Another year, another clueless school board

How fiscally responsible is it to expose the district to expenses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars by advocating a bankrupt religious approach in public schools?

At least these guys are honest enough to call it what it is. That puts them way ahead of the IDiots in the honesty department even if they are clueless about the science.

I've always said that if you want to change the law you can't lie about what you are doing like the IDiots and ID perps. Even if you win it is the lie that wins, and then you have to live with the lie as a constant reminder as to how dishonest and bogus the effort was.

Not a big fan of Boehner et al, nevertheless I wonder how long the Right will let these nutjobs steer the ship before they realize the nutjobs aren't helping. I get that it all started with vote-pandering, but at some point some conservatives are going to realize they courted a bunch of wackos. I hope, really, for their sake.

Maybe this group of scientific illiterates will propose creationism as their opening bid, hoping to bargain down to intelligent design? Dover, here we come!

The "Doctrinal Statement" of Cedarville University includes such gems as "We believe in the literal six-day account of creation, that the creation of man lies in the special, immediate, and formative acts of God and not from previously existing forms of life." and "We believe that man was created perfect in the image of God..."

Given the above, I would love to know how these yahoos can claim to teach both creationism and evolution. Anybody know if their evolution textbook is from Bob Jones University?

Paul Burnett said: The "Doctrinal Statement" of Cedarville University includes such gems as "We believe in the literal six-day account of creation, that the creation of man lies in the special, immediate, and formative acts of God and not from previously existing forms of life." and "We believe that man was created perfect in the image of God..." Given the above, I would love to know how these yahoos can claim to teach both creationism and evolution. Anybody know if their evolution textbook is from Bob Jones University?

Paul Burnett said: Given the above, I would love to know how these yahoos can claim to teach both creationism and evolution.

I worry. Not because this batch of creotards are any more savvy, or scientifically literate, or more persuasive than their predecessors -- they aren't. I worry because eventually they may accidentally get the perfect storm of idiot judge, incompetent ACLU lawyering, and a social-conservative promoting SCotUS. Imagine the horrific results of allowing Scalia to write a majority opinion on creationism v evolution.

Even winning isn't all that great -- the taxpayer foots the bill, the school district hemorrhages cash, good teachers get threats and scorn from local fundies, bad teachers get encouragement and cash from local churches, and (already marginal) public education gets steadily worse. What we really need is a way to hold those who knowingly promote crap accountable; to hurt their pocketbooks and bottom lines. Is there any way to charge these charlatans with fraud?

J. L. Brown said: I worry because eventually they may accidentally get the perfect storm of idiot judge, incompetent ACLU lawyering, and a social-conservative promoting SCotUS. Imagine the horrific results of allowing Scalia to write a majority opinion on creationism v evolution.

What we really need is a way to hold those who knowingly promote crap accountable; to hurt their pocketbooks and bottom lines. Is there any way to charge these charlatans with fraud?

eric said:

J. L. Brown said: I worry because eventually they may accidentally get the perfect storm of idiot judge, incompetent ACLU lawyering, and a social-conservative promoting SCotUS. Imagine the horrific results of allowing Scalia to write a majority opinion on creationism v evolution.

I suppose it could happen but it would really have to be a perfect storm. Not only would Roberts, Alito, etc... have to agree with Scalia on this issue (its not clear to me that they do), but they would have to be interested enough in overturning this precedent that they choose to take the case. Because SCOTUS only hears about 1% of the cases that appeal to them. I think this is probably the sort of issue they will just ignore as long as possible (i.e. until circuit courts start making contradictory rulings).

What we really need is a way to hold those who knowingly promote crap accountable; to hurt their pocketbooks and bottom lines. Is there any way to charge these charlatans with fraud?

Politicians are free to take advice from any source, and the only real recourse is to not re-elect them. I suppose the politicians themselves (i.e. the school boards) could sue their advisors for giving bad advice, but given that the DI is typically telling people what they want to hear, I doubt that's going to happen very often.

Dover II: The Stupidity Continues.

This is local for me, as I live in Dayton and work close to Springboro. What is even more stupid than wanting to teach creationism in public schools (as if that wasn't stupid enough) is that this school district and city are broke. They've been growing rapidly, as a "white flight" suburb of both Dayton and Cincinnati, and their schools were overcrowded. They managed to get taxes raised once long enough to get some badly-needed new schools built, but then tax cut fever set in, and they can't equip or staff the schools. The last thing that this school district needs is to waste their non-existent funds on lawyers to defend themselves against the inevitable lawsuit, and from paying the legal fees of the successful challengers.

Mike Clinch said: This is local for me, as I live in Dayton and work close to Springboro. What is even more stupid than wanting to teach creationism in public schools (as if that wasn't stupid enough) is that this school district and city are broke. They've been growing rapidly, as a "white flight" suburb of both Dayton and Cincinnati, and their schools were overcrowded. They managed to get taxes raised once long enough to get some badly-needed new schools built, but then tax cut fever set in, and they can't equip or staff the schools. The last thing that this school district needs is to waste their non-existent funds on lawyers to defend themselves against the inevitable lawsuit, and from paying the legal fees of the successful challengers.

An "absolutely valid theory?" No, it isn't. Part of the history of this country? Yes, an embarrassing part, and one which could appropriately be taught in history class. Excluding God from public life? Yet another person who thinks that excluding something is the same as not including it.

John said:

eric said:

J. L. Brown said: I worry because eventually they may accidentally get the perfect storm of idiot judge, incompetent ACLU lawyering, and a social-conservative promoting SCotUS. Imagine the horrific results of allowing Scalia to write a majority opinion on creationism v evolution.

I suppose it could happen but it would really have to be a perfect storm. Not only would Roberts, Alito, etc... have to agree with Scalia on this issue (its not clear to me that they do), but they would have to be interested enough in overturning this precedent that they choose to take the case. Because SCOTUS only hears about 1% of the cases that appeal to them. I think this is probably the sort of issue they will just ignore as long as possible (i.e. until circuit courts start making contradictory rulings).

What we really need is a way to hold those who knowingly promote crap accountable; to hurt their pocketbooks and bottom lines. Is there any way to charge these charlatans with fraud?

