Iowa School Board Ousts Intelligent Design

Bravo!

What Gary said.

Bravo, though I do wish he wouldn't keep using the phrase "religious liberty" without scare quotes. The pushers of these things like to frame them as "religious liberty" (or "free speech" or some other noble-sounding title) when it's really about demanding preferential treatment for their views. We should call bullshit on that, every single time.

OTOH, it's nice to see them admitting that ID is all about religion.

Eamon Knight said: OTOH, it's nice to see them admitting that ID is all about religion.

Texas and Louisiana have shown the correct pathways of upgrading and reforming science education.

Those pathways are the specific pathways that non-Darwinists will have to take if they want to be able to make changes in the spoon-fed-evolution status quo. Otherwise they risk failure at this time.

FL keeps demonstrating that it is all about taunting and that taunting is the Christian thing to do.

And word-gaming.

FL lying again: Texas and Louisiana have shown the correct pathways of upgrading and reforming science education. Those pathways are the specific pathways that non-Darwinists will have to take if they want to be able to make changes in the spoon-fed-evolution status quo. Otherwise they risk failure at this time.

Mike Elzinga said: FL keeps demonstrating that it is all about taunting and that taunting is the Christian thing to do. And word-gaming.

Hmm. In the comments section of the Daily Reporter story, there's a commenter named "Culture Warrior". Chance, or design?

Oh, and don't waste keystrokes on FL. Loser.

FL said: Texas and Louisiana have shown the correct pathways of upgrading and reforming science education.

Oh, and WOO-HOO SPENCER, IOWA and WHOO-HOO DR. AVALOS!

Wheels said:

FL said: Texas and Louisiana have shown the correct pathways of upgrading and reforming science education.

How would you even know that?

Stanton said:

FL lying again: Texas and Louisiana have shown the correct pathways of upgrading and reforming science education. Those pathways are the specific pathways that non-Darwinists will have to take if they want to be able to make changes in the spoon-fed-evolution status quo. Otherwise they risk failure at this time.

And you still haven't bothered to explain why Texas and Louisiana also have among the most abominable education systems in the entire country. I would think that, if the students within Texas and Louisiana's science education programs routinely score F's and the occasional D on exams, I would think that you're actually lying about them being on "the right path."

... or not.

FL said: Texas and Louisiana have shown the correct pathways of upgrading and reforming science education. Those pathways are the specific pathways that non-Darwinists will have to take if they want to be able to make changes in the spoon-fed-evolution status quo. Otherwise they risk failure at this time.

Poor William Provine. He'd be saddened by this news.

phantomreader42 said:

Stanton said:

FL lying again: Texas and Louisiana have shown the correct pathways of upgrading and reforming science education. Those pathways are the specific pathways that non-Darwinists will have to take if they want to be able to make changes in the spoon-fed-evolution status quo. Otherwise they risk failure at this time.

And you still haven't bothered to explain why Texas and Louisiana also have among the most abominable education systems in the entire country. I would think that, if the students within Texas and Louisiana's science education programs routinely score F's and the occasional D on exams, I would think that you're actually lying about them being on "the right path."

To FL, bad education isn't a bug, it's a feature. He WANTS each generation to be stupider than the last. Promoting ignorance is the only way his sick death cult can survive.

That's good news, so desperately needed. btw, according to an article in the Guardian, England will be teaching evolution in the primary schools.

Phantomreader42 wrote: "He WANTS each generation to be stupider than the last."

Get a grip and step away from your hyperbole.

Louisiana passed a law stating other materials could be used. That’s it. It says nothing about ID or creationism. And so far, no one we know of has used it to teach ID or creationist “weaknesses of evolution.” Texas made some changes to grade-level standards. Again its not clear how this will be implemented in the classroom and again this does not make formerly unconstitutional implementations constitutonal.

Hector, keeping the working classes ignorant and uneducated has been an often-used strategy throughout history. There is good reason to think it forms a big part of the motivation behind the American creationist movement.

hector said: Phantomreader42 wrote: "He WANTS each generation to be stupider than the last." Get a grip and step away from your hyperbole.

One item important to note here is that it is the local newspaper which originally exposed this attempt to the general public. With many newspapers now struggling, we need to be aware of the necessity of maintaining an informed populace. It may be the internet that gets the information in the newspapers to a larger audience, but what if there are no local newspapers to start this chain of reporting?

Stanton, if the guy is a dyed in the wool creationist, and naturally considers himself smarter than evolutionists, and wants students to think like him, then he wants the next generation to be SMARTER than the previous one. His being wrong is irrelevant! Kapish?

I was listing to an old ApostAZ podcast this afternoon as they were having a discussion with their theist friends about religion. The hosts stated a belief that better education would be the answer, to which the theist replied that better education would make things worse, because education and technology brought us the 'bomb'....
Yes, and it brought the cell phone, the satellites, your favorite beer, better health care, advances in television, advances in transportation, and on and on and on.....

Yes. I wrote a letter to the local paper supporting evolution (after two or three creationists got space) and in response got menaced over the phone by a hard-breathing moron who informed me that science was responsible for the Holocaust and the bomb and all other ills of the modern age, and I'd better turn to God quick smart.

Pointing out facts to rolling-eyed crazies is never any use. Facts are external; their reality is entirely within themselves. (If I were not in awe of Chip, I'd put that thought on the po-mo thread.)

hector said: Stanton, if the guy is a dyed in the wool creationist, and naturally considers himself smarter than evolutionists,

Stanton, the man believes he is more CORRECT than the scientists, and thus, in a sense, smarter. According to your logic, there is no such thing as a creationist leader who really believes that creationism (or i.d.) is true; they all know that its lies. C'mon. This accusation of yours and phantomreader's about this misguided man's desires is ridiculous and has no place.

According to your logic, there is no such thing as a creationist leader who really believes that creationism (or i.d.) is true; they all know that its lies.

— hector

hector said: Stanton, the man believes he is more CORRECT than the scientists, and thus, in a sense, smarter. According to your logic, there is no such thing as a creationist leader who really believes that creationism (or i.d.) is true; they all know that its lies. C'mon. This accusation of yours and phantomreader's about this misguided man's desires is ridiculous and has no place.

Just a point of clarification: The posts by "hector" are not written by "Hector Avalos."

According to your logic, there is no such thing as a creationist leader who really believes that creationism (or i.d.)

Flint said: So I think what these laws mean in practice is, if some (most?) public school teachers continue to follow exactly the same practices they always have, the amount of heat some do-gooder can get the state to apply against them will be less, or much more difficult to apply.

hector said: Stanton, the man believes he is more CORRECT than the scientists, and thus, in a sense, smarter. According to your logic, there is no such thing as a creationist leader who really believes that creationism (or i.d.) is true; they all know that its lies. C'mon. This accusation of yours and phantomreader's about this misguided man's desires is ridiculous and has no place.

I can’t read minds, and we really need to respond to expressed creationist behavior, regardless of their motivations.

— harold

Gwen said: I was listing to an old ApostAZ podcast this afternoon as they were having a discussion with their theist friends about religion. The hosts stated a belief that better education would be the answer, to which the theist replied that better education would make things worse, because education and technology brought us the 'bomb'.... Yes, and it brought the cell phone, the satellites, your favorite beer, better health care, advances in television, advances in transportation, and on and on and on.....

Robin said:

hector said: Stanton, the man believes he is more CORRECT than the scientists, and thus, in a sense, smarter. According to your logic, there is no such thing as a creationist leader who really believes that creationism (or i.d.) is true; they all know that its lies. C'mon. This accusation of yours and phantomreader's about this misguided man's desires is ridiculous and has no place.

Hector, I think you are missing a key point. While you might be correct that FL thinks he is smarter than scientists, he also thinks that his smarts are not the result of education. So regardless of his perspective on his own intelligence, Stanton and Phantom are quite right - creationists in general, and FL in specific, want the populace "stupider" from an education perspective. You can quibble about the semantics of FL's perception of his own smarts and what he considers smart, but the fact is he does make statements that indicate a desire to dumb down education.

Dave Luckett said: Yes. I wrote a letter to the local paper supporting evolution (after two or three creationists got space) and in response got menaced over the phone by a hard-breathing moron who informed me that science was responsible for the Holocaust and the bomb and all other ills of the modern age, and I'd better turn to God quick smart. Pointing out facts to rolling-eyed crazies is never any use. Facts are external; their reality is entirely within themselves. (If I were not in awe of Chip, I'd put that thought on the po-mo thread.)

I have addressed the very issue of the Darwin to Hitler connection in my essay, "Creationists for Genocide" at Talk Reason:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Genocide.cfm

I have addressed the very issue of the Darwin to Hitler connection in my essay, “Creationists for Genocide” at Talk Reason: (link)

I have also responded to Weikart concerning this debate at

"Avalos contra Weikart, Part I," http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/05/avalos-contra-weikart-part-i-general.html

AND
"Avalos contra Weikart, Part II,"
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/06/avalos-contra-weikart-part-ii-weikarts.html

The entire debate seems rather pointless. It's kind of like arguing which was a more important factor in an automobile accident, drinking or the fact that the car was a race car. And no, I'm not trying to bring race into this.

The pont is that the race car by itself is a fine thing. It can be misused by someone and turned into an instrument of destruction, but that isn't the fault of the car and the accident should not be blamed on the car. Likewise drinking in moderation is just fine but it can be easily abused. The one thing we can say is that you should never drive drunk, in any type of car.

Likewise, evolution is true regardless of whatever anyone does in the name of evolution. You can't blame evolution for that. Religion can also be useful for dulling pain but it can easily be abused. The one thing you should never do is to use religion inappropriately to bastardize a scientific theory. If you do, then arguing about which was more important, the science or the religion, is pointless. The lesson is don't do this. It's worse than driving drunk.

Robin wrote: "Stanton and Phantom are quite right - creationists in general, and FL in specific, want the populace “stupider” from an education perspective."

Oh, from an /education/ perspective!, not necessarily from a /brain/ (or something like that) perspective. Well, if Phantomreader will agree to this formulation, then so will I.

For what it's worth, I rarely trust any side of this Darwin/Nazi debate accurately portraying the other side's position. All I have to say today is that one can not dismiss this video as irrelevant to the debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiO_c5-6_Hw

I'm not saying the title of the video means anything.

Here's hoping Wikert (or FL) will address the main scientific point. As Hector put it in his part 1 response:

"One of the main goals of Intelligent Design creationists is to undermine the theory of evolution by arguing that it can have catastrophic human consequences. This, of course, involves a fallacious logical argument from consequences. Whether a theory has good or bad consequences is irrelevant to whether that theory is true."

FL, care to address this point?

Creationism has to be fought on all levels. We must challenge its scientific assumptions, as well as its ethical and historical claims.

In fact, it is the ethical and historical claims that I often hear first when someone is objecting to evolution. Thus, it is imperative that the canards about Darwin leading to the Holocaust be challenged just as much as creationist canards about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

In fact, I would argue that the Dover trial was successful, at least in part, because the historical claims to the usage of the phrase "intelligent Design" were refuted quite decisively.

eric said: Here's hoping Wikert (or FL) will address the main scientific point. As Hector put it in his part 1 response: "One of the main goals of Intelligent Design creationists is to undermine the theory of evolution by arguing that it can have catastrophic human consequences. This, of course, involves a fallacious logical argument from consequences. Whether a theory has good or bad consequences is irrelevant to whether that theory is true." FL, care to address this point?

hector said: Robin wrote: "Stanton and Phantom are quite right - creationists in general, and FL in specific, want the populace “stupider” from an education perspective." Oh, from an /education/ perspective!, not necessarily from a /brain/ (or something like that) perspective. Well, if Phantomreader will agree to this formulation, then so will I.

FL, care to address this point?

By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? --- Matt. 7:16

Hello, Mr. FL,
Given that you believe that all humans are created equal, could you answer a simple question: Do you believe killing children is ALWAYS wrong? YES or NO?

FL said: When I am discussing the Evolution-Eugenics-Hitler Connection at "the other discussion forum", my consistent answer to that point is that the scientific validity of any given evolutionary claim may or may not be affected by the existence of the EEHC.

FL said: If said Christians eventually decide, as a result of EEHC and/or in combination with other reasons, that evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity, then they should actively join the search for and development of ALTERNATIVE scientific explanations for biological origins.

Why are you guys responding to FL again? Wasn't 100 pages enough?

FL said:

FL, care to address this point?

Sure; I've been asked about that point elsewhere. When I am discussing the Evolution-Eugenics-Hitler Connection at "the other discussion forum", my consistent answer to that point is that the scientific validity of any given evolutionary claim may or may not be affected by the existence of the EEHC. Me, I don't automatically assume that a given evo-claim's scientific validity will be affected by the EEHC, and I don't automatically assume that it won't be affected either. If one argues that a specific evolution-claim is scientifically invalidated by the EEH connection, then one has to show HOW that particular argument is true. But as for me, I have not claimed that any given specific evo-claim has been scientifically invalidated by the EEHC. Instead, I have consistently pointed out that the EEHC exists, period, using statements from Weikart, Wiker, etc, and books like Descent of Man and Mein Kampf. What I then point out is that the Evolution-Eugenics-Hitler connection goes to the key question of whether or not evolution is compatible with Christianity. It's in regard to THAT specific issue, that I respond to EEHC threads or occasionally initiate EEHC threads. That particular compatibility issue is the intended focus, for me.

By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? --- Matt. 7:16

IOW, Christians need to examine the issue of the Evolution-Eugenics-Hitler-Connection for themselves as part of rationally evaluating whether or not evolution is compabitible with Christianity. THAT is the specific application I ask Christians to consider wrt the EEH-Connection. If said Christians eventually decide, as a result of EEHC and/or in combination with other reasons, that evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity, then they should actively join the search for and development of ALTERNATIVE scientific explanations for biological origins. Pursue alternatives. Check out the many helpful resources from alternative-explanation groups and individuals. Abandon the harsh evolution-thornbush with its racial "Descent Of Man" mentality, and hop on over to a design-friendly, Christian-compatible grapevine where all humans are created equal. ****** So Eric, that's how I address that particular point. FL :)

WOW!! It amazes me the number of words FL chooses to use to say, “Nope”.

If said Christians eventually decide, as a result of EEHC and/or in combination with other reasons, that evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity, then they should actively join the search for and development of ALTERNATIVE scientific explanations for biological origins.

Robin said: WOW!! It amazes me the number of words FL chooses to use to say, "Nope". It's funny too given that the question posed to FL was so straight forward. LOL!

FL wrote:

"...my consistent answer to that point is that the scientific validity of any given evolutionary claim may or may not be affected by the existence of the EEHC."

Well then you are consistently wrong. Please explain exactly how any evolutionary theory coud possibly be undermined by the thoughts or actions of Hitler. HItler was not a scientist. Hitler did not test the theory of evolution. HItler could do ayything he wanted and it would have no affect on the validity of evolutionary theory.

For example, assuming that Hitler was inspired by evolutionary theory, exactly what would that have to do with the validity of the theory? Could he be inspired if the theory were correct? Could he be inspired if the theory were wrong? Could he have been inspired by other factors? Could he have lied, even if he has claimed that he was inspired by evolutionary theory?

Assuming that Hitler did base his actions and policies on sound evolutionary principles, exactly would you be able to conclude? If he successfully achieved his stated goals, would that prove that evolutionary theory was correct? If he failed to achieve his stated goals, would that mean that evolutionary theory was wrong?

Exactly what does one thing have to do with the other? If a drunk driver killed someone, would you be justified in blaming rhe car? And how can you claim that Hitler was inspired by evolutionary thoery when he was obviously inspired by his religious beliefs? Did he prove that the two are indeed compatible? If not, was he really inspired by only one? Which one? How do you know? Are you a mind reader?

I will not ask these questions again. Either you answer them now or everyone will see that you cannot.

FL,

Here are a few more questions for you.

If someone uses religion to justify crusades, holy wars, genocide, witch hunts and jihads, does that invalidate the religion in question? I mean, what if these people specifically claim that they committed these acts directly because they were ordered to do so by the instructions in their holy book, or perhaps god spoke to them directly? If they flew planes into buildings and blew them selves up in suicide bombings, would that invalidate their religion?

If someone killed someone due to drunk driving, would you blame the alcohol? If christianity and evolution really are incompatible, could any real christian possibly use evolutionary theory to accomplish religious goals?

This is like watching people drowning in a petri dish.

Henry J said:

WOW!! It amazes me the number of words FL chooses to use to say, “Nope”.

Did you read that 100 page thing on the AtBC forum?

FL said:

FL, care to address this point?

Sure; I've been asked about that point elsewhere. When I am discussing the Evolution-Eugenics-Hitler Connection at "the other discussion forum", my consistent answer to that point is that the scientific validity of any given evolutionary claim may or may not be affected by the existence of the EEHC.

of course any discussion of a scientific/evoulution claim vs. the EEHC is irrelevant because the EEHC does not exist. Me, I don't automatically assume that a given evo-claim's scientific validity will be affected by the EEHC, and I don't automatically assume that it won't be affected either.

that is because you asume that the EEHC is true/exists -

If one argues that a specific evolution-claim is scientifically invalidated by the EEH connection, then one has to show HOW that particular argument is true. But as for me, I have not claimed that any given specific evo-claim has been scientifically invalidated by the EEHC. Instead, I have consistently pointed out that the EEHC exists, period, using statements from Weikart, Wiker, etc, and books like Descent of Man and Mein Kampf.

and you have been shown on repeated occasions to be wrong - the EEHC, as you define it (as some kind of causal relationship) - does not exist

What I then point out is that the Evolution-Eugenics-Hitler connection goes to the key question of whether or not evolution is compatible with Christianity.

a false conclusion based on faulty asumptions

It's in regard to THAT specific issue, that I respond to EEHC threads or occasionally initiate EEHC threads. That particular compatibility issue is the intended focus, for me. ... IOW, Christians need to examine the issue of the Evolution-Eugenics-Hitler-Connection for themselves as part of rationally evaluating whether or not evolution is compabitible with Christianity. THAT is the specific application I ask Christians to consider wrt the EEH-Connection.

and I say - since the EEHC does not exist - how can it be incompatible with Christianity? and even beside that point - why are you only evaluation one side of that - maybe the incompatability you percieve is because of you view of Christianity?

If said Christians eventually decide, as a result of EEHC and/or in combination with other reasons, that evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity, then they should actively join the search for and development of ALTERNATIVE scientific explanations for biological origins.

or persue rational investigation of the supposed EEHC, or contemplate what thier views of Christianity are

Pursue alternatives. Check out the many helpful resources from alternative-explanation groups and individuals. Abandon the harsh evolution-thornbush with its racial "Descent Of Man" mentality, and hop on over to a design-friendly, Christian-compatible grapevine where all humans are created equal. ****** So Eric, that's how I address that particular point. FL :)

and your definition of Christianty doesn't agree with mine (or most of the rest of the world's)

FL said:the scientific validity of any given evolutionary claim may or may not be affected by the existence of the EEHC.

John_S said:

FL said:the scientific validity of any given evolutionary claim may or may not be affected by the existence of the EEHC.

Excuse a newbie's question, but I'm missing something.

John_S said: How can the validity of a description be affected by its subsequent use as a rationalization for an action by Hitler or anyone else?

FL said: Pursue alternatives. Check out the many helpful resources from alternative-explanation groups and individuals. Abandon the harsh evolution-thornbush with its racial "Descent Of Man" mentality, and hop on over to a design-friendly, Christian-compatible grapevine where all humans are created equal.

Dan said:

FL said: Pursue alternatives. Check out the many helpful resources from alternative-explanation groups and individuals. Abandon the harsh evolution-thornbush with its racial "Descent Of Man" mentality, and hop on over to a design-friendly, Christian-compatible grapevine where all humans are created equal.

Ahh, yes. FL encourages us to "pursue alternatives" but then makes it clear that he doesn't want us to pursue alternatives -- he instead wants us to make the selection that FL has made. Am I the only person who remembers the word "doublespeak"?

Why are you guys responding to FL again? Wasn’t 100 pages enough?[

FL said:

Why are you guys responding to FL again? Wasn’t 100 pages enough?[

Now THAT post makes me smile!! Good to hear from you again, Nmgirl! These evolutionist guys just keep on a-going, don't they? FL

FL said:

Why are you guys responding to FL again? Wasn’t 100 pages enough?[

Now THAT post makes me smile!! Good to hear from you again, Nmgirl! These evolutionist guys just keep on a-going, don't they? FL

FL,

Well, since you could not answer even one of my questions, I will answer them for you.

