Robert Byers said: Well it was a worthy run around the barn again. Sharpens us all up. Science class is about truth. It is about accurate conclusions using a methodology to ensure its accuracy. Its as accuartete, truth, as history, math, and the others. So the censorship of a conclusion is the state saying this is not a option for accurate conclusions on origins. Saying that , just because its "religious", means they are saying same "religious' conclusions are wrong. So picking sides in religious truth and breaking the, invented, law they invoke for the censorship. Creationists got a great case. Just get their act together,

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said: Well it was a worthy run around the barn again. Sharpens us all up. Science class is about truth. It is about accurate conclusions using a methodology to ensure its accuracy. Its as accuartete, truth, as history, math, and the others. So the censorship of a conclusion is the state saying this is not a option for accurate conclusions on origins. Saying that , just because its "religious", means they are saying same "religious' conclusions are wrong. So picking sides in religious truth and breaking the, invented, law they invoke for the censorship. Creationists got a great case. Just get their act together,

Accord to Byers; Science is about finding the truth. Science is accurate. The truth found accurately by science is that his beliefs are wrong.

Robert Byers said: I hate judges being picked for conclusions already settled.

their only decision should be its not their decision. Its the people who decide.

Robert Byers said: [Science] is about accurate conclusions using a methodology to ensure its accuracy.

Creationists got a great case. Just get their act together,