Politicians are free to take advice from any source, and the only real recourse is to not re-elect them. I suppose the politicians themselves (i.e. the school boards) could sue their advisors for giving bad advice, but given that the DI is typically telling people what they want to hear, I doubt that's going to happen very often.

I think the chances of a "perfect storm" as J. L. contends are rare. The Supreme Court would have to follow prior precedent in the cases of Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968), McLean vs. Arkansas (1982), and Edwards vs. Aguilard (1987). It also refused to hear this case, Freiler et al. v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education et al. (1994), in an early precursor to Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (2005), though Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court's decision not to hear this case on June 19, 2000. (Incidentally, I reviewed information pertaining to these cases at the National Center for Science Education's online resource on court cases pertaining to creationism.)

I suppose it could happen but it would really have to be a perfect storm.

harold said: In the meantime, there will be constant, unending attacks on religious freedom, and the risk of a SCOTUS dominated by right wing political hacks wiping its butt with the constitution is real. This is a long, hard, defensive struggle.

There's a further report along with some TV interviews here:

http://www.wlwt.com/education/28732495/detail.html

Kohls appears to have a PhD as she's indroduced as "Doctor".

Strangely, the parents don't seem particularly phased by the suggestion, and appear to agree with the new school board members.

Is this another Dover looming ?

Is there a Tammy Kitzmiller in Springboro ?

I think you are overstating the case

when every potential creationism case before the United States Supreme Court has either been ruled against the creationists or the court declined to consider it (Three were heard before the court and all three ruled against the creationists; four others the court refused to hear.).

Federal Judge John Jones - who was a registered Republican and a Conservative at the time of his historic Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling - wrote his ruling in such a concise, definitive, and lucid manner that it is now regarded unofficially as legal precedent in other similar cases around the country. If the Supreme Court were to rule on a similar case, then they would have to take Jones’ ruling into account simply because of the excellentce of his legal reasoning and writing.

Kohls appears to have a PhD as she’s indroduced as “Doctor”.

Personal Bio: Kelly Kohls, Ph. D., R.D. L.D., has her Ph.D. in Nutrition, ...

harold said: John -

I think you are overstating the case

I hope so, but doubt it.

when every potential creationism case before the United States Supreme Court has either been ruled against the creationists or the court declined to consider it (Three were heard before the court and all three ruled against the creationists; four others the court refused to hear.).

Unfortunately, my concern is with members of the current supreme court.

Federal Judge John Jones - who was a registered Republican and a Conservative at the time of his historic Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling - wrote his ruling in such a concise, definitive, and lucid manner that it is now regarded unofficially as legal precedent in other similar cases around the country. If the Supreme Court were to rule on a similar case, then they would have to take Jones’ ruling into account simply because of the excellentce of his legal reasoning and writing.

This is true and we should all be very grateful for it.

“Creationism is a significant part of the history of this country,” Kohls said. “It is an absolutely valid theory and to omit it means we are omitting part of the history of this country.”

“My input on creationism has everything with me being a parent and not a member of the Tea Party,” she said. “We are motivated people who want to change the course of this country. Eliminating God from our public lives I think is a mistake and is why we have gone in the direction of spending beyond our means.”

Karen S. said: Dover II: The Stupidity Continues.

I said: Jesus, as I recall, willingly paid his taxes, although he had to get the money from a fish ...

Ron Okimoto said:

Karen S. said: Dover II: The Stupidity Continues.

More like scientific creationism III or if you want to count the ID scam it would be IV. The Arkansas and Louisiana losses were the reason for the name change to "cdesign proponentsists."

Court decisions in America at the top should be based on a passion and study of what law should be imposed on a free people.
Its a great power and surely this has been destroyed by decades of picking judges for preconceived conclusions and including in the picking is the issue of identity and this affects ideology presumptions.
Nevertheless on truth and freedom to seek and discuss truth there is nothing wrong with the constitution.
Creationism simply needs more cases to bring before America the absurdity of the present censorship in state institutions.

In censoring creationist(s) conclusions on matters of origins the state can't escape the charge it is enforcing conclusions on wrong and right answers.
if it says its doing this because some conclusions are touching on religion then the state is admitting its saying some religious conclusions are wrong.
This is not the job of the state and in fact illegal.
Creationism just needs a few more and better lawyers.
Time has come. The times are changing.

Mike Clinch said: This is local for me, as I live in Dayton and work close to Springboro. What is even more stupid than wanting to teach creationism in public schools (as if that wasn't stupid enough) is that this school district and city are broke. They've been growing rapidly, as a "white flight" suburb of both Dayton and Cincinnati, and their schools were overcrowded. They managed to get taxes raised once long enough to get some badly-needed new schools built, but then tax cut fever set in, and they can't equip or staff the schools. The last thing that this school district needs is to waste their non-existent funds on lawyers to defend themselves against the inevitable lawsuit, and from paying the legal fees of the successful challengers.

Robert Byers said: Court decisions in America at the top should be based on a passion and study of what law should be imposed on a free people. Its a great power and surely this has been destroyed by decades of picking judges for preconceived conclusions and including in the picking is the issue of identity and this affects ideology presumptions. Nevertheless on truth and freedom to seek and discuss truth there is nothing wrong with the constitution. Creationism simply needs more cases to bring before America the absurdity of the present censorship in state institutions. In censoring creationist(s) conclusions on matters of origins the state can't escape the charge it is enforcing conclusions on wrong and right answers. if it says its doing this because some conclusions are touching on religion then the state is admitting its saying some religious conclusions are wrong. This is not the job of the state and in fact illegal. Creationism just needs a few more and better lawyers. Time has come. The times are changing.

Ian Derthal said: There's a further report along with some TV interviews here: http://www.wlwt.com/education/28732495/detail.html Kohls appears to have a PhD as she's indroduced as "Doctor". Strangely, the parents don't seem particularly phased by the suggestion, and appear to agree with the new school board members. Is this another Dover looming ? Is there a Tammy Kitzmiller in Springboro ?

Critics contend teaching creationism in public schools conflicts with the separation of church and state, and is therefore unconstitutional. Kohls says it's unconstitutional to intentionally leave it out of textbooks.

John said:

harold said: In the meantime, there will be constant, unending attacks on religious freedom, and the risk of a SCOTUS dominated by right wing political hacks wiping its butt with the constitution is real. This is a long, hard, defensive struggle.