No Hitler did not use evolutionary theory and even if he did there is no possible way that that could having any bearing on the validity of the theory. Hitler was unsuccessful in his misguided attempt to exterminate the Jews, but not because the theory he used was in error.

If you claim that Hitler did use evolutionary theory, then you have disproven your own thesis that christianity and evolution are incompatible.

Now, do you have any comments about the Iowa school board, or are you begging to be banished to the bathroom wall again?

John_S said:

FL said:the scientific validity of any given evolutionary claim may or may not be affected by the existence of the EEHC.

Excuse a newbie's question, but I'm missing something. How can the validity of a description be affected by its subsequent use as a rationalization for an action by Hitler or anyone else? - especially since the first E in EEHC could just as well be replaced by animal breeding - a practice that predates the ToE by centuries if not millennia. The whole argument sounds like a Godwin.

John_S: Excuse a newbie’s question, but I’m missing something. How can the validity of a description be affected by its subsequent use as a rationalization for an action by Hitler or anyone else? - especially since the first E in EEHC could just as well be replaced by animal breeding - a practice that predates the ToE by centuries if not millennia. The whole argument sounds like a Godwin.

Henry J said: You're not missing anything. You're just applying simple logic. But simple logic is something that FL has to ignore because at some level he knows his arguments don't work when logic is used. Henry

I knew he didn't apply it when deciding what to say next.

Re "he holds a crucifix to it"
As the old saying goes, we all have crosses to bear; I guess that's his.

Hello, Mr. FL, Given that you believe that all humans are created equal, could you answer a simple question: Do you believe killing children is ALWAYS wrong? YES or NO?

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." (Gen. 9:6, NIV)

I can't tell whether FL WAS considering the story of the children of Amalek, or WASN'T.

Now, do you have any comments about the Iowa school board, or are you begging to be banished to the bathroom wall again?

The problem is that this will lead into the usual maze of word-games. FL will argue that on the numerous occasions when the Bible approves, or reports with relish, the wholesale killing of men, women or children, this didn't amount to murder by whatever definition he wishes to adopt. It was war, or just punishment, or whatever. The exercise is pointless.

Similarly, it is useless to point out the inconsistency of the Bible's reports of God's various words. The Canaanites were as much made in God's image as the Hebrews, but that didn't restrain God from ordering their genocide. FL will find some tortured formula to explain that, too.

It's word games. The entire earlier schtick about the definitions of science was a word game. FL was hoping that somebody would agree to his definition, so that he could argue that supernatural explanations are admissable as science on that definition. The question of what material physical evidence exists has not occurred to him, or he dismisses it as irrelevant.

Words are all FL is interested in. Words like "consistency" and "inerrant" and "image" and "truth". Facts are not words, and FL simply cannot comprehend that.

FL said:

Now, do you have any comments about the Iowa school board, or are you begging to be banished to the bathroom wall again?

Actually, I already addressed that situation. I pointed to the recent Texas and Louisiana changes as the correct approaches for non-Darwinists to take, regarding the upgrading and reform of science education. "Otherwise, they risk failure at this time", I said. You remember me saying all that?

I can’t tell whether FL WAS considering the story of the children of Amalek, or WASN’T.

Dave Luckett said: Words are all FL is interested in. Words like "consistency" and "inerrant" and "image" and "truth". Facts are not words, and FL simply cannot comprehend that.

FL said:

I can’t tell whether FL WAS considering the story of the children of Amalek, or WASN’T.

I wasn't asked about the children of Amalek. My suspicion is that Dr. Avalos was (or is) gonna make that (or a similar incident) his next question. However, for now, I was just focussing on the specific question that he asked me. Just discussed that one question. Btw, the Bible doesn't say anything about the Amalekites (or the Canaanites, (or anybody else on whom God's judgment fell) being inferior to the rest of humanity. At all times, the Bible only has one position wrt humanity and equality: all humans are created equal.

FL,

So, if you make one comment on the thread topic and that justifies you making one hundred off-topic comments? Good to know.

You ought to read your bible more closely. God actually commanded children to be killed just in order to prove loyalty. So should god be killed for this? Was she on the Iowa school board? Was she inspired by Darwin?

The silly bastard also won't explain why God is not part of the required explanation for the existence of water flowing downhill when God is part of the required explanation for WATER ITSELF.

Try that one on. Nahhhh, never mind. Don't. It's like trying on a used diaper.

the one good thing about the ATBC thread, other than providing us many instances to point and laugh at the stupidity of Floyd Lee (that gets old, and it's not like it was new hat) was that it extracted him from this board.

Say no more about him.

oh and to remain on topic, it's long been noted that fighting creationism is like playing whack-a-mole. i am wondering how long this social tension will continue to manifest... it's not like science denial is unique to creationists although evolution deniers tend to be other types of science deniers as well. but you'd think eventually that these impotent memes would limply peter out. that's all floyd has, a flaccid claim.

Dave Luckett said: The problem is that this will lead into the usual maze of word-games. FL will argue that on the numerous occasions when the Bible approves, or reports with relish, the wholesale killing of men, women or children, this didn't amount to murder by whatever definition he wishes to adopt. It was war, or just punishment, or whatever. The exercise is pointless.

religioustolerance.org: "The proportion of the [American] population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001." ARIS Study. 4

FL may not be in a rush to tell you, but in the "debate" at AtBC he conceded that Catholicism (whose doctrine, as we know, accepts modern evolutionary theory) is "Christian", even within FL's idiosyncratic understanding of Christianity. (He spent about 75 pages thrashing about trying to show that "Christianity and Evilution are "incompatible" notwithstanding the concession. What the heck, electrons are cheap.)

The point to note is that FL does not even notice that he conceded the point. Even Dave Hawkins has a [slightly] stronger grasp of the logic of argument.

He does not "debate" as he is incapable of honest, rational discourse. Ignore him and, when the need to explain arises, point onlookers to his Greatest Hits.

Do you believe killing children is ALWAYS wrong?

Murdering anybody, be they child or adult, is ALWAYS wrong

As a Canadian biblical creationist the good stuff here is that you all confirm it is up to the people to decide what their kids are taught.
The law should be insisting on freedom of opinions on origins and certainly not allowing attacks against God/genesis unless there is ample rebuttal. yet it comes down that the whole matter of origins is a subject that all Americans have a stake in in their institutions. its that important.
I'm confident the majority of Americans support equal time in the science class on origins. These board votes don't bring out most of the public and skew toward the passions of the few.
it means nothing except in saying this is a big and bigger issue everyday.
Truth and freedom will prevail in America.
The times they are achanging. (no evolution implied).

Robert wishes for his own facts.

Good luck with that Robert. Come and tell us when you find some.

Mr. FL,
You did not answer my question. My question did not ask if MURDER was always wrong. My question was: Do you believe KILLING children is ALWAYS wrong? YES or NO?

You can give me any reason after your YES or NO, but please answer the question I asked, and not make up your own question to answer.

Robert Byers said: As a Canadian biblical creationist the good stuff here is that you all confirm it is up to the people to decide what their kids are taught.

The law should be insisting on freedom of opinions on origins and certainly not allowing attacks against God/genesis unless there is ample rebuttal. yet it comes down that the whole matter of origins is a subject that all Americans have a stake in in their institutions. its that important.

I'm confident the majority of Americans support equal time in the science class on origins. These board votes don't bring out most of the public and skew toward the passions of the few. it means nothing except in saying this is a big and bigger issue everyday.

Truth and freedom will prevail in America.

The times they are achanging. (no evolution implied)

Robert Byers said: I'm confident the majority of Americans support equal time in the science class on origins.

Robert Byers said: As a Canadian biblical creationist the good stuff here is that you all confirm it is up to the people to decide what their kids are taught.

Cool post.. It is important

Henry J said:

WOW!! It amazes me the number of words FL chooses to use to say, “Nope”.

Did you read that 100 page thing on the AtBC forum?

eric said:

Robin said: WOW!! It amazes me the number of words FL chooses to use to say, "Nope". It's funny too given that the question posed to FL was so straight forward. LOL!

Well, he has to get his advertisement for religious incompatibility in. Its why he comes here. I'm okay with that - the beauty of the internet is that written proselytization is far easier to scan & ignore than the TV or door-to-door variety. Who knew SAT reading comprehension exercises would actually turn out to be useful for picking out the non-answer to one's question in a large load of evangelism. But I digress. He didn't say "nope." He said "maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't."

Hector Avalos said: Mr. FL, You did not answer my question. My question did not ask if MURDER was always wrong. My question was: Do you believe KILLING children is ALWAYS wrong? YES or NO? You can give me any reason after your YES or NO, but please answer the question I asked, and not make up your own question to answer.

Hence the Bible clearly affirms that the murder of adults OR children, is ALWAYS wrong. And as for me, I agree with the Bible's position. Murdering anybody, be they child or adult, is ALWAYS wrong. FL

Robin said: you asked if he cared to address the point and...well...um...he didn't. That to me amounts to a nope.

Robert Bryers: The law should be insisting on freedom of opinions on origins and certainly not allowing attacks against God/genesis unless there is ample rebuttal.

Robert Bryer being wrong again: Truth and freedom will prevail in America. The times they are achanging. (no evolution implied).

Mr. FL, You did not answer my question. My question did not ask if MURDER was always wrong. My question was: Do you believe KILLING children is ALWAYS wrong? YES or NO?

Murder: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

Kill: 1: to deprive of life, to cause the death of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kill

....(To) allege that the God of the Bible is some sort of “monster” for ordering Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan exhibits an ignorance of biblical teaching. Those inhabitants were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14). They were so evil that their Creator no longer could abide their corruption. That they had numerous opportunities to repent is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed the day of destruction). Complaining about Jehovah’s order to destroy innocent children is a vain gesture when one realizes that the children were spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves under the domination of sin. Instead of having to endure the scourge of a life of immorality and wickedness, these innocents were ushered early into the bliss of Paradise. If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites. Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later. ---A.P. Staff http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/586

Instead, I have consistently pointed out that the EEHC exists, period, using statements from Weikart, Wiker, etc, and books like Descent of Man and Mein Kampf.

Yes, FL, and you have consistently been proven wrong, and have consistently ignored said proofs, and have consisteltly repeated the same assertions you know we've already disproven. All of which is, of course, perfectly consistent with the behavior we'd expect from someone like you, who have already admitted you worship a deceiver-god and have no problem with it.

Why are we bothering to argue with such a proven, consistent liar, who has repeatedly shown his disregard for reality by repeating statements that flatly contradict observable reality? Seriously, this is no more useful than arguing the specifics of property-rights law with a guy who's trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

FL.

So the killing of chldren is always wrong...except when god does it? Great. A different set of rules for the one who makes the rules. That should work out just fine. God sets a really good example. Oh well, what can you expect from someone who commands you to kill your own son or be condemned to eternal hell?

Well if killing children is wrong, why is it not wrong for god as well? Does god believe in evolution? More importantly, who cares? Anyone can judge god for breaking her own rules. And anyone can judge you for arguing endlessly about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin instead of discussing science. Piss off and stay pissed.

Most of us have no problem saying yes absolutely yes. however, FL has to deal with his problem of selective literal reading of the bible. therefore, he will never answer your question.

Ah Euthyphro, you've been answered. Any action loved by god is pious, now matter how heinous it may appear.

So, if understand your position, being CREATED EQUAL still can mean that some children, who have never done anything except being born into a particular Group X (e.g., Canaanites) can be killed. Is that correct? YES or NO?

DS said: FL. So the killing of chldren is always wrong...except when god does it? Great. A different set of rules for the one who makes the rules. That should work out just fine. God sets a really good example. Oh well, what can you expect from someone who commands you to kill your own son or be condemned to eternal hell? Well if killing children is wrong, why is it not wrong for god as well?

FL said: In the Bible, the killing of children (as opposed to the murder of children) is morally legitimate under one condition: IF God, the Author of life and the Judge of humanity, is the one who is depriving the chidren of life or IF He approves/orders a human agent to do such depriving of life (for example, the Israelites wiping out both the adults and children of Jericho, or those of the Midianites.)

Killing vs Murder...

Terrorists claim that they are not committing murder because the poeple they kill are not innocent. or their victims are not followers of the same religion, (Shia vs. Sunni, Moslem vs. Jew, Catholic vs. Protestant etc.)

its that moral relativism that makes them scary.."it's not murder" because either:

1)killing in God's name is authorized by God and therefore not murder

2)the creatures I killed are not really people because only those who believe as I do are fully human

3) I am defending myself against an invader (by blowing up a busload of schoolchildren, or unarmed men/women/children at a place or worship)

to sane/ethical people - the only justification in killing another human being is when defending youself/someone else, or perhaps in an act of war. (if a 16 yr old pulled a gun on my wife and the only means to save her was to kill the 16 year old child - yea I'd shoot him)

but I digress

So FL, if I arrive at your place armed with a meat cleaver and tell you God has ordered me, His honoured human agent, to kill your children, what would your response be?

(Bible in one hand, Louisville Slugger in the other) "Please show me exactly where God told you to do that. Chapter and verse please."

FL said:

So FL, if I arrive at your place armed with a meat cleaver and tell you God has ordered me, His honoured human agent, to kill your children, what would your response be?

Something like this:

(Bible in one hand, Louisville Slugger in the other) "Please show me exactly where God told you to do that. Chapter and verse please."

FL

As pointed out the Canaanites saying that would not have mattered to the israelites. there was no bible. FL is just employing his usual stupidity standard. Seriously, we kicked the shit out of his limp, droopy bloodless argument for page after page and he doesn't seem to even pay any attention to anything that is said.

Unbelievably stupid little man. Treating him with respect is like trying to have anal sex with a porcupine.

So, if understand your position, being CREATED EQUAL still can mean that some children, who have never done anything except being born into a particular Group X (e.g., Canaanites) can be killed. Is that correct? YES or NO?

I see a strong parallel between God's actions against the Canaanites and the actions of an oncology surgeon. He has to cut out what may appear to be healthy tissue but which is actually infected with cancer cells. The Canaanites were infected with sin. ---Sue Bohlin, Probe.org.

The Canaanites were infected with sin. I don't understand about the children, but I do know that a compassionate God ordered it. ---Sue Bohlin, Probe.org

"For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!" -- Ezekiel 18:32.

that sort of eye-bleeding stupidity is all that he wants to do here. why engage a fool? it's like wrestling a pig. you know the rest.

Erasmus, FCD said: that sort of eye-bleeding stupidity is all that he wants to do here. why engage a fool? it's like wrestling a pig. you know the rest.

FL says: "At least the children would be going to heaven, permanently free from the surrounding corruption and evil. In heaven, they would be living in eternal happiness and holiness, instead of growing up in that evil incubator of the surrounding corruption and ultimately going to Hell for all of eternity."

So, by the same logic, would you say that abortion actually provides a 100% salvation rate for fetuses? Yes or No?

Hector Avalos said: FL says: "At least the children would be going to heaven, permanently free from the surrounding corruption and evil. In heaven, they would be living in eternal happiness and holiness, instead of growing up in that evil incubator of the surrounding corruption and ultimately going to Hell for all of eternity." So, by the same logic, would you say that abortion actually provides a 100% salvation rate for fetuses? Yes or No?

God is not a murderer, God is not a serial killer, God doesn’t have it in for kids.

So, by the same logic, would you say that abortion actually provides a 100% salvation rate for fetuses?

FL said:

I see a strong parallel between God's actions against the Canaanites and the actions of an oncology surgeon. He has to cut out what may appear to be healthy tissue but which is actually infected with cancer cells. The Canaanites were infected with sin. ---Sue Bohlin, Probe.org.

That's very important. God, the Judge, was not committing murder.

The Bible makes clear that humans can commit sin and corruption to the point--a critical mas, so to speak--where succeeding generations of those humans simply continue doing all that sin and corruption beyond any hope of repentance or change. Think about that one.

FL says: At least the children would be going to heaven, permanently free from the surrounding corruption and evil. In heaven, they would be living in eternal happiness and holiness, instead of growing up in that evil incubator of the surrounding corruption and ultimately going to Hell for all of eternity.

The Bible makes clear that humans can commit sin and corruption to the point–a critical mas, so to speak–where succeeding generations of those humans simply continue doing all that sin and corruption beyond any hope of repentance or change. Think about that one.

FL said: As long as you understand that main principle--"radical surgery if needed"--you'll be okay rationally (unless you just WANT to irrationally blame God for human sin and human corruption instead of blaming the humans who chose the sin and corruption.

So, by the same logic, would you say that abortion actually provides a 100% salvation rate for fetuses? Yes or No?

HE has the sovereign right to take it back because HE’s the one giving it out in the first place.

FL, please consider: God could have saved these children from sin in a lot of different ways: Being omnipotent, that would have been easy. So why choose to kill them?
A literal acceptance of this part of the bible is atrocious.

FL said:

So FL, if I arrive at your place armed with a meat cleaver and tell you God has ordered me, His honoured human agent, to kill your children, what would your response be?

Something like this:

(Bible in one hand, Louisville Slugger in the other) "Please show me exactly where God told you to do that. Chapter and verse please."

FL

FL writes.... But if you want to automatically argue that abortions are now Peachy-Keen in God’s sight, it might be well to remember that ONLY God–not humans–is the Author of life. Not us humans. HE has the sovereign right to take it back because HE’s the one giving it out in the first place. We humans are not God (needless to say).

In christianity, forgiveness wipes away sin.

The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. --- Gen. 6:5

"If you hear God speak today, don't be stubborn. Don't be stubborn like those who rebelled." --- Hebrews 3:15

The children in question will not go to heaven. For having committed the unpardonable sin of being born in a town where nobody baptized them, they will spend eternity in purgatory.

Stanton said:

Hector Avalos said: FL says: "At least the children would be going to heaven, permanently free from the surrounding corruption and evil. In heaven, they would be living in eternal happiness and holiness, instead of growing up in that evil incubator of the surrounding corruption and ultimately going to Hell for all of eternity." So, by the same logic, would you say that abortion actually provides a 100% salvation rate for fetuses? Yes or No?

Why do Christians like FL hate this world so much? They always say it's always so much better in Heaven, and that it's so awful to live in this current world, filled with sin and evil, nevermind that God did create both Heaven and Earth.

nmgirl said: but do you notice how many of them are afraid of death?

It is a good question to ask how honest creationists are being. If they honestly believe something that is false, are they lying when they state it? I think it makes sense to identify specific lies (e.g., “evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics”, a creationist lie long since debunked) and call those who perpetuate them liars.

FL said: the Bible only has one position wrt humanity and equality: all humans are created equal.

Robert Byers said: The law should be insisting on freedom of opinions on origins and certainly not allowing attacks against God/genesis unless there is ample rebuttal.

FL said:

In christianity, forgiveness wipes away sin.

Yes it does---IF the sinner chooses to repent and ask for forgiveness. But if the sinner says "Hey baby, I LIKE it this way, gimme sommore!!" and never even cares to ask for God's forgiveness, then nope---No forgiveness.

Steve P. wonders... Well, from a creationist POV, I’d say having faith in what the Bible says is just as logically valid as a scientist ‘putting credence’ in the current scientific consensus. From science’ own admission, current knowledge is provisional so what makes this tentative knowledge more desirable than biblical revelation? Both come with an asterisk.

Steve P. said: Matt G, Well, from a creationist POV, I'd say having faith in what the Bible says is just as logically valid as a scientist 'putting credence' in the current scientific consensus. From science' own admission, current knowledge is provisional so what makes this tentative knowledge more desirable than biblical revelation? Both come with an asterisk.

I must say, reading through threads that FL rapes with his inane logic is an amazingly spectacular discourse in YEC psychology. One can only wonder why so many Christians resort to lying, equivocating, twisting, and dodging the facts to win others over for Jesus!

Tell me Floyd, did your mother not love you enough as a kid?

“If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites. Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later.”

It's only because it demonstrates what FL thinks that this is worthwhile at all. Because what he thinks is violently disgusting.