I think you are overstating the case when every potential creationism case before the United States Supreme Court has either been ruled against the creationists or the court declined to consider it (Three were heard before the court and all three ruled against the creationists; four others the court refused to hear.). Federal Judge John Jones - who was a registered Republican and a Conservative at the time of his historic Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling - wrote his ruling in such a concise, definitive, and lucid manner that it is now regarded unofficially as legal precedent in other similar cases around the country. If the Supreme Court were to rule on a similar case, then they would have to take Jones' ruling into account simply because of the excellentce of his legal reasoning and writing.

Timothy said: A bit more info. Apparently she's leading an investigation if they can teach creationism or not, and just like Hoppe said, I hope at least one legal adviser is intelligent and steadfast enough to say no. And there's this gem:

Critics contend teaching creationism in public schools conflicts with the separation of church and state, and is therefore unconstitutional. Kohls says it's unconstitutional to intentionally leave it out of textbooks.

It's unconstitutional NOT to teach creationism? Please. Also, though I don't have much info on this and I'm still looking, this isn't her first time doing stupid things while on the school board. She was accused of "bullying" teachers at an elementary school by repeatedly asking if they'd accept cuts or a wage freeze, and even suggesting they'd be laid off if not, all in violation of union agreements. An investigation was conducted which Kohls welcomed, but no report of how it turned out. I live in the area too (not in Springboro, but the Dayton area, so I saw this on my local news), and I also don't want to see nonsense drag down a community in a financially-strapped area of a financially-strapped state.

harold said: if anyone thinks that Roberts and Alito have capacity for partisan independence, the onus is on them to explain why they virtually never exhibit such capacity.

I have the impression that Scalia's stand on creationism is a byproduct of his dislike of the Lemon test, in particular that government action must have a "secular purpose". IANAL, I welcome correction.

Darwinism-Evolutionism has no place in the science curriculum because it is not science but is rather naturalistic philosophy. I am OK with discussing it in religion or philosophy class but not in biology. It wastes the time of both science teachers and students.

eric said: As John Kwok and numerous others illustrate, conservative /= pro-creationism.

SLC said:

John said:

harold said: In the meantime, there will be constant, unending attacks on religious freedom, and the risk of a SCOTUS dominated by right wing political hacks wiping its butt with the constitution is real. This is a long, hard, defensive struggle.

I think you are overstating the case when every potential creationism case before the United States Supreme Court has either been ruled against the creationists or the court declined to consider it (Three were heard before the court and all three ruled against the creationists; four others the court refused to hear.). Federal Judge John Jones - who was a registered Republican and a Conservative at the time of his historic Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling - wrote his ruling in such a concise, definitive, and lucid manner that it is now regarded unofficially as legal precedent in other similar cases around the country. If the Supreme Court were to rule on a similar case, then they would have to take Jones' ruling into account simply because of the excellentce of his legal reasoning and writing.

We should be a little careful in labeling Judge Jones a conservative. Although he was recommended to the court by right wing nutcase, Senator Santorum, he is actually a protegee of former Governor Tom Ridge, who is usually classed as a moderate Rethuglican; by todays' tea baggers' standard, Mr. Ridge would be considered a dangerous socialist.

eric said: As John Kwok and numerous others illustrate, conservative /= pro-creationism.

mrg said:

eric said: As John Kwok and numerous others illustrate, conservative /= pro-creationism.

I'm with Eric on this one. While it is not outside the bounds of possibility for the Supremes to judge in favor of creationism, I wouldn't take a bet on odds of it happening. As Stephen Jay Gould pointed out some decades ago, creationists are good at "winning arguments", but once they're put in the witness box and asked pointed questions they can either be evasive or let themselves be questioned into a corner, neither of which will impress the judges. And, as I commented the other day, creationists are almost completely unable to restrain themselves from publicly proclaiming sooner or later it's all about religion anyway. Intelligent Design, which was never any more than Creation Science gone completely evasive, has despite all its efforts not been able to cure them of this counterproductive habit -- and indeed Intelligent Design advocates often fall prey to it as well.

Atheistoclast said: Darwinism-Evolutionism has no place in the science curriculum because it is not science but is rather naturalistic philosophy. I am OK with discussing it in religion or philosophy class but not in biology. It wastes the time of both science teachers and students.

eric said:

harold said: if anyone thinks that Roberts and Alito have capacity for partisan independence, the onus is on them to explain why they virtually never exhibit such capacity.

Roberts and Alito have disagreed with Scalia on a number of cases the court has taken in the last year. On, for example, whether federal workers can be sued for on-the-job incompetence. And on how far the right to competent legal counsel extends. And on whether statements made before someone was read their Miranda rights can be admitted into court. Thomas has also disagreed more with Scalia lately, although its much harder to predict how he's going to disagree (i.e. go more conservative, less conservative, or just go wierd). Now, we all know Scalia is pro-creationism, but do you have any evidence that the other judges are? Past cases they've ruled on which were indicative of pro-creationism leanings? Let me ask a related question: it takes the active sign-off of four SCOTUS judges before a case is heard. What four judges do you think actively want to overturn current precedent in regards to teaching creationism? Not even Scalia may be in this category; while he certainly disagrees with current rulings, its not clear to me he cares enough about it to give it a high priority (i.e. that he wants to take this type of case over 99 others he could take). As John Kwok and numerous others illustrate, conservative /= pro-creationism.

harold said:

eric said:

harold said: if anyone thinks that Roberts and Alito have capacity for partisan independence, the onus is on them to explain why they virtually never exhibit such capacity.

Roberts and Alito have disagreed with Scalia on a number of cases the court has taken in the last year. On, for example, whether federal workers can be sued for on-the-job incompetence. And on how far the right to competent legal counsel extends. And on whether statements made before someone was read their Miranda rights can be admitted into court. Thomas has also disagreed more with Scalia lately, although its much harder to predict how he's going to disagree (i.e. go more conservative, less conservative, or just go wierd). Now, we all know Scalia is pro-creationism, but do you have any evidence that the other judges are? Past cases they've ruled on which were indicative of pro-creationism leanings? Let me ask a related question: it takes the active sign-off of four SCOTUS judges before a case is heard. What four judges do you think actively want to overturn current precedent in regards to teaching creationism? Not even Scalia may be in this category; while he certainly disagrees with current rulings, its not clear to me he cares enough about it to give it a high priority (i.e. that he wants to take this type of case over 99 others he could take). As John Kwok and numerous others illustrate, conservative /= pro-creationism.