Yes, people, he actually does think that there are no absolute moral standards. It's only what God commands, you see. What God commands, whatever it is, however horrible or vile or repugnant, murderous, genocidal, predatorial, cruel, unjust or wicked, that must be right by definition.

And then, talking out of the other side of his mouth, he'll tell us that we're the ones afflicted with "relativistic morality".

Well, I'm not, FL. Killing kids intentionally is always wrong. I don't give a red roaring hoot if you think God ordered it or not. In fact, I wouldn't give a fart in a hurricane if God actually did order it, and told me so to my face, seraphim, cherubim, ex cathedra, crack of doom, trumpets and bells, the whole nine yards. It's still wrong, always wrong, wrong if I do it, wrong if God orders it, plain flat dead wrong, no matter what.

Yes, anyone who bothers to read what the Bible says will be able to drive a horse and cart through FL's ridiculous assertion that it calls all people equal. That only goes to prove that FL doesn't know and doesn't actually care what it says.

But that's not the point. The point is that when this wilful ignorance meets FL's insanely inverted morality, the mix is deadly. Anything is OK, if the Bible says so. Anything. But FL neither knows nor cares what the Bible actually says, and in fact he's making this up as he goes along. Which means that anything is OK if FL says so.

He really is an evil little bugger, isn't he? And to think that up til now, I thought he was merely a fool.

In your babbling, Steve P., you've missed the point entirely. It isn't a problem of God, and it certainly isn't a matter of Man being afraid of himself: it's a matter of people demanding that GODDIDIT be made the alpha and omega of science. And if we were to acquiesce to this, and destroy science by making it more "Jesus-friendly" as Bill Dembski and friends wont to do, we would be thrown right back into the Stone Age, where little things like adequate food, sanitation, medicine, and living to the ripe old age of 20 years would be utterly unheard of.

That, and you have still failed to (or, perhaps refused to) demonstrate how GODDIDIT is supposed to be a more meaningful and superior explanation for the natural world than actually going out, and spending time and effort to study the natural world.

The majority of posters on this board make the unwarranted assumption that God is the problem. Actually, it is Man that is the problem. Whether we claim authority from God or authority from science, we are still left with the problem of Man claiming authority over Man.

anyone remember Religion Wars?

These were the fuckwits you were fighting for. You can have them.

Dave Luckett said:

Robert Byers said: As a Canadian biblical creationist the good stuff here is that you all confirm it is up to the people to decide what their kids are taught.

Alas, that is true, at least in the US. If you wish to have your children kept in ignorance, you may ensure it by home-schooling them, or by sending them to a school whose program you approve. Your loss. More poignantly, theirs, and may they forgive you for it.

The law should be insisting on freedom of opinions on origins and certainly not allowing attacks against God/genesis unless there is ample rebuttal. yet it comes down that the whole matter of origins is a subject that all Americans have a stake in in their institutions. its that important.

One of the basic institutions of the United States is its Constitution, which explicitly forbids the establishment of any religious teaching in public schools. Your holy book has no special standing there, nor should have. Its statements about the origin of species are, if taken literally, incorrect. They have been comprehensively rebutted for over a century; the contrary evidence is massive and incontrovertible. To say as much is not to attack any religion, but to state fact.

I'm confident the majority of Americans support equal time in the science class on origins. These board votes don't bring out most of the public and skew toward the passions of the few. it means nothing except in saying this is a big and bigger issue everyday.

If the decisions of the voters in Dover, PA and in Kansas, and elsewhere are any indication, you are incorrect. The polls also contradict you. Most Americans in general, even American Christians, accept that the Theory of Evolution is the only account of the origin of species that is supported by evidence, and hence the only one that should be taught in a science class.

Truth and freedom will prevail in America.

I hope so. I surely hope so.

The times they are achanging. (no evolution implied)

For the better, though gradually. And in that, evolution is implied. But if you prefer the Dark Ages, that's your choice.

Sorry Rob. You can insist all you want, but the breadth of just how wrong you are is staggering.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: As a Canadian biblical creationist the good stuff here is that you all confirm it is up to the people to decide what their kids are taught.

See Dave Luckett's message. If you mean its up to the people to decide what to tell their kids in the home, you're right. But government institutions such as public schools must conform to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - therefore, public schools cannot (e.g.) establish religion, even if the people want them to. Even if 99.99% of the people wanted the schools to (establish religion). *** FL you have not yet answered my question about when or how your EEHC impacts TOE's scientific validity, so I'll leave you with a parable. A guy comes to my door asking to talk to me about religion. He's got a nice tie, so I say yes, you can if you tell me where you bought your tie. He answers my question forthrightly and then asks if he can deliver his spiel - I willingly say yes, and I actually listen to what he has to say. Later a second man comes to my door. This one says he'll answer my question after delivering his spiel. To him I am polite, but I'm not really listening - I'm just waiting for the tie info. The next day a third man comes to my door. He says he'll give me the info after the spiel, but he never does. When I bring the tie up again, he launches into another spiel. On this asshole I close the door in disgust. The third man has, by his rude behavior, given me a lower opinion of his entire group and the religion they're trying to peddle. Which guy do you want to be?

Robert Byers babbled: The constitution was written by very Protestant people and never had intent to censor the teaching of a God/genesis origin. this is a recent error. The law is actually on creationists side but liberal and incompetent judgements are at the moment here. like many issues in the high court there is great division on what the constitution says.

I insist that if the schools (state) can teach the bible is is false then it can teac its true. Either teaching is a state opinion and a interference of state/church. right now its dumbly in one direction

raven said:

Robert Bryers: The law should be insisting on freedom of opinions on origins and certainly not allowing attacks against God/genesis unless there is ample rebuttal.

WOW!!! What a load of crazy statements. 1. The law already allows freedom of speech and freedom of thought and always has. 2. The same laws that allow you to claim that giant blobs from Dimension X created the earth today (it is Thursday after all) allows scientists and anyone else to say that the Blobs On Thursday theory or the God/Genesis theory are merely delusional superstition. And with freedom of speech, religion, and thought you can rebut that anywhere including here. What you can't do is push your religion in public schools. Another law says we have separation of church and state. The courts have ruled on this many times. Interesting that you combine "God/genesis". Most xians worldwide don't have a problem with evolution and think genesis is myth or allegory. They would disagree with you. You don't speak for xianity, just your fundie cult. Robert Bryers made my point again. Extremist religious fanatics are destroying xianity in the USA. The best and brightest are leaving the religion by the millions leaving behind the uneducated and the crazy.

Robert Byers babbled: America can';t take state control of Religion.

A book says 2+2=5. Teach both sides.

A book says 2+2=5. Teach both sides.

Bryers the crazy troll: Not crazy. The law is not now being enforced rightly on freedom of thought/speech and that the state should not be teaching the bible is false on some doctrines by teaching evolution.is true. The constitution is the friend of truth and creationism.

I'd like to encourage Bubba to stay at AtBC where he may be more roundly mocked with lolcatz. I still don't understand why anyone gives a damn what the bot thinks, but I do understand how amusing it is to let the bot talk.

FL, trying to insure a one way pass to hell; if you're in heaven I suppose Anne Coulter, and the gang at UD will also be there, so you know? rather be with Hitler, Darwin and the 'boys',(and hookers, drug sellers, hard rock fiends, alcholics; sounds bitching) and girls of course, I'm all for equal rights and am sure the chicks can be just as evil as us blokes; look at Maggie Thatcher. On second thoughts she'd be in heaven with Reagan, no?
Anyway I've followed all these responses and I have one question. When you meet an aborted fetuse's soul in heaven what will you talk about? Seems like it will be a short conversation.
'Hi I'm FL, brain dead from the neck up, if I had a neck. Who are you?' (tumbleweeds, howling wind.)

raven said: Could it be that no one up there takes you seriously enough to bother paying the slightest attention?

FL said: Btw, the Bible doesn't say anything about the Amalekites (or the Canaanites, (or anybody else on whom God's judgment fell) being inferior to the rest of humanity. At all times, the Bible only has one position wrt humanity and equality: all humans are created equal.

The state is teaching God/genesis is the origin of this and that. The schools are saying genesis is false by teaching evolution.

Hello, Mr. FL,
Would you also say that if God wanted people to be created unequal, then he has the sovereign right to do that (see Romans 9:6-24)? Yes or No?

For example, note these two passages. In Genesis 25:23, God tells Rebekah that she will have twins, but God has already decided that one will serve the other. Could you tell me how that is consistent with being created equal? Does that apply only at the fetal stage to you, but not once you are born?

In First Timothy 2:11-15, women are instructed to keep silent and are not allowed to teach men. One of the reasons given for those rules is that “Adam was formed first, then Eve.”

In other words, the SEQUENCE OF CREATION seems to impact which rights an entire gender will have later. Thus, how could you say everyone is “created equal,” given that some of the rights allowed to men are denied to women, at least in part, on the basis of the sequence of creation?

Here are the relevant passages in the RSV:

Genesis 25:23

[23] And the LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger."

1 Timothy 2:11-13

[11] Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
[12] I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
[13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
[14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
[15] Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

FL said: HE has the sovereign right to take it back because HE's the one giving it out in the first place. We humans are not God (needless to say). FL

ben said: It's pretty clear you are a rank theocrat, who cares about nothing but having the state push your narrow superstitions on others without regard for science or the constitution.

Robin said:

FL said: HE has the sovereign right to take it back because HE's the one giving it out in the first place. We humans are not God (needless to say). FL

Hmmm...seems a very human thought to me: "My father established our relationship when I was seven years old. He looked at me and said, "You know, I brought you in this world, and I can take you out. And it don't make no difference to me, I'll make another one look just like you." " - Bill Cosby, Himself 1983

So, by the same logic, would you say that abortion actually provides a 100% salvation rate for fetuses? Yes or No?

Would you also say that if God wanted people to be created unequal, then he has the sovereign right to do that (see Romans 9:6-24)? Yes or No?

Hello, Dr. Heddle,

Good to hear from you again. This is not the first time that you have posed as a biblical scholar. But the fact that you depend on a such a bad English translation as the NIV shows that you are not really working with the best data. So, perhaps, you could tell us:

1. What is the exact Hebrew word or phrase you are translating as “from conception” in Psalm 51:5?

2. Why do you think that the NIV has a correct translation?

3. What does “conception” mean to you—e.g., do you really think the Hebrew author knew about the joining of sperm and egg at that time?

4. What does age of accountability have anything to do with whether God saves fetuses or not?

5. How did you determine that God sees accountability as a factor in whether fetuse are saved or not?

BTW: my copy of the NIV at Psalm 51:5 actually says:
“Surely I was sinful AT BIRTH, sinful from the time my
mother conceived me.” [emphasis mine]

I sometimes request YES or NO answers for clarity, and because certain people often evade questions otherwise. It is not meant as a bullying tactic, but rather one that strives for efficiency in any discussion.

“Created equal” is a claim that FL is making, and so I am simply exploring what HE meant. So, please read the preceding posts carefully so that you can be up to speed on these discussions.

Of course, you have been consistently in error regarding any
“petition” at Iowa State University. I have already explained the reasons for helping to craft that Statement against Intelligent Design in my essay, “The DI and the Smoking Gun that Wasn’t” at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/DISmokingGun.cfm

As far as I know, you were not part of any deliberations at our university. So, you are clearly speaking of issues of which you have no first-hand knowledge. You are simply repeating propaganda from the Discovery Institute and other websites.

In any case, petitions are not cowardly at all. In fact, they are enshrined in our Constitution. Read the First Amendment, and you will find that one of the rights you and I have is “to petition the Government for a redress of Grievances.” You can argue whether our efforts at ISU fulfill that or not, but our Constitution does not see petitions as inherently cowardly. Why do you?

Besides, over 400 faculty members signed such a statement in many colleges and universities in Iowa. Do you think that they are ALL cowards?

the one thing that creationists who invoke the ‘clay pot that the potter can do anything with’ biblical fallacy...

Bravo, Mark for posting this and a second Bravo to Dr. Avalos for being so vigilant. Unfortunately, I have to agree with him that we can't be complacent with regards to our "friends" from the Dishonesty Institute. My only guess with this incident is that perhaps the Dishonesty Institute wasn't aware of it (I am inclined to think so since I receive frequently its "Nota Bene" agit prop e-mail samizdat.).

Hector Avalos: "However, the New International Version, (NIV), which has an evangelical Christian viewpoint..."

Raven,
Great to see someone actually reading some real biblical scholarship!!!

Yes, I also give examples there of how the NIV "cheats" the original Hebrew and hides problems to promote creationism.

I go on to discuss the debacle that was the TNIV. Now the NIV folks are apparently admitting that the TNIV was a bit of a mistake. Back to the drawing board for them.

This is not the first time that you have posed as a biblical scholar.

1. What is the exact Hebrew word or phrase you are translating as “from conception” in Psalm 51:5? 2. Why do you think that the NIV has a correct translation?

What does age of accountability have anything to do with whether God saves fetuses or not?

BTW: my copy of the NIV at Psalm 51:5 actually says: “Surely I was sinful AT BIRTH, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” [emphasis mine]

Of course, you have been consistently in error regarding any “petition” at Iowa State University.

You are simply repeating propaganda from the Discovery Institute and other websites.

Besides, over 400 faculty members signed such a statement in many colleges and universities in Iowa. Do you think that they are ALL cowards?

raven said:

the one thing that creationists who invoke the ‘clay pot that the potter can do anything with’ biblical fallacy...

This is the evil, malevolent being playing with his ant farm model of god. You don't see it very often anymore.

Such a being would not be worth imitating, understanding, admiring, or worshipping. You would fear something like that as you would a cobra coiling to strike or someone holding a gun to your head. Hardly the basis of a rewarding, uplifting religion with good advice for living your life. What is the difference between the fundie xian god and satan again?

Robin said: Not sure what's eating the psyche of such believers.

Heddle says: ... Personally I think it is the best English paraphrase...

You ain’t seen nothing yet Heddle. You must be champing at the bit waiting for Alan Schafley’s translation to come out.

It also permits (FL to view everyone outside his cult as evil demons seeking to lead him astray; therefore any atrocities (FL) commits upon them (e.g., taunting, lying to them, and intruding into their camps to spew sectarian dogma, and even killing them) is just fine because dogma assures him that his deity approves.

FL said:

It also permits (FL to view everyone outside his cult as evil demons seeking to lead him astray; therefore any atrocities (FL) commits upon them (e.g., taunting, lying to them, and intruding into their camps to spew sectarian dogma, and even killing them) is just fine because dogma assures him that his deity approves.

Well, while consulting my weekly Mwahahaha list, I noticed that I'd failed to kill any evolutionists this week. Or the previous week. Or the one before that. In fact 2009 has been kind of a washout, honestly.

Dr. Heddle,

Here is my response, with some headings for greater clarity (I hope).

HOW YOU ARE REPEATING DI PROPAGANDA

You are repeating many of the same claims that the DI used, and this includes the claim that any sort of petitioning was meant to be prejudicial against Dr. Gonzalez, that somehow we should not “petition,” and that I am not qualified to speak on ID. As did the DI, you keep conflating the issue of tenure with our effort to stop the DI from using the name of ISU to sell ID. They are different issues to us.

Then, you simply state that you do not “believe” my motives as though that constituted proof of anything. It does not. You would have to address the specific reasons I gave at the website cited above, and then explain why those are not good reasons or why they show some ulterior motive. In any case, our efforts against ID were not meant to please you, and so it really does not matter whether you approve or not.

Secondly, your position on petitioning is somewhat odd. Who made up the rule that there has to be “risk” for anyone to exercise their first amendment rights properly? What are you risking by posting on this blog? If you risk nothing, does that mean you are somehow acting cowardly? And could you tell us WHAT you ever have done to fight ID that incurred risk?

Freedom of expression may be courageous when there is risk, but risk is not a requirement to exercise freedom of expression. Saying ID is not science at a time when Dembski & Co. were using the name of our university to sell ID in other states is certainly an appropriate response by faculty.

Hundreds thought the same thing. So, tell us, why can’t faculty at our university say “WE don’t believe ID is science,” when Dembski is suggesting our faculty do just that? And your suggestion is that we have to wait until the DI wants us to wait? What sort of strategy is that?

Then, you say that you might have signed it, but that this would not make you cowardly. So, only the first person that says the same thing you do is cowardly? Isn’t there more risk in being the first to say something controversial, compared to signing a petition once you see hundreds have signed it before you?

Thirdly, how is it that you know that I did not incur risk? How many days did you actually spend with me during 2005-2007 in order to be able to say that? Were you privy to my phone conversations? Did you scan mail I received? Really, where are you getting your data for this?

CREDENTIALS AGAIN?

Another DI claim you are repeating is the “lack-of-credential -claim.” I believe people should speak on areas of their expertise, but how did you determine I know nothing useful about Intelligent Design?

And do you not see "anthropology" as science? Perhaps, I am wrong, but that is the home for the study of human evolution, and I am formally trained in that field. And, since ID is theology, not science, then it is certainly within my purview. Evaluating ID is both within the purview of science and of scholars of religion, and I have made efforts to bring about cooperation between science and scholars of religion.

For the record, you should consult my bibliography, where you will find a long track record of publishing on science and religion. My newest article is titled “Science and the Bible,” found in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (2009), a very well respected reference work in biblical studies.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP

In general, you have what I would call a layperson’s understanding of biblical scholarship. It is one that assumes that the interpretive community to which you belong represents the status of modern academic biblical studies.

For example, prooftexting is not a proper method of academic biblical studies if you are using that to ascertain God’s will. You might as well use tea leaves for that purpose.

Biblical citations can tell you, at most, what biblical authors believe, but that does not tell you their beliefs are any more true about original sin, creation, etc. than quoting the Quran. There were many positions on almost anything, and so there is no one “biblical” view on many subjects. There certainly is not a single view on “original sin.”

Second, biblical translations are INTERPRETATIONS, at least in part, and so you cannot simply say: “My favorite literal translations are the ESV and NASB” without a method for determining that these were even “literal” translations. That word, “literal” is itself under severe challenge in modern biblical scholarship, as I point out in The End of Biblical Studies.

That sort of overconfidence in your interpretive religious community is certainly illustrated by your appeal to the Hebrew word yâcham, which is very difficult to interpret because we only have a few instances in the piel form. One of the other instances has more to do “literally” with “being in heat” rather than conceiving in the way we would understand it.

For example, it occurs in Genesis 30:41, which also speaks of breeding procedures that most geneticists I know say don’t quite work. Notice that even the NIV translates the very same Hebrew word there as “were in heat.”

And if you think heredity or breeding works as described in Genesis 30:34-43, then you will have hard time convincing those of us with scientific minds that “sin” works the same way.

So if any geneticists or biologists are out there, please read that passage (Genesis 30:34-43) and tell us if you think that version of “conception” is how the world works.

SUMMARY

Dr. Heddle, you may not agree with our methods to combat ID, but I hope you see that your approval is neither sought nor necessary to keep doing what has been very successful. Iowans have certainly done very well without your help. I will continue to fight ID as I deem necessary, and not as you deem necessary, because I think I know the situation in Iowa better than you do.

FL said: ...and it's a rush; I can't devote the kind of time I'd love to devote to this thread.

You are repeating many of the same claims that the DI used, and this includes the claim that any sort of petitioning was meant to be prejudicial against Dr. Gonzalez, that somehow we should not “petition,” and that I am not qualified to speak on ID. As did the DI, you keep conflating the issue of tenure with our effort to stop the DI from using the name of ISU to sell ID. They are different issues to us.

Secondly, your position on petitioning is somewhat odd. Who made up the rule that there has to be “risk” for anyone to exercise their first amendment rights properly? What are you risking by posting on this blog? If you risk nothing, does that mean you are somehow acting cowardly? And could you tell us WHAT you ever have done to fight ID that incurred risk?

Thirdly, how is it that you know that I did not incur risk?

And do you not see “anthropology” as science?

For the record, you should consult my bibliography, where you will find a long track record of publishing on science and religion. My newest article is titled “Science and the Bible,” found in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (2009), a very well respected reference work in biblical studies.

That sort of overconfidence in your interpretive religious community is certainly illustrated by your appeal to the Hebrew word yâcham,

So if any geneticists or biologists are out there, please read that passage (Genesis 30:34-43) and tell us if you think that version of “conception” is how the world works.