1) Eric, I always enjoy your logical comments. Like most people, I dislike having my words misinterpreted. I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that I have ever stated that "all conservatives are creationists". After all, I've made the opposite statement many times. I certainly expressed hypothetical concern that Roberts, Alito, and/or Thomas might conceivably support creationist legal arguments (not remotely the same thing as arguing that they personally hold creationist beliefs). I did not claim to know that they would do so. I will elaborate on the basis of my concern in point "3)" below. 2) However, it would be absurd to deny that politically active creationists in the US and Canada are overwhelmingly conservative. By politically active creationists I mean people who actively propose or pander to the idea of teaching specific religious dogma in public schools, in particular, evolution denial. In this thread we are discussing the actions of a Republican creationist. In Texas and Louisiana creationism in public schools was supported by conservative politicians. In its previous incarnations in Ohio, it was supported by conservatives. In Dover, its advocates were conservative. In Kansas, its advocates were conservatives. In the court precedents that have been mentioned here, the advocates of creationism in public schools were conservatives. Christian religious authoritarians in the US are by definition highly conservative on social issues. (And here, I might note that, while today's "conservative" economics may be radical, it is conservative, in every sense of the word, to object to or undermine the full civil and political participaction of ethnic minorities, openly gay people, and women, and favor control by property owning white males. That was the past state of affairs, and therefore, it can be validly said that it is "conservative" to wish to "conserve" as much of that state of affairs as possible). This alone would seem to account for their strong preference for/presence within the Republican party. Whether as a compromise or as their true preference, Christian religious authoritarian politicians today are also overwhelmingly conservative in economic matters. The Republican presidential primary candidates of 2012 include creationists. So did the Republican presidential primary candidates of 2008. This was not the case for the Democratic presidential primary of 2008. I am not supporting one party or the other (here), nor making the absurd straw man claim that 100% of members of one party are politically active creationists and 0% of the members of the other party have any creationist beliefs whatsoever, I am noting that virtually all politically active creationists favor one of the two major political parties. 3) So, why my concerns about Roberts, Alito, and Thomas? After all, you are right that I have no direct evidence that they are sympathetic to creationist arguments. You are also right that the precedents are extremely strong. And, of course, I did not make the absurd straw man claim that they agree with Scalia 100% of the time on 100% of cases. However, it is my subjective perception that, despite occasional disagreements with Scalia on not very publicized cases, they do exhibit very strong partisan bias. This may be my bias, but it is my perception that they do not, overall, exhibit the kind of objective and honorable dedication to the law above personal preference, as say, exhibited by Judge Jones, and a number of other great American jurists, a fair number of them Republican and/or conservative. This is just my subjective opinion, but I don't trust this supreme court on anything. I can't make any assumptions. And I'm certainly not going to make optimistic assumptions that might come back and bite me.

I'm going to correct and update my prior remarks:

Apparently you’ve been ignoring the points I have made noting that Roberts and Alito share Jones’ judicial philosophy. Moreover, as eric has noted, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to hear cases pertaining to the teaching of creationism. Yesterday I pointed to four instances were the Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals of lower court rulings by creationists. For your own edification look here:

http://www.ncse.com/legal

As for your other comments in your reply to eric, do you realize that you are sounding remarkably like some of the creobots who have been posting here? I think eric felt compelled to remind you that conservatives /= creationism simply for your recent set of commentary, which, surprisingly, comes across as hysteria (Although we have substantial political differences, I never expected you to start acting a bit unhinged with regards to conservatives. Please get a grip on yourself, harold.). Your recent remarks ignore that sad, but true, facts that there are many liberals and moderates who find evolution objectionable, as noted anecdotally by physicist Lisa Randall who met a young Obama supporter - a Hollywood actor who had studied molecular biology in college and had taught biology in an urban middle school - who refused to accept that evolution applied to humans (I have posted the links to her comments on numerous occasions, so I have no need of doing so again here; this was in response to a question raised by Jerry Coyne that she, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, Ken Miller, Karl Giberson and several others attempted to answer at The Edge back in late January, 2009.).

Three of the most important critics of creationism are conservative in their political orientation: attorney Timothy Sandefur (a frequent PT contributor), biologist Paul R. Gross and skeptic and writer Michael Shermer. I hope you don't forget that.

Your recent remarks ignore that sad, but true, facts that there are many liberals and moderates who find evolution objectionable, as noted anecdotally by physicist Lisa Randall who met a young Obama supporter - a Hollywood actor who had studied molecular biology in college and had taught biology in an urban middle school - who refused to accept that evolution applied to humans

I am not supporting one party or the other (here), nor making the absurd straw man claim that 100% of members of one party are politically active creationists and 0% of the members of the other party have any creationist beliefs whatsoever, I am noting that virtually all politically active creationists favor one of the two major political parties.

2) However, it would be absurd to deny that politically active creationists in the US and Canada are overwhelmingly conservative. By politically active creationists I mean people who actively propose or pander to the idea of teaching specific religious dogma in public schools, in particular, evolution denial. In this thread we are discussing the actions of a Republican creationist. In Texas and Louisiana creationism in public schools was supported by conservative politicians. In its previous incarnations in Ohio, it was supported by conservatives. In Dover, its advocates were conservative. In Kansas, its advocates were conservatives. In the court precedents that have been mentioned here, the advocates of creationism in public schools were conservatives. Christian religious authoritarians in the US are by definition highly conservative on social issues. (And here, I might note that, while today’s “conservative” economics may be radical, it is conservative, in every sense of the word, to object to or undermine the full civil and political participaction of ethnic minorities, openly gay people, and women, and favor control by property owning white males. That was the past state of affairs, and therefore, it can be validly said that it is “conservative” to wish to “conserve” as much of that state of affairs as possible). This alone would seem to account for their strong preference for/presence within the Republican party. Whether as a compromise or as their true preference, Christian religious authoritarian politicians today are also overwhelmingly conservative in economic matters. The Republican presidential primary candidates of 2012 include creationists. So did the Republican presidential primary candidates of 2008. This was not the case for the Democratic presidential primary of 2008. I am not supporting one party or the other (here), nor making the absurd straw man claim that 100% of members of one party are politically active creationists and 0% of the members of the other party have any creationist beliefs whatsoever, I am noting that virtually all politically active creationists favor one of the two major political parties.