Dr. Heddle, you may not agree with our methods to combat ID, but I hope you see that your approval is neither sought nor necessary to keep doing what has been very successful. Iowans have certainly done very well without your help. I will continue to fight ID as I deem necessary, and not as you deem necessary, because I think I know the situation in Iowa better than you do.

heddle said: Given their perspective on the intellectual value of “Religious Studies” or “Biblical Studies” as an acceptable scholarly discipline, when people like PZ laud your anti-ID efforts, does the term “useful idiot” ever cross your mind?

Hello, Dr. Heddle,
If understand the extent of the evidence you are presenting,
it is this:

1. You insist my actions were cowardly, but you cannot produce evidence for your claim that I had no risk incurred.

2. You insist my actions were "low class" etc. but it's really on your word. You provide no credible rationale for why they should be seen that way. Hundreds did not, and so why is your sense of "class" or "cowardice" to be believed in the first place?

3. You claim that my extensive critiques of ID were accurately summarized by a quote in the Des Moines Register that you don't even know is accurate. Yet, you apparently have not read my more extensive published or scholarly critiques that are readily available.

4. You are sure the NIV has the right translations, but all you can point to is that the NIV translations to support the NIV translations.
You have not given me a single Hebrew linguistic argument yet that shows that the Hebrews understood yacham the same way we do. And, of course, you cannot. For this require Semitic linguistic equipment far beyond what you have shown to possess. However, I am willing to be surprised.

5.I gave my answer to your question on the value of Religious and Biblical Studies in The End of Biblical Studies. If you actually read some of my work instead of Des Moines Register quotes you actually might be surprised. The short answer is that sometimes outsiders do not understand the difference between doing "theology" and doing "religious studies."

But many scientists may have an excuse for not knowing the difference. Some scholars of religion have argued that there is no difference.

The better question is: How is it that you don't know the difference between academic biblical studies and the sectarian theology you represent?

Finally, do you believe in using verifiable evidence for claims you make, or is your word supposed to be sufficient for proof?

Wow. That's gotta smart. Somebody pointing out that Heddle's making snarky, unsupported assertions without support.

And gee, what a surprise that is.

Is it just me, or is arguing about the accuracy of translations of the Bible pretty much the definitive "re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic"?

Surely you're not saying it has inaccuracies or something?!?

Cue Leslie Nielsen...

He is saying that and don't call him Shirley!

FL said:

Mr. FL, You did not answer my question. My question did not ask if MURDER was always wrong. My question was: Do you believe KILLING children is ALWAYS wrong? YES or NO?

As I was able to demonstrate, your question wasn't quite rationally lined up (that is, you were applying that question to a specific claim that it didn't rationally match up), so the first order of business was to answer your question "AS IS", and that meant not trying to do a mere "Yes" or "No." I have also shown that in the Bible, the murder of either children or adults is ALWAYS wrong. With that fact on the table, let's revisit your question. "Do you believe KILLING children is ALWAYS wrong? So, since you emphasized the term "killing", let me emphasize it as well. What is the difference between the terms "murder" and "killing"? Merriam-Webster states:

Murder: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

Kill: 1: to deprive of life, to cause the death of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kill

Now that the definitions of these key terms have been clarified, one can answer your question with a definite "Yes" or "No." ****** In the Bible, the killing of children (as opposed to the murder of children) is morally legitimate under one condition: IF God, the Author of life and the Judge of humanity, is the one who is depriving the chidren of life or IF He approves/orders a human agent to do such depriving of life (for example, the Israelites wiping out both the adults and children of Jericho, or those of the Midianites.) Since there exists at least one known possible real-world situation in which God the Author of Life and Judge of humanity may sovereignly decide that it is best to take back that life if need be, the definite answer to your question is NO, the killing of children, is NOT always wrong. ******

....(To) allege that the God of the Bible is some sort of “monster” for ordering Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan exhibits an ignorance of biblical teaching. Those inhabitants were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14). They were so evil that their Creator no longer could abide their corruption. That they had numerous opportunities to repent is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed the day of destruction). Complaining about Jehovah’s order to destroy innocent children is a vain gesture when one realizes that the children were spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves under the domination of sin. Instead of having to endure the scourge of a life of immorality and wickedness, these innocents were ushered early into the bliss of Paradise. If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites. Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later. ---A.P. Staff http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/586

****** FL

Lunatics' corner has been brought to you today by the Foundation for Fundamental Funnies, and today's funnydemental, and we do mean mental, is Toidel (laugh while you barf) Mahoney. Take it away, Toids! (as far away as possible)

Toidel is a Poe, right?

That, alals, is one of the great unresolved mysteries of our time. For the very essence of Poe's Law is that it's impossible to tell.

kook: The Canaanites of that time were, like the European Union of today, completely given over to sodomy.

wikipedia canaan: Jonathan Tubbs, a British archaeologist, argued that the Israelites were themselves Canaanites, and that "historical Israel", as distinct from "literary" or "Biblical Israel" was a subset of Canaanite culture.[16] Canaan when used in this sense refers to the entire Ancient Near Eastern Levant down to about 100 AD, including the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[16] For example, Mark Smith in "The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities of Ancient Israel" states "Despite the long regnant model that the Canaanites and Israelites were people of fundamentally different culture, archaeological data now casts doubt on this view.

The Canaanites of that time were, like the European Union of today, completely given over to sodomy. It is unlikely that there would have been another generation of Canaanites anyway, so killing them was merely a merciful way to quickly end a hopeless situation.

How come we never hear FL or Novparl complaining about this guy? Do they agree? Are they embarrassed? Do they think he's a Poe?

Rilke's granddaughter said: Toidel is a Poe, right?

There is definitely some confusion among scientists and creationists over what religious studies is about in the modern academy. The writings of both groups, their criticism, concern, suggest that they imagine it to be some sort of instruction in and study of the faith. While scientists question the need for such a department at a public university, creationists (the Dishonesty Institute particularly) questions endlessly, how an atheist like Dr. Avalos, can be a professor of religious studies. I am surprised and even amused that the people in question do not understand that the modern religious studies department seeks to study religion as an academic discipline keeping the truth claims of the religion in question aside or approaching it with some disinterest. Being a Hindu in the US, I am aware of a great deal of exchanges among Hindus and others over the output of Rel.Stu. depts with respect to Hindu phenomena and entities.

heddle and Dr. Avalos,

I have the utmost respect for both of your excellent contributions on behalf of all of us interested in stemming the pernicious mendacious intellectual pornography that's created and promoted daily by the Dishonesty Institute. However, heddle, in this case I believe Dr. Avalos was well within his rights - and those of his fellow Iowans - in urging the University of Iowa to deny tenure to Dr. Gonzalez, especially when this issue was being used by the Dishonesty Insttiute, its allies and sycophants as ongoing proof of mainstream science acting as a "lynch mob" against poor, misunderstood Intelligent Design "scientific" advocates like Gonzalez. While heddle you may an excellent point regarding how tenure review ought to be handled, the sad fact remains that the Dishonesty Institute opted to insert itself into Gonzalez's tenure review, so, in this instance, I believe that Dr. Avalos had no choice but to draft and then circulate his petition.

Sincerely yours,

John Kwok

Oops, a typo to my last comment, so am amending this to read as follows:

heddle and Dr. Avalos,

I have the utmost respect for both of your excellent contributions on behalf of all of us interested in stemming the pernicious mendacious intellectual pornography that’s created and promoted daily by the Dishonesty Institute. However, heddle, in this case I believe Dr. Avalos was well within his rights - and those of his fellow Iowans - in urging the University of Iowa to deny tenure to Dr. Gonzalez, especially when this issue was being used by the Dishonesty Insttiute, its allies and sycophants as ongoing proof of mainstream science acting as a “lynch mob” against poor, misunderstood Intelligent Design “scientific” advocates like Gonzalez. While heddle you made an excellent point regarding how tenure review ought to be handled, the sad fact remains that the Dishonesty Institute opted to insert itself into Gonzalez’s tenure review, so, in this instance, I believe that Dr. Avalos had no choice but to draft and then circulate his petition.

Sincerely yours,

John Kwok

impal said: I am surprised and even amused that the people in question do not understand that the modern religious studies department seeks to study religion as an academic discipline keeping the truth claims of the religion in question aside or approaching it with some disinterest.

Dr. Hector Avalos said: Dr. Heddle, Here is my response, with some headings for greater clarity (I hope).

heddle said...

Toilet MaPhoney babbled: The Canaanites of that time were, like the European Union of today, completely given over to sodomy. It is unlikely that there would have been another generation of Canaanites anyway, so killing them was merely a merciful way to quickly end a hopeless situation.

Since there are several topics addressed here let me address one of them. Probably the most reasoned attack against Yahweh's actions in the Bible is Edwin Curley's talk on "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." The link takes you directly to his talk so have your hand on the volume control.

Take about an hour to listen to it when you have the chance. He makes a great case in it.

Cheers.

Stanton said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: Toidel is a Poe, right?

He's a troll. Either he's one of those truly unpleasant Poes who don't know or care that their schtick has gone stale years ago, or he really is a brain-damaged bigot for Jesus.

Kattarina98 said:

The Canaanites of that time were, like the European Union of today, completely given over to sodomy. It is unlikely that there would have been another generation of Canaanites anyway, so killing them was merely a merciful way to quickly end a hopeless situation.

Wow! I'm European, and I had no idea that there is so much fun going on! Toidel, could you please tell me where to go for all this great action?

Man, with the trolls and the poes it's not even fun reading anymore when threads get like this.

Toidel Mahoney lying:

Stanton said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: Toidel is a Poe, right?

He's a troll. Either he's one of those truly unpleasant Poes who don't know or care that their schtick has gone stale years ago, or he really is a brain-damaged bigot for Jesus.

Jesus loves you, and so does Toidel.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Toidel is a Poe, right?

Hmm... and here I was watching AtBC for the fun stuff and it was here all this time.

I'd like to remind both FL and Robert that they have yet to present a single hypothesis, experiment, or tool that uses ID. Since they can't to that it's not science... all the Theology discussion, while interesting (I must find Hector's book), it's really moot to the question at hand, which is "Can ID be taught in science class of public schools?"

BTW: Texas is a laughing stock in the education world. The current school board wants Joe McCarthy taught as a "great American hero" and the history expert they hired didn't know where Rosa Parks made her stand (as it were). It's quite obvious FL doesn't have a clue. I doubt he could get a clue if he was dancing naked in a field of horny clues while covered in clue musk.

OgreMkV said: Hmm... and here I was watching AtBC for the fun stuff and it was here all this time. I'd like to remind both FL and Robert that they have yet to present a single hypothesis, experiment, or tool that uses ID. Since they can't to that it's not science... all the Theology discussion, while interesting (I must find Hector's book), it's really moot to the question at hand, which is "Can ID be taught in science class of public schools?" BTW: Texas is a laughing stock in the education world. The current school board wants Joe McCarthy taught as a "great American hero" and the history expert they hired didn't know where Rosa Parks made her stand (as it were). It's quite obvious FL doesn't have a clue. I doubt he could get a clue if he was dancing naked in a field of horny clues while covered in clue musk.

Stanton said:

Robert Byers babbled: America can';t take state control of Religion.

If you have ever bothered to read the Constitution of the United States of America, you would have known that the First Amendment prohibits not only prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, but it also prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. The forcing the teaching of the biblical Book of Genesis in a science classroom would violate the First Amendment. Teaching abiogenesis, which is a science, and not a religion, in a science classroom does not violate the First Amendment. So, in other words, Robert Byers, if you don't like America's government because it is technically not allowed to force the teaching of religiously inspired pseudoscience in place of actual science, fine, then, don't ever bring your children to this country. Just stop lying about how the law is actually on the side of Creationists: it makes you look like a big, dishonest idiot.

ben said:

The state is teaching God/genesis is the origin of this and that. The schools are saying genesis is false by teaching evolution.

By teaching that Genesis is true, the schools would be teaching that the Bhagavad Gita is false. How do you suggest we resolve this, constitutionally? Are you OK with your religious preferences being specially favored, unless and until your religion becomes a minority one, at which point it will be totally ignored, as you are ignoring all religions but your own in your ill-considered assumptions? It's pretty clear you are a rank theocrat, who cares about nothing but having the state push your narrow superstitions on others without regard for science or the constitution. If you think anyone here believes you and your creationist buddies would be satisfied with merely having a balance between science and creationism taught in schools, you're stupider than your babblings thus far reflect. You might be too dumb to realize it, but you're enabling people who want to force everyone to worship their god. We've seen how that works, no thanks.

So by Byers' "reasoning", the existence of a hypothetical religion which made incorrect claims about everything, from biological origins to arithmetic to proper english grammar (and he seems to subscribe to just such a religion himself), would make it unconstitutional to teach any fact at all, for fear of offending pious twits.

As it is, virtually every branch of science has content which is at odds with details in the Bible and the thousands of other religious scriptures subscribed to by students in various American public schools. To suggest that avoiding teaching any of this information to students is either practical or constitutionally required is just stupid.

And as always, Byers reveals, through continuing to describe the situation as a false dichotomy between science and Genesis (ignoring the existence and importance of the thousands of other religious traditions that exist in America alone), his true agenda--state promotion of his particular religious dogma--or at least protection of that dogma from educated scrutiny of any kind. And despite his failed pretensions at Constitutional scholarship, his presentation is a case in point of exactly what the founding fathers intended to prevent.

The law, Mr Byers, is not found in what you say the law is based upon, nor on its historical context, nor on the motivations you ascribe to those who wrote it originally. The law is in the hearts and minds of the people, but it consists of the words of the law, as interpreted by the Courts.

What does the law say? It says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" This is the full relevant part of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (It goes on to guarantee freedom of the press, speech and assembly, and the right to petition.)

What does "the establishment of religion" mean? In the eighteenth century they were absolutely clear on its meaning. It means the use of State power to enforce or to favour one religion over another or others. "Prohibit the free exercise" means allowing any practice that would impede any person from freely exercising religion. Those are specifically forbidden by the basic law of the United States. No powers of the State whatsoever may be used to either end. It must not favour. It must not impede.

Now, the State maintains and administers many agencies. Among them are the schools which it funds from taxation revenue. In all of these agencies it is forbidden to favour any religion over any other.

That is to say, it may not allow the use of any of its powers, including the power to levy taxation to fund schools, to be used to favour any religion over any other or to impede any religion.

If it were to allow the holy book of any one religion to be taught in the public schools as fact, then it would necessarily be doing both. It would be favouring one religion and impeding others. The Courts have consistently ruled in accordance with this principle. In all reason, they could do nothing less.

"Equal time" is an appeal to allow the holy book of only one religion - your religion, which is why you desire this - to be taught as if it were demonstrable fact, which it is not. Demonstrable fact observed from physical evidence found in nature is the purview of science, and science alone.

There are two ways for you and your co-religionists to have your religion and its holy book taught in the public schools. One way is for you to demonstrate from physical evidence found in nature that your statements about the origin of the Earth, life, the species and Man are correct, and to place this evidence before the experts. You will not do this. There is no such evidence, and there is never likely to be any. But you could at least try.

The other way - the way you and your co-religionists prefer - is to change the law in word or in practice so that your religion can be established by the State and preferred, or if possible, enforced by the State.

If that were to happen, the great experiment has failed. It would happen over the dead bodies of millions of American patriots of all creeds and of no creed. I don't know if there is a God, but if there is, I pray that He would forbid it.

Robert,

It doesn't matter how you interpret the Constitution of the United States, what matters is how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court has consistently and correctly ruled that creationism is religion and that evolution is science. Therefore, creationism cannot be taught as science in publically funded schools and it cannot be allowed equal time in science classes.

If you disagree, argue with the Supreme Court. If you want to change the situation, change the Supreme court. Your opinion is irrelevant unless you can show standing in the court and present your case to them. Until then you are just engaging in mental masturbation.

Many people here could show you exactly why the Supreme Court is right in its position. Suffice it to say that evolution is studied by scientists who do what scientists do and is supported by virtually mountains of evidence. Creationism is not studied by scientists and is not supported by any evidence. It is demonstrably motivated by religious considerations, even though its dishonest proponents desperately try to hide this fact from the courts.

Now we can argue these points all you want, but in the end that would be a complete waste of time. The Constitution rightly protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If you don't agree with this position, would you perhaps prefer that the state teach some religion other than yours in public school science classes?

Hey Booby I have a religious belief that your existence is against God's Will. The government is interfering with my religious belief by allowing you to continue to exist, sucking up my oxygen and lightly soiling your underwear everytime you bend over to tie your shoes. You should be thankful that the government can interfere, as you put it, with really really really stupid ideas, but I desire them to take this conclusion to the obvious finish and find a nice room somewhere to put you where you get to sleep a lot.

If you weren't so stupid you see that your objections are childish and irrelevant. I suggest that you go fight spontaneous combustion.

Why do you think teaching science in a science classroom is religious?

Oh, wait, it's because you're a lobotomized idiot and a religious fanatic. It's painfully obvious that you've never ever ever read any evolutionary biology, general biology, or even science textbooks. Otherwise, you would not be making the blatantly false claim that evolution is taught by condemning the account of Genesis.

That isn't how science is taught, and whoever thinks that the alternative of teaching the account of Genesis in a science classroom is appropriate and in accordance with the US Constitution is a gibbering moron.

Erasmus, FCD said: If you weren't so stupid you see that your objections are childish and irrelevant. I suggest that you go fight spontaneous combustion.

DS said: Now we can argue these points all you want, but in the end that would be a complete waste of time. The Constitution rightly protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If you don't agree with this position, would you perhaps prefer that the state teach some religion other than yours in public school science classes?

First Bobby is Candaian. I sure don't know much about Canadian laws and politics and I consider myself pretty well read in such things. I don't have a hope that he understands what our laws are about. So, we have to teach him American Government.

Then, he has to understand that the religion he's advocating (much like FL) has very little to do with most mainstream religions (the majority of which have accepted that scientific theory and religion are not incompatible). SO, I suggest a series of classes in Theology and Religions of the World.

THen he has to understand the theories that he's arguing against. Because he (and FL) argue things that aren't correct in any science. So, I suggest a series of courses ranging from History of Science (especially Rob-o) and How Science Works (FL and Rob-O), then they will be prepared to take actual science and math courses. Maybe freshman Biology (high school) and work their way up, like the rest of us have.

Then, once they've reached that point, we can have intelligent conversations. Until then... they will remain stupid (as apposed to ignorant).

OgreMkV,

Good idea. Unfortunately education don't fix stupid, just ignorant. And if you are willfully ignorant, not even that.

A wise man once said: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't stop him from crapping in it. I have no idea what he meant, but it seems somehow strangely appropriate.

DS said: A wise man once said: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't stop him from crapping in it. I have no idea what he meant, but it seems somehow strangely appropriate.

OgreMkV said: I doubt he could get a clue if he was dancing naked in a field of horny clues while covered in clue musk.

Robert Byers said: The law is the law. NO state interference with religious ideas. No teaching in public institutions thats its not true, by the concept of separation of church/state.

Robert Byers said:

Stanton said:

Robert Byers babbled: America can';t take state control of Religion.

If you have ever bothered to read the Constitution of the United States of America, you would have known that the First Amendment prohibits not only prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, but it also prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. The forcing the teaching of the biblical Book of Genesis in a science classroom would violate the First Amendment. Teaching abiogenesis, which is a science, and not a religion, in a science classroom does not violate the First Amendment. So, in other words, Robert Byers, if you don't like America's government because it is technically not allowed to force the teaching of religiously inspired pseudoscience in place of actual science, fine, then, don't ever bring your children to this country. Just stop lying about how the law is actually on the side of Creationists: it makes you look like a big, dishonest idiot.

Your wrong. The argument against creationism in the science class of public schools is based on the concept of a separation of church and state. Therefore neither can use public institutions to interfere with the other. Simple idea. Yet by teaching evolution the state does just that. It attacks basic doctrines for many Christians etc in implying Genesis is wrong on the issues of origins. It goes further in saying the bible is false by denying it rebuttal.

Robert Byers said: I insist that if the schools (state) can teach the bible is is false then it can teac its true.

As a non-American, who kind of wishes we had an Establishment Clause here in Australia, can someone who knows answer the following for me:

Imagine a state school teacher is asked a sincere question along the lines of "My mom says that the Bible teaches the world was created 6000 years ago. Is this true?"