Obviously you've ignored what eric and I have been writing, sticking to your talking points in much the same way that I would read from some of the creo lurkers driving by here.

I have pointed out four instances - all dating from the 90s into the early 2000s where the Supreme Cout let stand lower court rulings against creationists, and on at least one of those occasions, Roberts' predecessor as Chief Supreme Court judge, Rehnquist, sided with the majority in refusing to hear the case in question (And Roberts has stated that he regarded Rehnquist as his legal mentor.):

http://www.ncse.com/legal

As for physicist Lisa Randall's conversation with the creationist Obama supporter, I am posting it here for your benefit:

"By sheer coincidence the day I read this Edge question, a charming young actor sat next to me on my plane to LA and without any prompting answered it for me. He had just returned from the inauguration and was filled with enthusiasm and optimism. Like so many young people today, he wants to leave the world a better place. Prior to his acting career he had studied molecular biology and after graduating coordinated science teaching for three middle schools in an urban school system. He described how along with his acting career he would ultimately like to build on his training to start schools worldwide where students can get good science training."

"But at this point the conversation rounded a bend. His proposed curriculum would include at least one course on religion. I was surprised—this bright young man had studied biology and in all other respects seemed to have opinions and attitudes grounded in the type of education everyone responding to this question is familiar with. But religion has been a big part of his life and he sensibly said the worst thing that happens in his schools would be that people learn about religion and make their own judgements."

"But he himself believes in Man descending from Adam as opposed to ascending from apes. I didn't get how someone trained as a biologist could not believe in evolution. He explained how he could learn the science and understand the logic but that it is simply how Man puts things together. In his mind that's just not the way it is."

"This reinforced for me why we won't ever answer the question that's been posed. Empirically-based logic-derived science and faith are entirely different methods for trying to approach truth. You can derive a contradiction only if your rules are logic. If you believe in revelatory truth you've abandoned the rules. There is no contradiction to be had. "

"I broke out my blackberry to show my plane companion Jerry Coyne's question. And he agreed. He embodied the answer."

Here's the link to Randall's comments, in case you still believe that hers is a fictional anecdote:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html#randall

On his nightly nationally syndicated radio program John Batchelor frequently discusses biological evolution with noted scientists and writers, including Carl Zimmer.

And you are still ignoring the noteworthy contributions made by my fellow conservatives Paul R. Gross, Timothy Sandefur and Michael Shermer - and yes, even Judge Jones since he does devote some of his time on this still - in fighting creationism.

I'm not trying to exonerate those in the Christian Right and the still sizeable majority of Conservatives who endorse pseudoscientific religious nonsense like traditional Creationism and Intelligent Design creationism; they are a real and present danger. But you seem to be acting like some of the delusional Pharyngulites posting here who think that all Conservatives - including yours truly - are political Neanderthals incapable of accepting biological evolution as both a very highly corroborated scientific fact and a fact that is explainable - if somewhat imperfectly - by the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution (And I say imperfectly since I am sympathetic to the arguments made by Massimo Pigliucci and Niles Eldredge, among others, in replacing current evolutionary theory with an "Extended Modern Synthesis" capable of explaining better data from evolutionary developmental biology and paleobiology.).

I’m not trying to exonerate those in the Christian Right and the still sizeable majority of Conservatives who endorse pseudoscientific religious nonsense like traditional Creationism and Intelligent Design creationism; they are a real and present danger.

But you seem to be acting like some of the delusional Pharyngulites posting here who think that all Conservatives - including yours truly - are political Neanderthals incapable of accepting biological evolution as both a very highly corroborated scientific fact and a fact that is explainable - if somewhat imperfectly - by the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution (And I say imperfectly since I am sympathetic to the arguments made by Massimo Pigliucci and Niles Eldredge, among others, in replacing current evolutionary theory with an “Extended Modern Synthesis” capable of explaining better data from evolutionary developmental biology and paleobiology.).

harold said: John Kwok - I will end this argument here. 1) I hope that you are right about the legal ethics of Roberts and Alito with regard to creationism. I have no strong evidence that you are wrong, and I truly hope that you are right. Emotionally and subjectively, I retain some doubt. But it's not worth continuing this argument. Since I hope you are right and lack strong evidence that you are wrong, it is foolish to continue arguing. 2) I have never denied that there are many people with "liberal" politics, or many people who strongly supported Obama (not necessarily the same thing) who have some wrong or silly ideas about science. Why would I deny that? It's obviously true. I said that the anecdote was "undocumented" and "irrelevant - not that it was false. And of course, I admire Lisa Randall as a scientist. I have no idea what political party she favors. I've seen interviews with her, but the topics were scientific.

I’m not trying to exonerate those in the Christian Right and the still sizeable majority of Conservatives who endorse pseudoscientific religious nonsense like traditional Creationism and Intelligent Design creationism; they are a real and present danger.

Then, as we surely already knew, we have no real argument about this.

But you seem to be acting like some of the delusional Pharyngulites posting here who think that all Conservatives - including yours truly - are political Neanderthals incapable of accepting biological evolution as both a very highly corroborated scientific fact and a fact that is explainable - if somewhat imperfectly - by the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution (And I say imperfectly since I am sympathetic to the arguments made by Massimo Pigliucci and Niles Eldredge, among others, in replacing current evolutionary theory with an “Extended Modern Synthesis” capable of explaining better data from evolutionary developmental biology and paleobiology.).

I can assure you that I do not think this. I can easily think of conservatives who are scientifically literate or active scientists.

John said: It's a pity that many well meaning people here like harold tend to operate under the erroneous assumption that conservative = creationism.

Bobsie said:

John said: It's a pity that many well meaning people here like harold tend to operate under the erroneous assumption that conservative = creationism.

I agree with John somewhat, but let's look at the evidence from the field on this. What party has submitted all the anti-science pro-creaionism bills over the past decade ... or two ... or more? Maybe it's "strictly" true that conservative does not equate to creationist but the field evidence says creationists ARE by all practical measures a significant block within the conservatives. It's a nonexistent block within the progressives. Just sayin'

PZ notes that Kelly "fiscal responsibility" Kohls has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, with, among other debts, $829K owed on a house currently valued at $450K.