Said teacher gives a gentle answer along the lines of "The Bible is not a scientific text, but (for Christian believers) a guide to religious matters only. So, no it's not true, the world is 4.5 billion years old."

By offering an interpretation of the Bible (not science) is there any danger that the teacher has broken the law? Or (hopefully) these matters have been cleared up a long time ago.

In addition, what if the teacher was less gentle and simply said "I don't have an opinion on the truth of the Bible in general, but Genesis is clearly bollocks."?

Any answers gratefully received.

When I was a science teacher, I pretty much said it the first way... then I had a discussion where I had to explain to the principle that, "yes, evolution is a required topic in the state standards."

There are three reasons US high school biology teachers don't teach evolution.

1) They don't know anything about it (because most science teachers are not scientists, they take a few science classes because everyone needs to hire science teachers)
2) They are religious and it offends them (never mind their students will fail that part of the standardized test).
3) It's not worth the inevitable pile of steaming, partially digested plant matter that will land on their heads when they do (this is because principles and parents don't know that it's required to be taught and don't care).

eddie said: As a non-American, who kind of wishes we had an Establishment Clause here in Australia, can someone who knows answer the following for me: Imagine a state school teacher is asked a sincere question along the lines of "My mom says that the Bible teaches the world was created 6000 years ago. Is this true?" Said teacher gives a gentle answer along the lines of "The Bible is not a scientific text, but (for Christian believers) a guide to religious matters only. So, no it's not true, the world is 4.5 billion years old." By offering an interpretation of the Bible (not science) is there any danger that the teacher has broken the law? Or (hopefully) these matters have been cleared up a long time ago. In addition, what if the teacher was less gentle and simply said "I don't have an opinion on the truth of the Bible in general, but Genesis is clearly bollocks."? Any answers gratefully received.

eddie,

Speaking strictly for myself, I would answer that as a scientist, I have no opinion about anything in the Bible. I have no idea what scientific claims it makes or whether they are true or not. If you want an answer to that question, ask your parents, a priest a minister a monk or whatever. What I will present in class is the scientific evidence. if anyone claims that the Bible contradicts the scientific evidence, you will have to decide what you what to do about that for yourself.

No matter what your personal opinion on that matter, science teachers in public institutions are not paid to address religious beliefs. Injecting religion into science class is what we should be fighting against. We should also fight to keep religious discussions out of science blogs, especially when trolls use them to derail threads and ignore the science.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Robert Byers said: Yet by teaching evolution the state does just that. It attacks basic doctrines for many Christians etc in implying Genesis is wrong on the issues of origins.

Robert Byers said:

Dave Luckett said:

Robert Byers said: As a Canadian biblical creationist the good stuff here is that you all confirm it is up to the people to decide what their kids are taught.

Alas, that is true, at least in the US. If you wish to have your children kept in ignorance, you may ensure it by home-schooling them, or by sending them to a school whose program you approve. Your loss. More poignantly, theirs, and may they forgive you for it.

The law should be insisting on freedom of opinions on origins and certainly not allowing attacks against God/genesis unless there is ample rebuttal. yet it comes down that the whole matter of origins is a subject that all Americans have a stake in in their institutions. its that important.

One of the basic institutions of the United States is its Constitution, which explicitly forbids the establishment of any religious teaching in public schools. Your holy book has no special standing there, nor should have. Its statements about the origin of species are, if taken literally, incorrect. They have been comprehensively rebutted for over a century; the contrary evidence is massive and incontrovertible. To say as much is not to attack any religion, but to state fact.

I'm confident the majority of Americans support equal time in the science class on origins. These board votes don't bring out most of the public and skew toward the passions of the few. it means nothing except in saying this is a big and bigger issue everyday.

If the decisions of the voters in Dover, PA and in Kansas, and elsewhere are any indication, you are incorrect. The polls also contradict you. Most Americans in general, even American Christians, accept that the Theory of Evolution is the only account of the origin of species that is supported by evidence, and hence the only one that should be taught in a science class.

Truth and freedom will prevail in America.

I hope so. I surely hope so.

The times they are achanging. (no evolution implied)

For the better, though gradually. And in that, evolution is implied. But if you prefer the Dark Ages, that's your choice.

Not on the opinion of the truth of evolution but on the subject of equal time some 70% of Yanks agree with equal time. americans do have a stake in what is taught in their schools on such important issues. The constitution was written by very Protestant people and never had intent to censor the teaching of a God/genesis origin. this is a recent error. The law is actually on creationists side but liberal and incompetent judgements are at the moment here. like many issues in the high court there is great division on what the constitution says. I insist that if the schools (state) can teach the bible is is false then it can teac its true. Either teaching is a state opinion and a interference of state/church. right now its dumbly in one direction

Mike wrote:

"What’s needed of course, if science education is one’s true concern, is the strong, consistent, and utterly true message that science has nothing to say about religious belief, and the scientific community decides what is, and is not, science, not religiously motivated think tanks."

Well said.

One of the problems with explaining how science does or does not contradict the Bible is that then, in order to remain religiously neutral, you would necessarily have to explain why science did or did not contradict every other holy book in every other religion as well. If you did not, then you wuld potentially offend those of other faiths. If you did, then you would have turned your class into a religious studies class and no science would be taught. Of course, you would also be taching in a field in which you were not an expert and perhaps had no training. At the very least, you would be teaching something that you were not paid to be teaching. And inevitably, you would offend someones delicate religious sensibilities. It would be a no win situation.

On the other hand, it might be appropriate to discuss science in a comparative religion class. Assuming of course that the instructor actually had some science training.

Toidel,

Do you think that it would be a good thing if religion were taught in public school science classes? If not, why not? If so, which religion would you like taught? Which religions would you not like to have taught? Do you think that this should be something that should be voted on? If not, why not? If so, which religion do you think would win?

Do you think that science teachers should point out when the facts contradict the Bible? If not, why not?

...and are there any clear contradictions or discrepancies within the Bible itself?

The answer is:

4064

Others can provide details.

Toidel Mahoney said: Wrong! America's revered "founding fathers" were fake Christians who hoodwinked a Godly population into supporting their schemes whose only purpose was to allow them to make money. To understand the true American Christian heritage, read Cotton Mather or Jonathan Edwards, not greedy worshipers of mammon like George Washington.

Robert Byers said: The argument against creationism in the science class of public schools is based on the concept of a separation of church and state. Therefore neither can use public institutions to interfere with the other. Simple idea. Yet by teaching evolution the state does just that.

The law is on the side of truth, freedom, and so equal time for creationism. I can't see where my reasoning is wrong on this.

RDK said: I'm glad you're helping the truth be brought to light, Toidel. In fact if it weren't for confirmation pastor the other day mentioning how Thomas Jefferson actually ghost-wrote Mein Kampf for Adlof Hitler and how T.H. Huxley helped Darwin wash his clothes in the blood of aborted fetuses, I would still be blind to the evil materialist dogma.

Dan said: Of course, I have heard the claim that Thomas Jefferson ghost-wrote "Das Kapital" for Adolf Hitler ...

Toidel Mahoney said:

Robert Byers said:

Dave Luckett said:

Robert Byers said: As a Canadian biblical creationist the good stuff here is that you all confirm it is up to the people to decide what their kids are taught.

Alas, that is true, at least in the US. If you wish to have your children kept in ignorance, you may ensure it by home-schooling them, or by sending them to a school whose program you approve. Your loss. More poignantly, theirs, and may they forgive you for it.

The law should be insisting on freedom of opinions on origins and certainly not allowing attacks against God/genesis unless there is ample rebuttal. yet it comes down that the whole matter of origins is a subject that all Americans have a stake in in their institutions. its that important.

One of the basic institutions of the United States is its Constitution, which explicitly forbids the establishment of any religious teaching in public schools. Your holy book has no special standing there, nor should have. Its statements about the origin of species are, if taken literally, incorrect. They have been comprehensively rebutted for over a century; the contrary evidence is massive and incontrovertible. To say as much is not to attack any religion, but to state fact.

I'm confident the majority of Americans support equal time in the science class on origins. These board votes don't bring out most of the public and skew toward the passions of the few. it means nothing except in saying this is a big and bigger issue everyday.

If the decisions of the voters in Dover, PA and in Kansas, and elsewhere are any indication, you are incorrect. The polls also contradict you. Most Americans in general, even American Christians, accept that the Theory of Evolution is the only account of the origin of species that is supported by evidence, and hence the only one that should be taught in a science class.

Truth and freedom will prevail in America.

I hope so. I surely hope so.

The times they are achanging. (no evolution implied)

For the better, though gradually. And in that, evolution is implied. But if you prefer the Dark Ages, that's your choice.

Not on the opinion of the truth of evolution but on the subject of equal time some 70% of Yanks agree with equal time. americans do have a stake in what is taught in their schools on such important issues. The constitution was written by very Protestant people and never had intent to censor the teaching of a God/genesis origin. this is a recent error. The law is actually on creationists side but liberal and incompetent judgements are at the moment here. like many issues in the high court there is great division on what the constitution says. I insist that if the schools (state) can teach the bible is is false then it can teac its true. Either teaching is a state opinion and a interference of state/church. right now its dumbly in one direction

Wrong! America's revered "founding fathers" were fake Christians who hoodwinked a Godly population into supporting their schemes whose only purpose was to allow them to make money. To understand the true American Christian heritage, read Cotton Mather or Jonathan Edwards, not greedy worshipers of mammon like George Washington.

FL said:

So, by the same logic, would you say that abortion actually provides a 100% salvation rate for fetuses? Yes or No?

Yes it does. The baby goes to heaven, not hell. Not a problem, God got it covered. But if you want to automatically argue that abortions are now Peachy-Keen in God's sight, it might be well to remember that ONLY God--not humans--is the Author of life. Not us humans. FL

John Kwok said: Your latest example of breathtaking inanity posted here demonstrates your woeful ignorance.

I have long wanted to join a discussion on this site, but, I have been too intimidated by all of your "big brains". I finally feel that this thread is someplace where I may comment. I cannot understand why xtian idiots are even acknowledged here. It seems hardly worth the effort, though I, too, enjoy making mincemeat of their arguments. As I read, however, I found all the name calling and such disturbing. Believe me, I have no love for xtians and I am very tired of "respecting others beliefs". Xtians certainly show no respect for my thoughts on the matter of religion. I just think that ignoring them would be much more effective that engaging them, that way discussions could be about what they were intended to be about. Perhaps I am wrong. I do understand the temptation...
Thank you Dr. Hector Avalos for your fine letter.

It's not "Christians" as a population that get the dander up, it's the willfully ignorant, literalist-fundamentalist minority sect that wants their particular interpretation of their religious text, and only their religious text, taught as science.

OK, I'll bite. For my edification and that of other lurkers, just what is this Comfort bozo's idiocy about bananas and atheists? I'm an atheist, and I can truthfully say that the only sleep I've ever lost over bananas is having to get up for a midnight snack of the delightful tropical fruit. I love bananas! Now, why am I supposed to hate them?

Just Bob said: OK, I'll bite. For my edification and that of other lurkers, just what is this Comfort bozo's idiocy about bananas and atheists? I'm an atheist, and I can truthfully say that the only sleep I've ever lost over bananas is having to get up for a midnight snack of the delightful tropical fruit. I love bananas! Now, why am I supposed to hate them?

OK, I’ll bite. For my edification and that of other lurkers, just what is this Comfort bozo’s idiocy about bananas and atheists?

stevaroni said: If I recall correctly, one of Comforts previous “killer arguments” in support of creation was that bananas absolutely disprove evolution. Bananas, you see, are so perfectly suited to the nutritional needs of apes...

ben said: So by Byers' "reasoning", the existence of a hypothetical religion which made incorrect claims about everything, from biological origins to arithmetic to proper english grammar (and he seems to subscribe to just such a religion himself), would make it unconstitutional to teach any fact at all, for fear of offending pious twits. As it is, virtually every branch of science has content which is at odds with details in the Bible and the thousands of other religious scriptures subscribed to by students in various American public schools. To suggest that avoiding teaching any of this information to students is either practical or constitutionally required is just stupid. And as always, Byers reveals, through continuing to describe the situation as a false dichotomy between science and Genesis (ignoring the existence and importance of the thousands of other religious traditions that exist in America alone), his true agenda--state promotion of his particular religious dogma--or at least protection of that dogma from educated scrutiny of any kind. And despite his failed pretensions at Constitutional scholarship, his presentation is a case in point of exactly what the founding fathers intended to prevent.

Robert Byers said: Not guilty. My motive is freedom of truth seeking on origins in education for the world. Creationists think we will win on the merits. Again I say the law is the law. It is this law that now is used to censor God/genesis in public institutions. A law is invoked against us and then when a thinking creationist does analysis on it BANG you say forget the law and look at practical life. If there is a separation concept that is the origin of the idea control then there is. If the state can teach the bible is false then the state must allow it being taught to be true as rebuttal. It should simply come down to the people voting up or down these teachings. So only the common belief in God/genesis would actually be allowed. Separation is only separate if its both ways. Not just one way.

Robert Byers said: If the state can teach the bible is false then the state must allow it being taught to be true as rebuttal.

Robert Byers said: Separation is only separate if its both ways. Not just one way.

Dave Luckett said: The law, Mr Byers, is not found in what you say the law is based upon, nor on its historical context, nor on the motivations you ascribe to those who wrote it originally. The law is in the hearts and minds of the people, but it consists of the words of the law, as interpreted by the Courts. What does the law say? It says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" This is the full relevant part of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (It goes on to guarantee freedom of the press, speech and assembly, and the right to petition.) What does "the establishment of religion" mean? In the eighteenth century they were absolutely clear on its meaning. It means the use of State power to enforce or to favour one religion over another or others. "Prohibit the free exercise" means allowing any practice that would impede any person from freely exercising religion. Those are specifically forbidden by the basic law of the United States. No powers of the State whatsoever may be used to either end. It must not favour. It must not impede. Now, the State maintains and administers many agencies. Among them are the schools which it funds from taxation revenue. In all of these agencies it is forbidden to favour any religion over any other. That is to say, it may not allow the use of any of its powers, including the power to levy taxation to fund schools, to be used to favour any religion over any other or to impede any religion. If it were to allow the holy book of any one religion to be taught in the public schools as fact, then it would necessarily be doing both. It would be favouring one religion and impeding others. The Courts have consistently ruled in accordance with this principle. In all reason, they could do nothing less. "Equal time" is an appeal to allow the holy book of only one religion - your religion, which is why you desire this - to be taught as if it were demonstrable fact, which it is not. Demonstrable fact observed from physical evidence found in nature is the purview of science, and science alone. There are two ways for you and your co-religionists to have your religion and its holy book taught in the public schools. One way is for you to demonstrate from physical evidence found in nature that your statements about the origin of the Earth, life, the species and Man are correct, and to place this evidence before the experts. You will not do this. There is no such evidence, and there is never likely to be any. But you could at least try. The other way - the way you and your co-religionists prefer - is to change the law in word or in practice so that your religion can be established by the State and preferred, or if possible, enforced by the State. If that were to happen, the great experiment has failed. It would happen over the dead bodies of millions of American patriots of all creeds and of no creed. I don't know if there is a God, but if there is, I pray that He would forbid it.

Robert wrote:

"First you say its the words in the constitution that matter. I insist its the intent behind the words and the words have power only in the intent. Otherwise the words could be arranged as desired."

We have been over this already. The United States Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Your opinion is irrelevant. They have consistently disagreed with you, and for good reason. Get over it.

"The state can not impede any faith/particular faith. Yet in teaching against God/Genesis (by teaching evolution etc) and/or by prohibiting creationism(s) in science class it is doing just that."

That's funny, most real Chrisitans have no problem with evolution. It does not impede their faith at all, why does it impede yours? Is your faith so weak that it can't stand a dose of reality? And the state allows all religions to preach whatever they want in their tax free churches. Do you want to lose that right? Just keep up this nonsensical argument and that is exactly what will happen.

Robert wrote:

"We don’t need to prove our view on creationism has merit."

Really? You do if you claim that it is science. You do if you want it taught in science class. Why in the world would you not want to prove it has merit if you believe that it does? Do you admit that you can't prove it has any merit? Why do you think that that is? Is this the real reason why creationists don't ever do any reasearch or even read any scientific literature? Do you really think that this approach is going to convince anyone of anything? If so, then I guess we don't have to prove evolution either.

DS said: Robert, It doesn't matter how you interpret the Constitution of the United States, what matters is how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court has consistently and correctly ruled that creationism is religion and that evolution is science. Therefore, creationism cannot be taught as science in publically funded schools and it cannot be allowed equal time in science classes. If you disagree, argue with the Supreme Court. If you want to change the situation, change the Supreme court. Your opinion is irrelevant unless you can show standing in the court and present your case to them. Until then you are just engaging in mental masturbation. Many people here could show you exactly why the Supreme Court is right in its position. Suffice it to say that evolution is studied by scientists who do what scientists do and is supported by virtually mountains of evidence. Creationism is not studied by scientists and is not supported by any evidence. It is demonstrably motivated by religious considerations, even though its dishonest proponents desperately try to hide this fact from the courts. Now we can argue these points all you want, but in the end that would be a complete waste of time. The Constitution rightly protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If you don't agree with this position, would you perhaps prefer that the state teach some religion other than yours in public school science classes?

Robert Byers, Creationism is not a science, never was a science and never belongs in a science classroom curriculum, period.

As we have told you repeatedly, teaching Creationism, which is nothing but religious propaganda and religiously inspired pseudoscience, in a science classroom is illegal in the United States because a) it's not science, and b) it's religion that's inappropriately intruding in a secular program.

That, and just because actual science contradicts a literal reading of an English translation of the Bible is a profoundly stupid reason to forbid the teaching of science in a science classroom.

If you don't like the US Supreme Court systems upholding what the US Constitution says, then stay in Canada and shut up about the US.

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: The law is the law. NO state interference with religious ideas. No teaching in public institutions thats its not true, by the concept of separation of church/state.

US law doesn't say that. Currently, it says all government action must have some secular purpose and must not have the primary effect (emphasis mine) of either advancing or inhibiting religion. Teaching Genesis fails on both counts. Evolution doesn't. Evolution, the speed of light, radioactive decay, etc. are all well-supported ideas that disagree in some way with the Bible. No one teaches them with the objective of discrediting the Bible.

So can you tell us how and why Creationism is a science, let alone how and why Creationism is worthy of being legitimately included into a science classroom?

Oh, wait, you can't because you're bullshitting for Jesus, which is exactly how you got plonked at Pharyngula.

Mike said:

Robert Byers said: Yet by teaching evolution the state does just that. It attacks basic doctrines for many Christians etc in implying Genesis is wrong on the issues of origins.

This simplistic, and wrong, interpretation of science and US religious practice is the reason science education is suffering in the US, but science denial fundamentalist/literalists, like Byers here, aren't alone in promoting it. Many of the very people you would hope would be defending science education are very busy promoting the very same framing. Consider that this news of one Iowa school board joining the anti-science campaign, and then doing the right thing, is just the tip of the iceberg. We never hear of all the school boards that are successful in stealthily enacting anti-science policies. There's a much bigger problem out there than most realize, and the problem is political. Its insane to think, as many apparently do, that an extreme atheist anti-religion campaign is going to help science education. What's needed of course, if science education is one's true concern, is the strong, consistent, and utterly true message that science has nothing to say about religious belief, and the scientific community decides what is, and is not, science, not religiously motivated think tanks.

Robert Byers said: If your judgement of what science is about is like your judgement science in origins has nothing to say about religion then you make our case. Oh yes it does have somthing to say. in fact anytime evolutions history is invoked they repeat how it changed religious concepts of man in the natural world as opposed to previous concepts based on the bible.

Robert byers rants: We say the Supreme court has clearly in a few cases on this issue been wrong.

I insist its the intent behind the words (of the Constitution) and the words have power only in the intent.

I insist its the intent behind the words (of the Constitution) and the words have power only in the intent.

Robert wrote:

"We say the Supreme court has clearly in a few cases on this issue been wrong."

Boo hoo. There is nothing you can do about it. Until you change the Supreme Court you are completely impotent. If you can change the Supreme Court, God help us all.

"By the way, you said it doesn’t matter what I think and then stated the court decisions were accurate. So it does matter apparently what you think!"

How do you figure? The Supreme Court happens to agree with me. They did not ask my opinion. It does not matter what I think. I happen to believe what the evidence indicates. Do you think that has something to do with it the fact that the Supreme Court agrees with me and not with you, or is it just coincidence?

"in fact anytime evolutions history is invoked they repeat how it changed religious concepts of man in the natural world as opposed to previous concepts based on the bible."

Well it doesn't seem to have changed your views at all. So which is it? Does science invalidate religious views and you just didn't get the memo? Or can you maintain any religious views you want despite the evidence and therefore all of your previous claims are completely baseless?

Here is question for you. Is there any evidennce at all that could possibly convince you that evolution is true? If so, what would it be? If not, who cares what you think?

Creationism is science! Creationism is science IF you allow the possibility that naturalism is false. If naturalism is false, then there exists the supernatural, which allows for the existence of God. Science wants to base its philosophy on naturalism which says that there is only the material world. Why restrain science arbitrarily? Let science dig for the existence of God or whatever else is out there. If God is allowed as a possible agent in the world, then the theory of Creationism is allowed into science as a possible explanation for the existence of the material world.

Well there, jonsey. Well done. You're another bullshitter for Jesus. But, I'll give the chain a yank anyway. Just exactly how do you propose "science dig for the existence of God" in a manner consistent with established scientific methodolgies?

I would rather allow for the possibility that you are false and that what you posted doesn't actually exist. But, that would be a denial of reality.

Jonesy wrote:

"Science wants to base its philosophy on naturalism which says that there is only the material world. Why restrain science arbitrarily?"

Science places no constraints on philosophy. You and every real scientist are free to believe in any philosophy you want.

What science does use is methodological naturalism. The reason it does this is because it has been shown to work. Every time someone has come up with some supernatural explanation for something, it has turned out to be counter-productive. All of modern technology, modern medicine and modern agriculture are based on the results of methodological naturalism.

If you want to go back to the days when people died from ligntning and infectious diseases because all they could do was pray, go right ahead. But you really can't be stupid enough to seriously ask why the rest of us are not willing to follow.

Jonesy, what consistantly observable differences would exist between a universe designed by *an intelligent designer* and one that has changed over 14 odd billion years as current science presents it?

Please name just one difference that we can measure. (It would be a good idea to include the type of measurement and the value of designed vs. the value of 'evolved'.)

You seen to forget that the topic of discussion is Intelligent Design, as opposed to Creationism. While creationism names a specific deity, intelligent design is broad enough to encompass all explanations for a designer while acknowledging the phenomenally intricate patterns of nature that evolution has yet to explain or emulate. Further, since evolution has yet to propose a viable theory concerning the origin of life (even Richard Dawkins has "no idea"), the theory that it was designed is plausable and should not be wildly offensive to a truly inquisitive mind.

Jonesy said: Creationism is science IF you allow the possibility that naturalism is false.

Oh, and by the way, muslims are Christian...if you include people who don't believe in the divinity of Christ.

eric said:

2) Is evolution falsifiable, and if so, what evidence if any would suffice to totally demolish your theory,

No single bit of evidence would "totally demolish" a theory, you've got the wrong model of science there. However, there is certainly evidence that would lend weight to the ID claim that evolution is incorrect. The more weight you have, the more credible this claim becomes. But its cumulative - there is no "silver bullet." Here's the sort of evidence that would cause the TOE to lose credibility: 1. Precambrian rabbits 2. The equivalent of a morse code message in human DNA stating "Copyright Monsanto Corp., 1982." 3. (Other) animals and humans having a totally different genetic base, for example if humans used alpha-helixes while the rest of the animal kingdom used the standard double helix. 4. Blind cave fish in the U.S. being most genetically similar to blind cave fish in Europe (implying parsimony of design based on habitat), rather than U.S. blind cave fish being most genetically similar to sighted non-cave fish in their locale (implying descent with modification). 5. Discovery of a billion-year-old genetics laboratory and/or tools for genetic manipulation.

j rep,

Please describe the difference between an intelligently design system, a creationist system, and an evolved system. Please describe the values we should expect in each system and why they differ.

Thanks

So, Robert, why then should we not teach the Kwakiutl theory of origins and biological diversity in science class? Or study the Mahabharata? Or the epic of Gilgamesh?

Because it's not science. Likewise your religious text. Get. Over. It.

If scientific facts disagree with any of those, should we be forbidden from mentioning those facts in a science class? Why or why not?

Why should your religious explanation of life be exempt from exposure to reality?

"Further, since evolution has yet to propose a viable theory concerning the origin of life (even Richard Dawkins has “no idea”), the theory that it was designed is plausable and should not be wildly offensive to a truly inquisitive mind."

Okay, j rep, what's your theory?

You know, besides "it wasn't evolution".

Who was the designer, what exactly was designed, when did they do the designing, why did they design things the way they did, and how was the design implemented?

Please show specifically how all evidence from astrophysics, geology, paleontology, anatomy, evolutionary development, molecular biology, and genetics all converge to support your answer.

Please remember that references to pre-scientific literature and philosophy are not evidence.

Pretend, as has been said before, the Beagle sank with all hands lost before she left English waters. The theory of evolution doesn't exist. You need to provide positive evidence for your theory. No winning by default.

Thank you.

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: The law is the law. NO state interference with religious ideas. No teaching in public institutions thats its not true, by the concept of separation of church/state.

US law doesn't say that. Currently, it says all government action must have some secular purpose and must not have the primary effect (emphasis mine) of either advancing or inhibiting religion. Teaching Genesis fails on both counts. Evolution doesn't. Evolution, the speed of light, radioactive decay, etc. are all well-supported ideas that disagree in some way with the Bible. No one teaches them with the objective of discrediting the Bible.

The whole issue of creationism in the public institutions is presented to the public about the concept and laws thereof of separation of church and state. They do. If the state deals with religious ideas then its no longer just about secular matters. Teaching evolution or forbidding God/Genesis , as a matter of law, is surely having a primary result of saying the bible is false. Its not true and it can't defend itself because its not true. Otherwise the situation would be that the state is not allowing on issues of study about origin truth a legitamate position. Clearly the state has a opinion on the truth of scripture here. Its a primary result. So its a primary intent by reasonable standards. Anyways teaching God/Genesis as true, as rebuttal, could likewise be seen as having a secular purpose. The truth on real origins. That it is connected to religion is a secondary matter as far as the law needs to see it. No way around. The censorship of the bible is illegal by the very law used to stop it. No interference of state/church is a simple idea. If one can't teach the bible is true then you can't teach it isn't true. A clear intent of the founders of America.

“There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma.” (Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968, in a vote of 9-0)

By your argument, any religious belief could have a secular purpose on the grounds that it might be true, and teaching anything has the primary effect of inhibiting religion if we can find anyone who believes it conflicts with their religious beliefs. That’s a pretty far-fetched interpretation of the words “secular” and “primary”. In fact, it would render the word “secular” meaningless, since there would no longer be anything that wasn’t secular. It would also imply that teaching evolution serves mainly to attack someone’s beliefs, as opposed to accomplishing other legitimate educational purposes.

fnxtr said: So, Robert, why then should we not teach the Kwakiutl theory of origins and biological diversity in science class? Or study the Mahabharata? Or the epic of Gilgamesh? Because it's not science. Likewise your religious text. Get. Over. It. If scientific facts disagree with any of those, should we be forbidden from mentioning those facts in a science class? Why or why not? Why should your religious explanation of life be exempt from exposure to reality?

Science Avenger said:

Robert Byers said: If the state can teach the bible is false then the state must allow it being taught to be true as rebuttal.

The state should not teach anything about the Bible, pro or con, and for the most part they hold up their end. However, teaching something that conflcts with what the Bible (or any other religious text) says is not the same thing at all. Your position would mandate that teachers consult all religious texts to make sure no lesson runs afoul of any of them, an absurdity of the highest order, especially when one wonders what qualifies certain books as religious. If I write a book declaring myself the creator of the universe, does that qualify as a religious text not to be contradicted in schools? If not, why not?

DS said: Robert wrote: "First you say its the words in the constitution that matter. I insist its the intent behind the words and the words have power only in the intent. Otherwise the words could be arranged as desired." We have been over this already. The United States Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Your opinion is irrelevant. They have consistently disagreed with you, and for good reason. Get over it. "The state can not impede any faith/particular faith. Yet in teaching against God/Genesis (by teaching evolution etc) and/or by prohibiting creationism(s) in science class it is doing just that." That's funny, most real Chrisitans have no problem with evolution. It does not impede their faith at all, why does it impede yours? Is your faith so weak that it can't stand a dose of reality? And the state allows all religions to preach whatever they want in their tax free churches. Do you want to lose that right? Just keep up this nonsensical argument and that is exactly what will happen.

"My answer is that many see evolution as a impediment and so the state is acting illegally."

(Shrug)

Your religion disagrees with reality.

Boo fucking hoo, Robert.

When you have some science to present in science class, present it.

Until then, stop your childish whining, little boy.

Apparently ben was right. You cannot defend teaching your particular origins myth without opening the door to all the others. At which point there will be, as mentioned previously, very little science being taught.

But that's what you want, isn't it. Back to the dark ages.

No thank you.

You are an embarrassment to all Canadians.

Can I get citizenship from Turks and Caicos, do you think?

Robert Byers said: AGAIN. The law is the law. Its not my idea. It is the law used to censor God/genesis in public institutions. You can't ban the bible on a separation concept and then complain when the clear logic is that one must ban criticism also of the bible. Just bring back freedom of thought and drop state interference in origin ideas in America. It won't ruin everything. Well not good things.

Robert, you just refuse to listen.

Science doesn't give a rat's left testicle about your (or any other religion). Religion is specifically about 'faith'. Science is the antithesis of 'faith', nothing may be presented on faith. Everything in science MUST have evidence.

If the evidence goes against what your faith (read: lack of evidence) says, then too bad.

For the umpteenth time, you can beleive what ever you want, I don't care. You may not attempt to force me to present your beliefs in my science classroom.

Finally, why do you pick on evolution? You do realize that ALL science (and most of mathematics) profoundly disagrees with YOUR faith. Why don't you go jump on a math board and proclaim that all mathematicians must teach that Pi equals exactly 3 because that's what the bible says.

As far as that's concerned, the bible doesn't mention computers... so go away.

stevaroni said:

Robert byers rants: We say the Supreme court has clearly in a few cases on this issue been wrong.

You can say anything you damn well please, Robert (that is your constitutional right, after all). But the simple fact of the matter is that you are wrong. It hasn't been "a few cases", it has been every single evolution case ever argued at a federal level. The last time creationism won big was in Scopes, in the 1920's. And theatrics aside,that was a win based on a technical issue in specific structure of the case (The judge at one point stopped the trial and actually expunged the famous Bryan / Darrow examination from the judicial record on the grounds that the religious argument had no bearing on the facts of the case). There are one or two establishment clause cases heard every year at the supreme court level, and maybe a dozen more significant cases at the federal level. They overwhelmingly break on the side of keeping religion and government separate, and they have done so for 90 years.

Robert Byers said: Anyways what is needed is a careful movement to address head on the accurate interpretation of the constitution . Take it to the people and then take it to the high corts. Make a great case and I'm sure the good guys will win.

Dave Luckett said: Robert Byers says, in part

I insist its the intent behind the words (of the Constitution) and the words have power only in the intent.

Not so. The words embody the law. As I remarked, the law resides in the hearts and minds of the people, but it is expressed in words - the words of the Constitution. You have no idea of the inward intent of the founders, and it is in any case irrelevant. As a matter of fact, most of them - not all - had in mind a somewhat gentrified rule by landowners, a mixed republic, and most - not all - would have rejected the 'radical' democracy that actually resulted. But the words of the Constitution mean what I said they mean, as the Courts have consistently ruled, and you do not actually deny this. You simply wish to impose some other meaning, not supported by those words, to suit yourself. You argue that the literal inerrancy of the Bible is a belief essential to your particular faith. Very well. But you cannot then argue that it is not a religious belief, for you have given the lie to your own words. As it is a religious belief, it cannot be taught in the State schools, for that would be to establish a religion - your religion. Of course that is what you desire, and you are mendaciously arguing black is white in order to achieve it. Have the courage of your convictions, man! Say plainly that you want your religion favoured and imposed on your fellow-citizens by the State, and have done with it. You will not achieve that so long as there is respect for the rights of others in America; but the mendacity and dishonesty of your position reeks to the eye.

Robert, why this fixation with the US constitution? I was under the impression you were Canadian.

Robert Byers, you are not convincing anyone by lying about what US law says about teaching religious propaganda in science classrooms.

fnxtr said: So, Robert, why then should we not teach the Kwakiutl theory of origins and biological diversity in science class? Or study the Mahabharata? Or the epic of Gilgamesh? Because it's not science. Likewise your religious text. Get. Over. It. If scientific facts disagree with any of those, should we be forbidden from mentioning those facts in a science class? Why or why not? Why should your religious explanation of life be exempt from exposure to reality?

Robert Byers said: I am in total integrity in my intents.

Robert Byers said:

fnxtr said: So, Robert, why then should we not teach the Kwakiutl theory of origins and biological diversity in science class? Or study the Mahabharata? Or the epic of Gilgamesh? Because it's not science. Likewise your religious text. Get. Over. It. If scientific facts disagree with any of those, should we be forbidden from mentioning those facts in a science class? Why or why not? Why should your religious explanation of life be exempt from exposure to reality?

Fine. Examine us but let us, and you must, defend and examine evolution. We welcome freedom of thought. its your side who can't allow this. your right. Belief in evolution would drop to a pittance under organized creationist arguments in the judgement of the public.

Robert Byers said:

fnxtr said: So, Robert, why then should we not teach the Kwakiutl theory of origins and biological diversity in science class? Or study the Mahabharata? Or the epic of Gilgamesh? Because it's not science. Likewise your religious text. Get. Over. It. If scientific facts disagree with any of those, should we be forbidden from mentioning those facts in a science class? Why or why not? Why should your religious explanation of life be exempt from exposure to reality?

Fine. Examine us but let us, and you must, defend and examine evolution. We welcome freedom of thought. its your side who can't allow this. your right. Belief in evolution would drop to a pittance under organized creationist arguments in the judgement of the public.

Robert Byers said: AGAIN. The law is the law. Its not my idea. It is the law used to censor God/genesis in public institutions. You can't ban the bible on a separation concept and then complain when the clear logic is that one must ban criticism also of the bible.

We have now passed from the mendacious and perverse to the actual denial of objective reality altogether, but what astonishes me is that Byers has managed to go even beyond that.

"Again i say its just a coincedence that Genesis is connected to religion. Creationism is a assertion of how origins of this or that came about. Its too bad if it bumos into religion. Its not a religious assertion primarily. its secondary."

A coincidence that Genesis is connected to religion? How is it possible to say such a thing and imagine that anyone - anyone - will ever take you seriously again? Genesis was collated, written, redacted and published specifically as a religious text. It has always been used as a religious text. It cannot with any honesty, any respect for reality whatsoever, be regarded as anything else than as a religious text. Co-incidence, my foot!

But your falseness goes even further than that. By denying that Genesis is essentially and necessarily religious in nature, you are denying your own creed. Your sect says that the Genesis account is the inspired word of God. That's why (you say) it is authoritative, inerrant, and must be taken literally. Since, to you, it is the word of God, for you now turn around and say that it is only coincidentally connected to religion is not only a denial of palpable reality, but an act of shameless hypocrisy. You lie, Mr Byers, and I give you the lie to your face.

John_S said:

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: The law is the law. NO state interference with religious ideas. No teaching in public institutions thats its not true, by the concept of separation of church/state.

US law doesn't say that. Currently, it says all government action must have some secular purpose and must not have the primary effect (emphasis mine) of either advancing or inhibiting religion. Teaching Genesis fails on both counts. Evolution doesn't. Evolution, the speed of light, radioactive decay, etc. are all well-supported ideas that disagree in some way with the Bible. No one teaches them with the objective of discrediting the Bible.

The whole issue of creationism in the public institutions is presented to the public about the concept and laws thereof of separation of church and state. They do. If the state deals with religious ideas then its no longer just about secular matters. Teaching evolution or forbidding God/Genesis , as a matter of law, is surely having a primary result of saying the bible is false. Its not true and it can't defend itself because its not true. Otherwise the situation would be that the state is not allowing on issues of study about origin truth a legitamate position. Clearly the state has a opinion on the truth of scripture here. Its a primary result. So its a primary intent by reasonable standards. Anyways teaching God/Genesis as true, as rebuttal, could likewise be seen as having a secular purpose. The truth on real origins. That it is connected to religion is a secondary matter as far as the law needs to see it. No way around. The censorship of the bible is illegal by the very law used to stop it. No interference of state/church is a simple idea. If one can't teach the bible is true then you can't teach it isn't true. A clear intent of the founders of America.

By your argument, any religious belief could have a secular purpose on the grounds that it might be true, and teaching anything has the primary effect of inhibiting religion if we can find anyone who believes it conflicts with their religious beliefs. That’s a pretty far-fetched interpretation of the words “secular” and “primary”. In fact, it would render the word “secular” meaningless, since there would no longer be anything that wasn’t secular. It would also imply that teaching evolution serves mainly to attack someone’s beliefs, as opposed to accomplishing other legitimate educational purposes. In any event, the latter assertion, or something near it, was tested in court:

“There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma.” (Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968, in a vote of 9-0)

What differences between a universe that was designed and one that evolved? No observable differences, but different interpretations. Although, a designed universe would have order and beauty and purpose. If you can discern order, beauty, and purpose, you can discern evidence for a Creator. Also, the fact that the universe is so well fine-tuned and fragile in order to support life points to a designer. If gravitational pull was slighter greater or slightly less, things wouldn't work out. Statistically speaking, unless you hold to a multi-verse, the fact of life anywhere in the universe is very, very close to zero percent chance of happening.

The Big Bang Theory points to a first cause, to a beginning of the universe. Things that begin are caused to begin. This is a real problem for evolutionists.

Jonesy, you're an idiot: the universe does not biologically evolve, and what happened before the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with biology.

People who suggest the Big Bang is supposed to be a problem for Evolution(ary Biology) are lying idiots.

Robert wrote:

"Fine. Examine us but let us, and you must, defend and examine evolution. We welcome freedom of thought. its your side who can’t allow this. your right. Belief in evolution would drop to a pittance under organized creationist arguments in the judgement of the public."

Fine. I examines you as I must. yours is nuts. it is your side who can't allow anything. your wrong. Gramatically and every other way.

What in the world makes you think that anyone will not allow you to examine evolution? Who exactly is it that is stopping you and what exactly are they stopping you from doing? Are you actively working in a laboratory? That is the way to examine evolution you know. If you are not, again, who exactly is stopping you?

Why in the world do you think that evolution cannot stand up to fallacious creationist arguments? These arguments have been around for one hundred and fifty years. Real scientists just don't buy it because creationism has no evidence whatsoever. Real scientists are open to evidence. You have exactly none. Quit crying in your soup and get some evidence or just go away.

And by the way, the judgement of the public is irrelevant. Science is not a democracy, even though you desperately want it to be. What if you got your hearts desire and Hinduism or Buddism won the populat vote? Would yo still want science to be decided by popularity?

Why don't you take your impotent rage elsewhere. No one here is buyiing it.

Robert wrote:

"Creationism is not asking for censorship but a end to it. We shall overcome. Arkansas courts also will agree."

One last time, just to be fair. Not allowing religion to be taught as science in government funded schools is not censorship. No one cares if you think it is. Get over it already.

And no, no local court can overthrow the Consitution or the Supreme Court. Get over it.

You really need another argument man. This one is getting real old real fast.

DS said: You really need another argument man. This one is getting real old real fast.

Stanton, in all fairness, jonesy wasn't arguing that the Universe evolved, but that an ordered Universe argues for a Creator, that a specific point of origin argues for a prime cause, and that because life can only originate under narrowly defined conditions which the Universe provides, that the Universe was designed to produce and harbour life.

These arguments are all very disputable, and the dispute only has the effect of demonstrating that arguments for a Creator are always inconclusive.

As you point out, all such arguments do not bear on the question of whether the species evolved or were separately created. All known evidence from nature is for the former. There is no evidence from nature for the latter.

Jonesy said: What differences between a universe that was designed and one that evolved? No observable differences, but different interpretations.