Having belatedly checked the date on the news story, I now see that the filing was in June 2010. Nevertheless, it speaks to the fiscal responsibility Kohls claims to stand for.

John said:

eric said: As John Kwok and numerous others illustrate, conservative /= pro-creationism.

Thanks for reminding us, eric. Others, especially harold sadly, should recall that National Review columnist John Derbyshire, Rolling Stone - and The Weekly Standard - columnist P. J. O'Rourke, Washington Post columnists Charles Krauthammer and George Will, and nationally syndicated radio talk show host John Batchelor (IMHO the best conservative radio talk show host) are among the notable conservative pundits who recognize that biological evolution is well established scientific fact that is explained by the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution. I should note too that Panda's Thumb contributor Timothy Sandefur and former Marine Biology Laboratory director and Provost, University of Virginia Paul R. Gross (who co-wrote "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design) are important conservative critics of creationism. It's a pity that many well meaning people here like harold tend to operate under the erroneous assumption that conservative = creationism.

John said: I'm going to correct and update my prior remarks: Apparently you’ve been ignoring the points I have made noting that Roberts and Alito share Jones’ judicial philosophy. Moreover, as eric has noted, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to hear cases pertaining to the teaching of creationism. Yesterday I pointed to four instances were the Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals of lower court rulings by creationists. For your own edification look here: http://www.ncse.com/legal As for your other comments in your reply to eric, do you realize that you are sounding remarkably like some of the creobots who have been posting here? I think eric felt compelled to remind you that conservatives /= creationism simply for your recent set of commentary, which, surprisingly, comes across as hysteria (Although we have substantial political differences, I never expected you to start acting a bit unhinged with regards to conservatives. Please get a grip on yourself, harold.). Your recent remarks ignore that sad, but true, facts that there are many liberals and moderates who find evolution objectionable, as noted anecdotally by physicist Lisa Randall who met a young Obama supporter - a Hollywood actor who had studied molecular biology in college and had taught biology in an urban middle school - who refused to accept that evolution applied to humans (I have posted the links to her comments on numerous occasions, so I have no need of doing so again here; this was in response to a question raised by Jerry Coyne that she, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, Ken Miller, Karl Giberson and several others attempted to answer at The Edge back in late January, 2009.). Three of the most important critics of creationism are conservative in their political orientation: attorney Timothy Sandefur (a frequent PT contributor), biologist Paul R. Gross and skeptic and writer Michael Shermer. I hope you don't forget that.

If there were a Physical Reality Party (physics and natural law trump all political ideology), I’d join that.

Mike Elzinga said: If there were a Physical Reality Party (physics and natural law trump all political ideology), I’d join that.

SLC said:

John said:

eric said: As John Kwok and numerous others illustrate, conservative /= pro-creationism.

Thanks for reminding us, eric. Others, especially harold sadly, should recall that National Review columnist John Derbyshire, Rolling Stone - and The Weekly Standard - columnist P. J. O'Rourke, Washington Post columnists Charles Krauthammer and George Will, and nationally syndicated radio talk show host John Batchelor (IMHO the best conservative radio talk show host) are among the notable conservative pundits who recognize that biological evolution is well established scientific fact that is explained by the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution. I should note too that Panda's Thumb contributor Timothy Sandefur and former Marine Biology Laboratory director and Provost, University of Virginia Paul R. Gross (who co-wrote "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design) are important conservative critics of creationism. It's a pity that many well meaning people here like harold tend to operate under the erroneous assumption that conservative = creationism.

Of course, George Will is a noted global climate change denier who has been shown by Chris Mooney to be a congenital liar about the subject.

SLC said:

John said: I'm going to correct and update my prior remarks: Apparently you’ve been ignoring the points I have made noting that Roberts and Alito share Jones’ judicial philosophy. Moreover, as eric has noted, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to hear cases pertaining to the teaching of creationism. Yesterday I pointed to four instances were the Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals of lower court rulings by creationists. For your own edification look here: http://www.ncse.com/legal As for your other comments in your reply to eric, do you realize that you are sounding remarkably like some of the creobots who have been posting here? I think eric felt compelled to remind you that conservatives /= creationism simply for your recent set of commentary, which, surprisingly, comes across as hysteria (Although we have substantial political differences, I never expected you to start acting a bit unhinged with regards to conservatives. Please get a grip on yourself, harold.). Your recent remarks ignore that sad, but true, facts that there are many liberals and moderates who find evolution objectionable, as noted anecdotally by physicist Lisa Randall who met a young Obama supporter - a Hollywood actor who had studied molecular biology in college and had taught biology in an urban middle school - who refused to accept that evolution applied to humans (I have posted the links to her comments on numerous occasions, so I have no need of doing so again here; this was in response to a question raised by Jerry Coyne that she, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, Ken Miller, Karl Giberson and several others attempted to answer at The Edge back in late January, 2009.). Three of the most important critics of creationism are conservative in their political orientation: attorney Timothy Sandefur (a frequent PT contributor), biologist Paul R. Gross and skeptic and writer Michael Shermer. I hope you don't forget that.

1. Michael Shermer considers himself to be a Libertarian, much like Ed Brayton, over at the dispatches website in his new digs at the Freethoughtblogs. Brayton, and his best commentors, Michael Heath and James Hanley, demur at characterizing themselves as conservatives. 2. Unfortunately, I am not as sanguine about Roberts and Alito as Mr. Kwok is. As far as I can make out, they are right wing scumbag ideologues and I would be willing to wager a substantial amount of money that, if a case like Dover ever came to the Supreme Court, they would be joining Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are the slime off the bottom of the cesspool, in overturning an anti-creationist decision. 3. Gee, so Prof. Randalls' chance acquaintance is in the same league as creationist Governor Jindal, biology major at Brown, Un. 4. Hollywood actors are not known for being intellectual giants, with the notable exceptions of James Woods (IQ 180, recipient of a full scholarship to MIT upon graduating from high school), Judy Holliday (IQ 170), Jill StJohn (IQ 160), and Natalie Portman (IQ unknown but co-author of two papers published in peer reviewed journals while still in high school and research assistant to Alan Dershowitz while an undergraduate at Harvard). 5. Unfortunately for Mr. Kwok, for every John Bachelor, we have a Billo the clown O'Reilly, Rush the tush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Kevin Hannity, Tranny Annie Coulter, etc., creationists all.

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

eric said: As John Kwok and numerous others illustrate, conservative /= pro-creationism.

Thanks for reminding us, eric. Others, especially harold sadly, should recall that National Review columnist John Derbyshire, Rolling Stone - and The Weekly Standard - columnist P. J. O'Rourke, Washington Post columnists Charles Krauthammer and George Will, and nationally syndicated radio talk show host John Batchelor (IMHO the best conservative radio talk show host) are among the notable conservative pundits who recognize that biological evolution is well established scientific fact that is explained by the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution. I should note too that Panda's Thumb contributor Timothy Sandefur and former Marine Biology Laboratory director and Provost, University of Virginia Paul R. Gross (who co-wrote "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design) are important conservative critics of creationism. It's a pity that many well meaning people here like harold tend to operate under the erroneous assumption that conservative = creationism.

Of course, George Will is a noted global climate change denier who has been shown by Chris Mooney to be a congenital liar about the subject.

That doesn't diminish the fact that both he and Charles Krauthammer were among the first to praise Judge Jones' ruling in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. If you think it does, then you are sadly mistaken.

John said:

SLC said:

John said: I'm going to correct and update my prior remarks: Apparently you’ve been ignoring the points I have made noting that Roberts and Alito share Jones’ judicial philosophy. Moreover, as eric has noted, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to hear cases pertaining to the teaching of creationism. Yesterday I pointed to four instances were the Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals of lower court rulings by creationists. For your own edification look here: http://www.ncse.com/legal As for your other comments in your reply to eric, do you realize that you are sounding remarkably like some of the creobots who have been posting here? I think eric felt compelled to remind you that conservatives /= creationism simply for your recent set of commentary, which, surprisingly, comes across as hysteria (Although we have substantial political differences, I never expected you to start acting a bit unhinged with regards to conservatives. Please get a grip on yourself, harold.). Your recent remarks ignore that sad, but true, facts that there are many liberals and moderates who find evolution objectionable, as noted anecdotally by physicist Lisa Randall who met a young Obama supporter - a Hollywood actor who had studied molecular biology in college and had taught biology in an urban middle school - who refused to accept that evolution applied to humans (I have posted the links to her comments on numerous occasions, so I have no need of doing so again here; this was in response to a question raised by Jerry Coyne that she, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, Ken Miller, Karl Giberson and several others attempted to answer at The Edge back in late January, 2009.). Three of the most important critics of creationism are conservative in their political orientation: attorney Timothy Sandefur (a frequent PT contributor), biologist Paul R. Gross and skeptic and writer Michael Shermer. I hope you don't forget that.

1. Michael Shermer considers himself to be a Libertarian, much like Ed Brayton, over at the dispatches website in his new digs at the Freethoughtblogs. Brayton, and his best commentors, Michael Heath and James Hanley, demur at characterizing themselves as conservatives. 2. Unfortunately, I am not as sanguine about Roberts and Alito as Mr. Kwok is. As far as I can make out, they are right wing scumbag ideologues and I would be willing to wager a substantial amount of money that, if a case like Dover ever came to the Supreme Court, they would be joining Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are the slime off the bottom of the cesspool, in overturning an anti-creationist decision. 3. Gee, so Prof. Randalls' chance acquaintance is in the same league as creationist Governor Jindal, biology major at Brown, Un. 4. Hollywood actors are not known for being intellectual giants, with the notable exceptions of James Woods (IQ 180, recipient of a full scholarship to MIT upon graduating from high school), Judy Holliday (IQ 170), Jill StJohn (IQ 160), and Natalie Portman (IQ unknown but co-author of two papers published in peer reviewed journals while still in high school and research assistant to Alan Dershowitz while an undergraduate at Harvard). 5. Unfortunately for Mr. Kwok, for every John Bachelor, we have a Billo the clown O'Reilly, Rush the tush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Kevin Hannity, Tranny Annie Coulter, etc., creationists all.

You are suffering from a severe case of DLS; Deranged Liberal Syndrome, SLC. Michael Shermer is still a Conservative and I know this having discussed him with a mutual friend of ours who posts here occasionally at Panda's Thumb (And no, I'm not going to identify that person, except to note that he is a prominent biologist.). As for Mike Heath, he's a friend with whom I have had rewarding discussions about creationism, and yes, he's probably as much a Libertarian as I am. As for Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito, Roberts was a protege of Rehnquist and Alito shares the same judicial philosophy as Roberts, Rehnquist and Jones. But even if neither Supreme Court justice did, they would still have to respect prior Supreme Court rulings against creationism, and the fact that in four other instances, the Supreme Court declined to hear cases that were judicial defeats for creationists in lower Federal courts. Who cares about Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, etc. None of them have played as important a role in fighting creationism as Gross, Jones, Sandefur (who is a frequent PT contributor) and Shermer.

What I find most hilarious is the fact that these anti tax tea bags profited from the government’s Cash for Clunkers program.

SLC said: But even if neither Supreme Court justice did, they would still have to respect prior Supreme Court rulings against creationism, and the fact that in four other instances, the Supreme Court declined to hear cases that were judicial defeats for creationists in lower Federal courts. They don't have to do anything of the sort. The Supreme Court overturns prior decisions all the time. Roberts and Alito are both pieces of filth. You are suffering from a severe case of DLS; Deranged Liberal Syndrome, SLC. I consider that a great compliment coming from a nutcase like Mr. Kwok. Who cares about Hannity, Coulter, O’Reilly, etc. None of them have played as important a role in fighting creationism as Gross, Jones, Sandefur (who is a frequent PT contributor) and Shermer. Of course Limbaugh and co. haven't played an important role in fighting creationism. They're creationists! I daresay that the number of people who have heard of Limbaugh et al far exceeds the number who have heard of Gross et. al. By the way, Charles Krauthammer, the cheerleader for the Iraq fiasco, who is the leading agitator for bombing Iran, is a fascist war criminal. He is unable to bring himself to even denounce whackjobs like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, and Rick Santorum.

SLC said: I am afraid that Chris Mooney agrees with me that Mr. Wills' support for evolution is, indeed, diminished by his lies about global climate change. He is not only mistaken, he is a liar.