Although, a designed universe would have order and beauty and purpose. If you can discern order, beauty, and purpose, you can discern evidence for a Creator.

Also, the fact that the universe is so well fine-tuned and fragile in order to support life points to a designer. If gravitational pull was slighter greater or slightly less, things wouldn't work out. Statistically speaking, unless you hold to a multi-verse, the fact of life anywhere in the universe is very, very close to zero percent chance of happening.

The Big Bang Theory points to a first cause, to a beginning of the universe. Things that begin are caused to begin. This is a real problem for evolutionists.

Jonesey writes... The Big Bang Theory points to a first cause, to a beginning of the universe. Things that begin are caused to begin. This is a real problem for evolutionists.

Jonesy said: (in effect) Gee whiz, this universe thing sure is complicated! Therefore Jesus.

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: The law is the law. NO state interference with religious ideas. No teaching in public institutions thats its not true, by the concept of separation of church/state.

US law doesn't say that. Currently, it says all government action must have some secular purpose and must not have the primary effect (emphasis mine) of either advancing or inhibiting religion. Teaching Genesis fails on both counts. Evolution doesn't. Evolution, the speed of light, radioactive decay, etc. are all well-supported ideas that disagree in some way with the Bible. No one teaches them with the objective of discrediting the Bible.

The whole issue of creationism in the public institutions is presented to the public about the concept and laws thereof of separation of church and state. They do. If the state deals with religious ideas then its no longer just about secular matters. Teaching evolution or forbidding God/Genesis , as a matter of law, is surely having a primary result of saying the bible is false. Its not true and it can't defend itself because its not true. Otherwise the situation would be that the state is not allowing on issues of study about origin truth a legitamate position. Clearly the state has a opinion on the truth of scripture here. Its a primary result. So its a primary intent by reasonable standards. Anyways teaching God/Genesis as true, as rebuttal, could likewise be seen as having a secular purpose. The truth on real origins. That it is connected to religion is a secondary matter as far as the law needs to see it. No way around. The censorship of the bible is illegal by the very law used to stop it. No interference of state/church is a simple idea. If one can't teach the bible is true then you can't teach it isn't true. A clear intent of the founders of America.

By your argument, any religious belief could have a secular purpose on the grounds that it might be true, and teaching anything has the primary effect of inhibiting religion if we can find anyone who believes it conflicts with their religious beliefs. That’s a pretty far-fetched interpretation of the words “secular” and “primary”. In fact, it would render the word “secular” meaningless, since there would no longer be anything that wasn’t secular. It would also imply that teaching evolution serves mainly to attack someone’s beliefs, as opposed to accomplishing other legitimate educational purposes. In any event, the latter assertion, or something near it, was tested in court:

“There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma.” (Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968, in a vote of 9-0)

If a religious belief happens to be a true belief held by the people then NO it can't be censored by the state. Anyways the object here is not religion but about the origins of important things. That the religion might get it right is secondary. The primary purpose of creationism is the truth on origins and defence against charges its not true. Your quote of some court decision is fine. The issue is still however about the state censoring the bible on origins and so directly saying its false. then teaching an alternative that repeats that it is false. This decision is done to stop the state from prohibiting evolution because it contradicts the bible. Yes this is fine if its based on the idea of the separation of church and state. Yet also the state must not prohibit teachings on origins just because they have connection to some religion. Its a interference with knowledge and a attack by the state on the religious beliefs since it allows only the one side. This case was not about creationism but about evolution being permitted. In fact it all comes back to the common sense that knowledge must not be interfered with by the state or the church in public institutions. \Freedom of thought is the object of the enlightened founders of America and true Americans today. Creationism is not asking for censorship but a end to it. We shall overcome. Arkansas courts also will agree.

Jonesy said: Why restrain science arbitrarily?

Robert Byers said: Your quote of some court decision is fine. The issue is still however about the state censoring the bible on origins and so directly saying its false. then teaching an alternative that repeats that it is false. This decision is done to stop the state from prohibiting evolution because it contradicts the bible. Yes this is fine if its based on the idea of the separation of church and state.

“the Creationism Act is designed either

• To promote the theory of creation science which embodies a particular religious tenet by requiring that creation science be taught whenever evolution is taught, or, • To prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects by forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught.” (punctuation and formatting mine)

Science Avenger said:

Robert Byers said: AGAIN. The law is the law. Its not my idea. It is the law used to censor God/genesis in public institutions. You can't ban the bible on a separation concept and then complain when the clear logic is that one must ban criticism also of the bible.

What part of "The state should not teach anything about the Bible, pro or con" was unclear to you? The Bible is a religious text, so it doesn't belong in the science class, and neither do any critiques of it. That some of the science may conflict with something in the bible is completely irrelevant, and is not the same, at all, as a Biblical criticsm. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from ideas that conflict with it.

Dave Luckett said: We have now passed from the mendacious and perverse to the actual denial of objective reality altogether, but what astonishes me is that Byers has managed to go even beyond that. "Again i say its just a coincedence that Genesis is connected to religion. Creationism is a assertion of how origins of this or that came about. Its too bad if it bumos into religion. Its not a religious assertion primarily. its secondary." A coincidence that Genesis is connected to religion? How is it possible to say such a thing and imagine that anyone - anyone - will ever take you seriously again? Genesis was collated, written, redacted and published specifically as a religious text. It has always been used as a religious text. It cannot with any honesty, any respect for reality whatsoever, be regarded as anything else than as a religious text. Co-incidence, my foot! But your falseness goes even further than that. By denying that Genesis is essentially and necessarily religious in nature, you are denying your own creed. Your sect says that the Genesis account is the inspired word of God. That's why (you say) it is authoritative, inerrant, and must be taken literally. Since, to you, it is the word of God, for you now turn around and say that it is only coincidentally connected to religion is not only a denial of palpable reality, but an act of shameless hypocrisy. You lie, Mr Byers, and I give you the lie to your face.

Once more. The Bible is a religious text. You assert that it is inerrant in matters of fact, but that is a religious precept with no evidential support apart from your own assertions. (It is a religious precept peculiar to your own small sect, and is not held by the majority of Christians, but that is immaterial here.) That "Biblical inerrancy" is a religious precept is undeniable, and your various attempts to deny it are idle. The State cannot teach religious texts or precepts as fact in schools, for that would be to establish a religion.

The logic of this is self-evidently obvious. Yes, yes, we all know you refuse to accept it. Nobody cares.

Lightning is caused by ionized air masses, not Thor's hammer. Is it okay to teach that in school, or will we offend the Norse religionists?

How about volcanoes, Robert? Can we say it's a buildup of magma under the upper crust of the earth, or will the Greek God followers insist we're dissing Hephaestus?

Your defense of not teaching science because it disagrees with religion is just bullshit, and you know it, crazy man.

And why are you hassling the U.S. anyway? Can't get any traction up here, huh?

Robert Byers said: I stand by and insist I'm right.

Robert wrote:

"I stand by and insist I’m right. remember we are talking about real life here."

Yea and I stand by and insist your wrong. remember, your opinion is irrelevant. it doesn't matter in the least what you think. we are talking about reality here and the reality in this country is that you don't get to force your religious views on others in public funded institutions. you don't like it, that's too bad.

you have not refuted one argument against you. you have not dealt with one real issue. you obviously are never going to change your mind. you obviously are never going to listen to any reason or valid argument. just go away already. everyone is tired or your repetitious nonsense.

and learn some grammar and spelling already.

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: Your quote of some court decision is fine. The issue is still however about the state censoring the bible on origins and so directly saying its false. then teaching an alternative that repeats that it is false. This decision is done to stop the state from prohibiting evolution because it contradicts the bible. Yes this is fine if its based on the idea of the separation of church and state.

Good. Then we agree that the state isn’t prohibited from teaching evolution on the grounds that it offends your particular theology. That’s what was established in Epperson v. Arkansas. That dispenses with your first alternative: to forbid teaching both evolution and Genesis. Now let’s address your other alternative: teaching both. Your “either/or” approach (as embodied in the Louisiana “Creationism Act”) was addressed in Edwards v. Aguillard. The “Creationism Act” was invalidated because:

“the Creationism Act is designed either

• To promote the theory of creation science which embodies a particular religious tenet by requiring that creation science be taught whenever evolution is taught, or, • To prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects by forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught.” (punctuation and formatting mine)

You’ve argued that religious beliefs are secular because they may turn out to be true. Setting aside the mountain of secular evidence that Genesis is not literally true despite the various ad hoc hypotheses and arguments from ignorance invoked to prop it up, this is mere creationist sophistry. You’re not going to find many rational people who honestly hold that Genesis isn’t really a religious belief or that teaching it has a secular purpose. The courts certainly haven’t.

Robert,

OK I give up. You are right and everyone else is wrong. go right ahead, preach your religion in public school science classes.

Oh, before you do, you might want to take a look at the Freshwater thread. that is what will happen to you if you pull this crap. But please, be my guest.

Robert wrote:

"IF the state bans the bible then likewise the state must ban opposition to the bible. Separation is separation."

Great. The only way that you can stop religious fanatics form preaching their whacky ideas in science class is for the government to ban science! Terrific. Exactly how long do you think that your government will last after that?

Look Rob, I hate to break it to you, but here in the United States no one has banned the Bible. You can preach anything you want in your tax free churches. You can teach compartative religion until the cows come home and crap all over you. You can teach the Bible as literature or poetry or anything else you want, -EXCEPT SCIENCE. That isn't banning, anymore than your being sent to the bathroom wall will be banning.

Now, have you started preaching in science class yet? If not, why not? If you are so sure the law is on your side, why not invite a law suit? Why not go to court and prove your case? Why not pay for it out of your own pocket? On wait ... that's been tried hasn't it? Now what was the outcome again?

Robert wrote: F the state bans the bible then likewise the state must ban opposition to the bible. Separation is separation.

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: Your quote of some court decision is fine. The issue is still however about the state censoring the bible on origins and so directly saying its false. then teaching an alternative that repeats that it is false. This decision is done to stop the state from prohibiting evolution because it contradicts the bible. Yes this is fine if its based on the idea of the separation of church and state.

Good. Then we agree that the state isn’t prohibited from teaching evolution on the grounds that it offends your particular theology. That’s what was established in Epperson v. Arkansas. That dispenses with your first alternative: to forbid teaching both evolution and Genesis. Now let’s address your other alternative: teaching both. Your “either/or” approach (as embodied in the Louisiana “Creationism Act”) was addressed in Edwards v. Aguillard. The “Creationism Act” was invalidated because:

“the Creationism Act is designed either

• To promote the theory of creation science which embodies a particular religious tenet by requiring that creation science be taught whenever evolution is taught, or, • To prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects by forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught.” (punctuation and formatting mine)

You’ve argued that religious beliefs are secular because they may turn out to be true. Setting aside the mountain of secular evidence that Genesis is not literally true despite the various ad hoc hypotheses and arguments from ignorance invoked to prop it up, this is mere creationist sophistry. You’re not going to find many rational people who honestly hold that Genesis isn’t really a religious belief or that teaching it has a secular purpose. The courts certainly haven’t.

I didn't say that. i said if the concept of separation is active THEN the state cannot stop evolution teachings. Yet ONLY if there is separation. ONLY if likewise the state does not stop creationism. IF the state bans the bible then likewise the state must ban opposition to the bible. Separation is separation. Right now its only one way and so illegal by the intents of the constitution. Another liberal error. That genesis is 'religious" has no relevance to its accuracy as people see it. Its true to some and not to others. Its a idea about origins. Its none of the business of courts to say its religious. its a idea whose origins is beside the point. Likewise any Opposition to a immoral or evil act could be censored because of a religious origin in the opposition. The state is engaged in censoring ideas on origins that are very common. None of its business. Further to say its ban is because the origins ideas are religious is to admit the state is saying the religion is false. Since clearly origin teaching is presented as the truth and whole truth to the student. The state can't say its hands are tied. The state does have a opinion on God/Genesis. The founders of the constitution would laugh to scorn the present court claims on this matter.

Robert rants... That genesis is ‘religious” has no relevance to its accuracy as people see it.

Its true to some and not to others.

Robert Byers said:

Science Avenger said: The Bible is a religious text, so it doesn't belong in the science class, and neither do any critiques of it. That some of the science may conflict with something in the bible is completely irrelevant, and is not the same, at all, as a Biblical criticsm. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from ideas that conflict with it.

it is not irrelevant if "science' is saying the bible is wrong.

it is not irrelevant if “science’ is saying the bible is wrong.

So Robert, if I understand you, your position is this:

Any scientific finding that contradicts ANY religious belief CANNOT be taught in a public school unless that religious belief is also taught as the alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation.

Correct?

• Government teaching of Genesis violates the Establishment Clause because teaching it has no secular purpose.
• Teaching of Genesis doesn’t acquire a secular purpose simply by redefining the word “secular” out of existence with far-fetched rhetoric or by suggesting that Genesis is merely a secular idea that coincidentally happens to agree with someone’s beliefs.
• Teaching evolution has a secular purpose and therefore does not violate the Establishment Clause.
• Teaching evolution doesn’t violate the Free Exercise Clause, either. In the US, you’re free to believe anything you want. (BTW, see http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html for some more beliefs that probably disagree with science).
• Teaching doesn’t have to be tailored so that it doesn't disagree with anyone’s religion. That was decided 9-0 by a panel of judges appointed by four different presidents.

DS said: Robert wrote: "IF the state bans the bible then likewise the state must ban opposition to the bible. Separation is separation." Great. The only way that you can stop religious fanatics form preaching their whacky ideas in science class is for the government to ban science! Terrific. Exactly how long do you think that your government will last after that? Look Rob, I hate to break it to you, but here in the United States no one has banned the Bible. You can preach anything you want in your tax free churches. You can teach compartative religion until the cows come home and crap all over you. You can teach the Bible as literature or poetry or anything else you want, -EXCEPT SCIENCE. That isn't banning, anymore than your being sent to the bathroom wall will be banning. Now, have you started preaching in science class yet? If not, why not? If you are so sure the law is on your side, why not invite a law suit? Why not go to court and prove your case? Why not pay for it out of your own pocket? On wait ... that's been tried hasn't it? Now what was the outcome again?

ben said:

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: Your quote of some court decision is fine. The issue is still however about the state censoring the bible on origins and so directly saying its false. then teaching an alternative that repeats that it is false. This decision is done to stop the state from prohibiting evolution because it contradicts the bible. Yes this is fine if its based on the idea of the separation of church and state.

Good. Then we agree that the state isn’t prohibited from teaching evolution on the grounds that it offends your particular theology. That’s what was established in Epperson v. Arkansas. That dispenses with your first alternative: to forbid teaching both evolution and Genesis. Now let’s address your other alternative: teaching both. Your “either/or” approach (as embodied in the Louisiana “Creationism Act”) was addressed in Edwards v. Aguillard. The “Creationism Act” was invalidated because:

“the Creationism Act is designed either

• To promote the theory of creation science which embodies a particular religious tenet by requiring that creation science be taught whenever evolution is taught, or, • To prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects by forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught.” (punctuation and formatting mine)

You’ve argued that religious beliefs are secular because they may turn out to be true. Setting aside the mountain of secular evidence that Genesis is not literally true despite the various ad hoc hypotheses and arguments from ignorance invoked to prop it up, this is mere creationist sophistry. You’re not going to find many rational people who honestly hold that Genesis isn’t really a religious belief or that teaching it has a secular purpose. The courts certainly haven’t.

I didn't say that. i said if the concept of separation is active THEN the state cannot stop evolution teachings. Yet ONLY if there is separation. ONLY if likewise the state does not stop creationism. IF the state bans the bible then likewise the state must ban opposition to the bible. Separation is separation. Right now its only one way and so illegal by the intents of the constitution. Another liberal error. That genesis is 'religious" has no relevance to its accuracy as people see it. Its true to some and not to others. Its a idea about origins. Its none of the business of courts to say its religious. its a idea whose origins is beside the point. Likewise any Opposition to a immoral or evil act could be censored because of a religious origin in the opposition. The state is engaged in censoring ideas on origins that are very common. None of its business. Further to say its ban is because the origins ideas are religious is to admit the state is saying the religion is false. Since clearly origin teaching is presented as the truth and whole truth to the student. The state can't say its hands are tied. The state does have a opinion on God/Genesis. The founders of the constitution would laugh to scorn the present court claims on this matter.

When will this dishonest fool deal with the fact that he's setting up an utterly dishonest and false dichotomy between evolution and the Bible? His "reasoning", applied fairly, would ban the teaching of any fact which conflicts with any religious text, anywhere. Of course, he applies it unfairly, as though his interpretation of his bible is the only religious scripture which needs his alleged constitutional protection from reality, conveniently ignoring the vast majority of faiths while seeking special protection for his own. Again, Robert, when will you address this glaring inconsistency? A prediction: You won't. A certainty: You won't do so coherently.

Science Avenger said:

Robert Byers said:

Science Avenger said: The Bible is a religious text, so it doesn't belong in the science class, and neither do any critiques of it. That some of the science may conflict with something in the bible is completely irrelevant, and is not the same, at all, as a Biblical criticsm. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from ideas that conflict with it.

it is not irrelevant if "science' is saying the bible is wrong.

But the science in question, and the teaching of it in schools, doesn't say that. You are ranting against an obvious straw man. Look, I'll make it real simple: 1) "The Bible is wrong" 2) "Species are born of previous species via mutation, natural and other selection pressures" Now boys and girls, which of those statements says the Bible is wrong? #1, right. #2 doesn't mention the Bible at all, and therefore does not violate the seperation principle. This isn't rocket science.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: So Robert, if I understand you, your position is this: Any scientific finding that contradicts ANY religious belief CANNOT be taught in a public school unless that religious belief is also taught as the alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation. Correct?

John_S said: Robert has started repeating the same invalid arguments, so I’ll close by summarizing what I’ve said so far:

• Government teaching of Genesis violates the Establishment Clause because teaching it has no secular purpose.
• Teaching of Genesis doesn’t acquire a secular purpose simply by redefining the word “secular” out of existence with far-fetched rhetoric or by suggesting that Genesis is merely a secular idea that coincidentally happens to agree with someone’s beliefs.
• Teaching evolution has a secular purpose and therefore does not violate the Establishment Clause.
• Teaching evolution doesn’t violate the Free Exercise Clause, either. In the US, you’re free to believe anything you want. (BTW, see http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html for some more beliefs that probably disagree with science).
• Teaching doesn’t have to be tailored so that it doesn't disagree with anyone’s religion. That was decided 9-0 by a panel of judges appointed by four different presidents.

Robert Byers said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: So Robert, if I understand you, your position is this: Any scientific finding that contradicts ANY religious belief CANNOT be taught in a public school unless that religious belief is also taught as the alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation. Correct?

correct that no finding can be taught that contradicts any faith. thats the law. thats the law now used to censor creationism

I told you before that you lie, Mr Byers. You continue to lie.

It is blatantly obvious that Genesis is a religious text first and foremost. To say that it is 'first a secular idea on origins' is an arrant and transparent untruth, and you know it.

It was conceived, selected, written, redacted, published and translated for religious purposes by people who throughout the process were acting for religious motives, as you are. The idea that Genesis must be factually correct is a religious idea, stemming from the strictly religious belief that it is the revealed word of God, with a grotesque sectarian misunderstanding superimposed on that, that it must be taken literally.

If it were not for that belief, and that misunderstanding, there would be no dispute. If you were able to accept either that the Genesis accounts are not inerrant in matters of fact, or that it is unnecessary to take them literally, you wouldn't be here at all. But you cannot accept either of those postions, solely because of your religious beliefs.

All these facts you know very well, and you continue to deny them for reasons of expediency.

As I said to you before, have the courage of your convictions, man. Stop denying your creed. Stop telling us that Genesis isn't a religious text, when it palpably and plainly is one, and you palpably and plainly regard it as one, and further insist that only one interpretation is acceptable, simply because that is the dogma of your sect.

Stop dissembling your motivations. You want creationism taught in the public schools, not because you have formed the opinion after much study that it is supported by the evidence - you have not even tried to present any evidence -, and not even because some proportion of Americans agree with you, but specifically, wholly, solely and completely because of your religion. Only that and nothing more.

In short, sir, stop lying. Nobody believes you.

Robert wrote:

"correct that no finding can be taught that contradicts any faith. thats the law. thats the law now used to censor creationism..."

Great. Well Robert, I hate to break it to you, but I have my own religion. It is called evolution. I have faith in evolution. I don't need no stinkin evidence, I gots faith. It would actually be a bad thing for me to have any evidence, cause then I wouldn't need no faith.

So now Robert, I hope you can see that it is illegal for anything to be taught that contradicts my faith, right? Therefore, by your own logic, it is illegal for anything to be taught in public schools that cointradicts evolution! Perfect. Problem solved.

You really should reconsider your position Robert. It is illogical in the extreme and totally divorced from all reality. But then again, no one cares. No matter what your opinion, more rational people actually make and enforce the laws in the United States, at least for now. You can go ahead and break the law if you choose, but then you would be violating the scriptural commandment about rendering unto Caesar. You do know that that doesn't refer just to Julius right? Of course you already ignored the one about bearing false witness, so I guess your credibility is already shot to hell.

Dave Luckett said: I told you before that you lie, Mr Byers. You continue to lie. It is blatantly obvious that Genesis is a religious text first and foremost. To say that it is 'first a secular idea on origins' is an arrant and transparent untruth, and you know it. It was conceived, selected, written, redacted, published and translated for religious purposes by people who throughout the process were acting for religious motives, as you are. The idea that Genesis must be factually correct is a religious idea, stemming from the strictly religious belief that it is the revealed word of God, with a grotesque sectarian misunderstanding superimposed on that, that it must be taken literally. If it were not for that belief, and that misunderstanding, there would be no dispute. If you were able to accept either that the Genesis accounts are not inerrant in matters of fact, or that it is unnecessary to take them literally, you wouldn't be here at all. But you cannot accept either of those postions, solely because of your religious beliefs. All these facts you know very well, and you continue to deny them for reasons of expediency. As I said to you before, have the courage of your convictions, man. Stop denying your creed. Stop telling us that Genesis isn't a religious text, when it palpably and plainly is one, and you palpably and plainly regard it as one, and further insist that only one interpretation is acceptable, simply because that is the dogma of your sect. Stop dissembling your motivations. You want creationism taught in the public schools, not because you have formed the opinion after much study that it is supported by the evidence - you have not even tried to present any evidence -, and not even because some proportion of Americans agree with you, but specifically, wholly, solely and completely because of your religion. Only that and nothing more. In short, sir, stop lying. Nobody believes you.

I noticed that Robert Byers still hasn't given an honest or even coherent reason why the account of Genesis should be taught in American science classrooms in place of actual science.

Is he one of those compulsive liars who are physically incapable of telling the truth due to brain damage?

Stanton said: I noticed that Robert Byers still hasn't given an honest or even coherent reason why the account of Genesis should be taught in American science classrooms in place of actual science. Is he one of those compulsive liars who are physically incapable of telling the truth due to brain damage?

Stanton: Yes. Waste of time to argue. He's just ... um, what's the word... oh, yeah: nuts.

Robert Byers said: The state confidently teaches evolution etc is true. So the state is either saying by this officially Genesis is not true or even if it is the teaching will be as if it is utterly not true.

Robert Byers said: [I]ts not a straw man. its a legal line of reasoning. The first act is that the state can't allow Genesis. Just because they say its religion. So either the state is saying Genesis is not true or even if true it can't talk about.

Act two. The state confidently teaches evolution etc is true. So the state is either saying by this officially Genesis is not true or even if it is the teaching will be as if it is utterly not true.

Under Byers' inane "constitutional" protection of religious claims from reality-based scrutiny, what would validate a given truth claim as being deserving of specific protection? Couldn't any deluded individual claim that any given fact is contradictory their own particular belief system, and therefore demand it be removed from the curriculum? Would this edit be done nationwide, or only in the school district attended by the children of the particular crazy person? Or in the school district where the crazy person pays taxes? What decision-making bodies would decide what it is that various scriptures claimed to begin with, so we could understand which contradictory facts could not be taught?

Implementation of these concepts would not merely paralyze education, it would eliminate it entirely. The Bible tells us that pi = 3. It is impossible to even begin to teach mathematics without opening the door to objective discovery that this is simply not true. Imagining a school cafeteria which attempted to adhere to the dietary restrictions of every religion in the world gives a clear picture of the logical results of Byers' absurd notions. Had the US constitution been applied as Byers suggests it should since its inception, there would be no United States of America, just another cautionary tale about what happens when religious nuts get their hands on the levers of civil society.

Byers' reasoning is as poorly thought-out as his syntax. He thinks himself to be proposing fairness, but he really epitomizes typical religious fanaticism--poorly thought-out ideas, applied with extreme zeal. I think it's time to move on, this guy is one intellectual step above Time Cube and a lot less entertaining.

Dave Luckett said: I told you before that you lie, Mr Byers. You continue to lie. It is blatantly obvious that Genesis is a religious text first and foremost. To say that it is 'first a secular idea on origins' is an arrant and transparent untruth, and you know it. It was conceived, selected, written, redacted, published and translated for religious purposes by people who throughout the process were acting for religious motives, as you are. The idea that Genesis must be factually correct is a religious idea, stemming from the strictly religious belief that it is the revealed word of God, with a grotesque sectarian misunderstanding superimposed on that, that it must be taken literally. If it were not for that belief, and that misunderstanding, there would be no dispute. If you were able to accept either that the Genesis accounts are not inerrant in matters of fact, or that it is unnecessary to take them literally, you wouldn't be here at all. But you cannot accept either of those postions, solely because of your religious beliefs. All these facts you know very well, and you continue to deny them for reasons of expediency. As I said to you before, have the courage of your convictions, man. Stop denying your creed. Stop telling us that Genesis isn't a religious text, when it palpably and plainly is one, and you palpably and plainly regard it as one, and further insist that only one interpretation is acceptable, simply because that is the dogma of your sect. Stop dissembling your motivations. You want creationism taught in the public schools, not because you have formed the opinion after much study that it is supported by the evidence - you have not even tried to present any evidence -, and not even because some proportion of Americans agree with you, but specifically, wholly, solely and completely because of your religion. Only that and nothing more. In short, sir, stop lying. Nobody believes you.

DS said: Robert wrote: "correct that no finding can be taught that contradicts any faith. thats the law. thats the law now used to censor creationism..." Great. Well Robert, I hate to break it to you, but I have my own religion. It is called evolution. I have faith in evolution. I don't need no stinkin evidence, I gots faith. It would actually be a bad thing for me to have any evidence, cause then I wouldn't need no faith. So now Robert, I hope you can see that it is illegal for anything to be taught that contradicts my faith, right? Therefore, by your own logic, it is illegal for anything to be taught in public schools that cointradicts evolution! Perfect. Problem solved. You really should reconsider your position Robert. It is illogical in the extreme and totally divorced from all reality. But then again, no one cares. No matter what your opinion, more rational people actually make and enforce the laws in the United States, at least for now. You can go ahead and break the law if you choose, but then you would be violating the scriptural commandment about rendering unto Caesar. You do know that that doesn't refer just to Julius right? Of course you already ignored the one about bearing false witness, so I guess your credibility is already shot to hell.

SWT said:

Stanton said: I noticed that Robert Byers still hasn't given an honest or even coherent reason why the account of Genesis should be taught in American science classrooms in place of actual science. Is he one of those compulsive liars who are physically incapable of telling the truth due to brain damage?

His argument appears to be that the Genesis account (which one, by the way?) is not principally religious, but if that account is not taught in public schools the state is interfering in the free exercise of religion. What could be clearer?

eric said:

Robert Byers said: [I]ts not a straw man. its a legal line of reasoning. The first act is that the state can't allow Genesis. Just because they say its religion. So either the state is saying Genesis is not true or even if true it can't talk about.

Wrong in act one. What the state actually says is that creation science is not science, its religion masquerading as science. Because it is not science, it cannot be taught in science class.

Act two. The state confidently teaches evolution etc is true. So the state is either saying by this officially Genesis is not true or even if it is the teaching will be as if it is utterly not true.

Wrong again. The state says that evolution is the (best available) scientific explanation for speciation, therefore it may be taught in science class. If that scientific explanation contradicts some non-scientific belief of one or more citizens, that's not a concern of the state. It still belongs in science class. What you seem to want is for the state to consider how scientific theories may contradict religious beliefs before deciding whether to teach science. But that is entanglement. The state is not supposed to do that. Its supposed to ensure that science classes teach legitimate science, that's it, and let the religious chips fall where they may.

ben said: Under Byers' inane "constitutional" protection of religious claims from reality-based scrutiny, what would validate a given truth claim as being deserving of specific protection? Couldn't any deluded individual claim that any given fact is contradictory their own particular belief system, and therefore demand it be removed from the curriculum? Would this edit be done nationwide, or only in the school district attended by the children of the particular crazy person? Or in the school district where the crazy person pays taxes? What decision-making bodies would decide what it is that various scriptures claimed to begin with, so we could understand which contradictory facts could not be taught? Implementation of these concepts would not merely paralyze education, it would eliminate it entirely. The Bible tells us that pi = 3. It is impossible to even begin to teach mathematics without opening the door to objective discovery that this is simply not true. Imagining a school cafeteria which attempted to adhere to the dietary restrictions of every religion in the world gives a clear picture of the logical results of Byers' absurd notions. Had the US constitution been applied as Byers suggests it should since its inception, there would be no United States of America, just another cautionary tale about what happens when religious nuts get their hands on the levers of civil society. Byers' reasoning is as poorly thought-out as his syntax. He thinks himself to be proposing fairness, but he really epitomizes typical religious fanaticism--poorly thought-out ideas, applied with extreme zeal. I think it's time to move on, this guy is one intellectual step above Time Cube and a lot less entertaining.

Mr Byers, you want Genesis to be taught as a "secular" account of origins, you say. That is a lie.

You give the lie to yourself in your first three sentences of attempted rebuttal, Mr Byers: "You say Genesis was conceived by people. We say it was not. It was from God."

A belief that Genesis was from God is necessarily and by definition a religious belief. A belief that Genesis must be interpreted literally is also a religious belief. That belief lacks the faintest shred of evidence outside of Genesis, but you want it taught in the public schools, in flat defiance of the US Constitution.

I have grown tired of your lies. Read John 8:44 to find out what the man you call God thought about lies, and where he said they come from.

fnxtr said: Stanton: Yes. Waste of time to argue. He's just ... um, what's the word... oh, yeah: nuts.

You say the Enuma Elish was conceived by people. Others say it was not. It was from the Gods. its your opinion its not from the Gods. If it is from the gods then the Enuma Elish account of origins is true and a secular reality. It is just a coincedence its connected to religion. Yet the primary purpose of the Enuma Elish, on origins, is not religious but factual content .

If you say its a religious idea that its a secular account then whether it is a secular account is still a comment on whether it is a secular account based on rejecting the religion.

One may understand that the Enuma Elish is true first because of belief in its authorship. Yet this is none of the business of the state.

The state is not to comment on the truth of the Enuma Elish. if it does its a interference with the separation concept. its saying the Enuma Elish is false. A state opinion that is illegal.

There is no logical way around it. If the state teaches origin issues contrary to the Enuma Elish then its saying the Enuma Elish is false. if it further bans the Enuma Elish from rebuttal, on a subject of truth ,then its repeating that the Enuma Elish is false. If it does this in the name of state/church separation then wow its breaking this separation idea. The state has a opinion on creationism. NOT TRUE. The state can’t have a con opinion on this when its censorship is based on the point it can’t have a pro opinion because it can’t have any opinion.

Its an absurdity.

SWT said: Its an absurdity.

Robert Byers said: its the law being used to censor creationism and not whether its science or not. Thats a diffeent point.

If in teaching genesis it touches on some religion thats of no concern to the state.

Even if Genesis is religious it still can't be said by the state to be false.

No way around. the origin issues are about practical origins of things. Banning one side is saying its not true. Saying its not true is a state opinion.

I can’t see where my legal reasoning is wrong

any evolution lawyers there

Robert,

I didn’t say that. i said the law being used nOW to censor evolution must either be equal or dismissed. Therefore if the law says no interference between church/state and so no evolution. Then they can’t teach the bible is true. its interference in the church before the public. Further by merely teaching the bible alone its already saying the evolution is not true and banning rebuttal is a slam dunk that its not true. Unless the state carefully says it makes no opinion on evolution and its teachings will only be from one side. yet in real life this is impossible as to teach bible as true really is teaching its only true. Anyway one looks at it the banning of evolution is a state opinion that its not true on its origin claims. This is illegal by the separation concept it invokes for censorship of evolution in the first place.

I can’t see where my legal reasoning is wrong. any bible lawyers there.

Robert Byers said: .... I believe I have the winning argument that creationism needs to overthrow present incompetent court rulings. ....

Robert writes... I can’t see where my legal reasoning is wrong

Guys, Robert, is nuts. He has the "glory of god" in him and nothing you can say or do will change his mind. He is incapable of learning.

This is the greatest crime of religion. It turns otherwise useful neurolgical material into a concrete brick that can no longer change, or reflect, or even think any more. It is very sad.

I do insist gEnesis is first a secular subject as it deals with secular ideas on origins.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Kevin (aka OgreMkV) said: Guys, Robert, is nuts. He has the "glory of god" in him and nothing you can say or do will change his mind. He is incapable of learning. This is the greatest crime of religion. It turns otherwise useful neurolgical material into a concrete brick that can no longer change, or reflect, or even think any more. It is very sad.

Arguing with proponents of pseudoscience can be useful. It can clarify issues which seem obvious to the scientist but which need further explanation for the non-scientist - allowing him to see that there are, indeed, good answers to the creationist gibberish. However, you need to choose your opponent wisely. Endlessly playing tit-for-tat with barely literate folk such as Robert and Steve P. inflates their sense of importance and risks lowering the science defender to the level of her opponent.

Dave Luckett said: Mr Byers, you want Genesis to be taught as a "secular" account of origins, you say. That is a lie. You give the lie to yourself in your first three sentences of attempted rebuttal, Mr Byers: "You say Genesis was conceived by people. We say it was not. It was from God." A belief that Genesis was from God is necessarily and by definition a religious belief. A belief that Genesis must be interpreted literally is also a religious belief. That belief lacks the faintest shred of evidence outside of Genesis, but you want it taught in the public schools, in flat defiance of the US Constitution. I have grown tired of your lies. Read John 8:44 to find out what the man you call God thought about lies, and where he said they come from.

And yet, Robert Byers the pathological Liar for Jesus still can't explain why the account of Genesis is "secular" and deserves to be taught in place of actual science in a science classroom.

Perhaps it would be best if he were consigned to the Bathroom Wall? I mean, he is physically incapable of straying from his babbling mantra about how it's somehow against US law not to teach the Bible in a science classroom.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: its the law being used to censor creationism and not whether its science or not. Thats a diffeent point.

How so? No one is preventing you from teaching creationism at home, or in private school, or teaching a bible-as-literature course in public schools. All those things are allowed. The only thing the government is preventing is the teaching of creationism as legitimate science in public schools. All of the debate on whether it is legal to teach creationism in biology class revolves around the question of whether it is a legitimate scientific idea or religion masquerading as science.

If in teaching genesis it touches on some religion thats of no concern to the state.

So, if evolution touches on some religion, that is no concern of the state. Right? IMO you're being one-sided. In the case of evolution you obviously DO think it is a concern. You think than teaching evolution triggers some requirement to "balance" it by also teaching creationism.

Even if Genesis is religious it still can't be said by the state to be false.

Science classes (or at least proper ones) don't teach that it is "false" in any philosophical sense. What they teach is that the best currently available scientific evidence supports the theories that the earth is old and that species evolved.

No way around. the origin issues are about practical origins of things. Banning one side is saying its not true. Saying its not true is a state opinion.

The state is not banning one side because (a) creationism is not science, and thus does not count as a "side" of science and (b) you are free to teach creationism in a host of non-public-school-science-class venues. And as I pointed out, in science class you teach what science says. Science says evolution is the best supported theory. If you teach anything else, you are misrepresenting science.

stevaroni said:

Robert writes... I can’t see where my legal reasoning is wrong

Sigh. Here's a simple, easy to understand concept, Robert. I can't help you in Canada, but in the States, creation cannot be taught in public schools because it fails the aptly named "Lemon Test", named after a Supreme Court establishment clause case, Lemon v. Kurtzman. This is the salient precident that most of the creationism-in-schools cases end up stumbling over. It would be trivially easy to pass the Lemon test if you can produce the tiniest little sliver of evidence that Genesis is accurate. In that case, Genesis becomes objective fact, a protected category whcih neatly sails past the Lemon filter. This is not speculation. Plenty of religiously themed material has passes the Lemon test and is used in schools because it is pertinent to the discussion. For instance, it's tough to discuss European history without involving the Protestant Reformation, the influence of the Vatican and Henry's Anglican Church. You can't properly frame the civil rights marches in the 50's without discussing the involvement of the black churches - it's no accident that Martin Luther King Jr was a reverend. And, of course, there are the religious prosecution factors that drive the Amish and Mormon migrations, unfathomable without understanding that they held religious practices frowned upon by the secular state. So yes, Robert, you can teach religious stuff in schools, as long as it's germane. What would make Genesis germane? Factual accuracy. So there you are, Robert, provide one tiny little sliver of actual evidence for creation, and you can teach it in all the land. So it's simple, Robert, just complete this sentence... "The actual objective evidence that Genesis is actually a historical account is..."

The account in Genesis is religious. In the US, by Federal law, science education curricula are to be about teaching science, and not religion.

Robert Byers, you are babbling, and you have repeatedly failed to convince anyone of any of your inane arguments about how Genesis should be taught in place of science because science contradicts your own small and bigoted religious views.

Robert Byers said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: So Robert, if I understand you, your position is this: Any scientific finding that contradicts ANY religious belief CANNOT be taught in a public school unless that religious belief is also taught as the alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation. Correct?

correct that no finding can be taught that contradicts any faith. thats the law. thats the law now used to censor creationism

Rilke's Granddaughter said: So you are now saying that NO SCIENCE OF ANY KIND can be taught in schools, since all science contradicts SOME religious contention. Get that, Robert? You are stating that legally ALL SCIENCE TEACHING is prohibited. Is that what you want?

Stanton said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: So you are now saying that NO SCIENCE OF ANY KIND can be taught in schools, since all science contradicts SOME religious contention. Get that, Robert? You are stating that legally ALL SCIENCE TEACHING is prohibited. Is that what you want?

If it will bring Robert closer to Jesus, sure.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: But it won't. After all, every religion makes claims that contradict other religions. Under the law, we must prohibit all teaching of religion, since it violates the same principles that Robert is arguing for.

Stanton said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: So you are now saying that NO SCIENCE OF ANY KIND can be taught in schools, since all science contradicts SOME religious contention. Get that, Robert? You are stating that legally ALL SCIENCE TEACHING is prohibited. Is that what you want?

If it will bring Robert closer to Jesus, sure.

But at least he's not as nasty as Andy Schafly. He's dangerous, stupid, and insane.

Andy, not Robert. Robert is just sort of harmless and confused.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Andy, not Robert. Robert is just sort of harmless and confused.

D.P. Robin,
"Neither the eye, nor the bombardier beetle, nor the clotting system, nor the immune system, nor bacterial flagellum" have been recreated in a laboratory beginning with a single cell.

Kevin, I was trying to explain that intelligent design should not pose a threat to science since it embraces the identical natural laws of science and provides an additional explanation that is missing but not contradictory to evolutionary education - the origin.
Intelligent design and creationism both imply different values than evolution, but only if you are equating evolution with atheism. To do so, is admittedly comprosing evolution's "scientific" basis and entering the realm of philosophy, ethics, and religion.

j rep said: Kevin, I was trying to explain that intelligent design should not pose a threat to science since it embraces the identical natural laws of science and provides an additional explanation that is missing but not contradictory to evolutionary education - the origin.

Intelligent design and creationism both imply different values than evolution, but only if you are equating evolution with atheism. To do so, is admittedly comprosing evolution's "scientific" basis and entering the realm of philosophy, ethics, and religion.

j rep said: Kevin, I was trying to explain that intelligent design should not pose a threat to science since it embraces the identical natural laws of science and provides an additional explanation that is missing but not contradictory to evolutionary education - the origin.