Why should the public school system belong to only to evolutionists? Christians pay taxes too! Why is it unfair to discuss the evidence that God created the world, or the role of buggery in spreading AIDS, or the fact that babies feel pain when being aborted.

The Jumbuck said: Why should the public school system belong to only to evolutionists?

The Jumbuck said: Why should the public school system belong to only to evolutionists? Christians pay taxes too! Why is it unfair to discuss the evidence that God created the world, or the role of buggery in spreading AIDS, or the fact that babies feel pain when being aborted.

The Jumbuck said: Why should the public school system belong to only to evolutionists? Christians pay taxes too! Why is it unfair to discuss the evidence that God created the world, or the role of buggery in spreading AIDS, or the fact that babies feel pain when being aborted.

The Jumbuck said: Why should the public school system belong to only to evolutionists? Christians pay taxes too!

Why is it unfair to discuss the evidence that God created the world,

John said:

The Jumbuck said: Why should the public school system belong to only to evolutionists? Christians pay taxes too! Why is it unfair to discuss the evidence that God created the world, or the role of buggery in spreading AIDS, or the fact that babies feel pain when being aborted.

Public schools are not places to study scripture, except maybe in comparative religion and philosophy classes. What you wish can't be taught due to Federal Government

recognition of the separation between Church and State; recognition that has existed since the birth of our democratic republic which occurred when the United States Constitution was ratified by the original thirteen states back in the late 1780s.

Moreover even if the public schools could teach that "GOD created the world", then which god? Jehovah/Allah, Ahura Mazda, Rama, Jove, Odin, a Mayan GOD, or maybe a Klingon GOD?

eric said:

The Jumbuck said: Why should the public school system belong to only to evolutionists? Christians pay taxes too!

And Christians are equally entitled to a public school system that does not endorse religion nor endorse one specific religion over others. Secularism protects your religious freedom too - even if you are not smart enough to see that.

Why is it unfair to discuss the evidence that God created the world,

Discuss it in a bible study class all you want. We don't care. Neither do the courts - doing that is perfectly legal. What we do care about is when you try to tell kids that it's science. It isn't, and it shouldn't be taught in biology classes any more than the history of the civil war should be taught in biology classes.

The Jumbuck the delusional Xian Aussie:

John said:

The Jumbuck said: Why should the public school system belong to only to evolutionists? Christians pay taxes too! Why is it unfair to discuss the evidence that God created the world, or the role of buggery in spreading AIDS, or the fact that babies feel pain when being aborted.

Public schools are not places to study scripture, except maybe in comparative religion and philosophy classes. What you wish can't be taught due to Federal Government

Your federal government can lick my bumhole clean!

recognition of the separation between Church and State; recognition that has existed since the birth of our democratic republic which occurred when the United States Constitution was ratified by the original thirteen states back in the late 1780s.

Yes, this was a very important event. It meant the Mother Country had to find a new dumping ground for her excess rabble! What else it means I have no idea. The arrogance and condescension of you Yanks knows no bounds. First, you dragoon as many countries as possible into your tub-thumping Middle Eastern crusades at the behest of your Zionist paymasters and then you think your lawyers should determine how all people ought to live. Your Courts have done more to discourage Christians worldwide than anything else; it tells those who love Jesus they can't win anywhere, and it tells those jurists who can't stop sniffing Yank bum they shouldn't win either.

Moreover even if the public schools could teach that "GOD created the world", then which god? Jehovah/Allah, Ahura Mazda, Rama, Jove, Odin, a Mayan GOD, or maybe a Klingon GOD?

The Jumbuck said:

eric said:

The Jumbuck said: Why should the public school system belong to only to evolutionists? Christians pay taxes too!

And Christians are equally entitled to a public school system that does not endorse religion nor endorse one specific religion over others. Secularism protects your religious freedom too - even if you are not smart enough to see that.

All education is inherently religious. Non-religious schooling just supports the religion of evolutionism.

Why is it unfair to discuss the evidence that God created the world,

Discuss it in a bible study class all you want. We don't care. Neither do the courts - doing that is perfectly legal. What we do care about is when you try to tell kids that it's science. It isn't, and it shouldn't be taught in biology classes any more than the history of the civil war should be taught in biology classes.

Fair enough. We don't have to say the Bible is "scientific," just that it's true.

John said: Hey Ken Ham's young cousin, why don't you shut the f**K up? I can't stand hypocritical moral posturing from a psychotic Aussie an idiotic bigot like yourself

apokryltaros said:

John said: Hey Ken Ham's young cousin, why don't you shut the f**K up? I can't stand hypocritical moral posturing from a psychotic Aussie an idiotic bigot like yourself

There, all fixed for you, John.

The Jumbuck said: All education is inherently religious. Non-religious schooling just supports the religion of evolutionism.

apokryltaros said:

The Jumbuck said:

eric said:

The Jumbuck said: Why should the public school system belong to only to evolutionists? Christians pay taxes too!

And Christians are equally entitled to a public school system that does not endorse religion nor endorse one specific religion over others. Secularism protects your religious freedom too - even if you are not smart enough to see that.

All education is inherently religious. Non-religious schooling just supports the religion of evolutionism.

Do you think mathematics is religious?

Do you think reading from a cookbook is prayer? Do you worship the DVD player when you learn how to program it? Do you worship the company board of directors when you receive on the job training? No?

Your blanket statement clearly shows your apparently deliberate lack of understanding of anything. That, and the only beings who follow the "religion of evolutionism" (sic) are the boogiemen who infest the empty heads of Creationists.

Why is it unfair to discuss the evidence that God created the world,

Discuss it in a bible study class all you want. We don't care. Neither do the courts - doing that is perfectly legal. What we do care about is when you try to tell kids that it's science. It isn't, and it shouldn't be taught in biology classes any more than the history of the civil war should be taught in biology classes.

Fair enough. We don't have to say the Bible is "scientific," just that it's true.

The Bible was never intended to be a scientific treatise, and does not deserve to be taught in a science classroom. Using the Bible as a science textbook merely exposes the profound lack of understanding the Ancient Jews had of the world during the Late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age. So, do you want to make even a half-assed attempt to justify using the Bible as a really awkward and stupid science book, troll? Or do you want to troll another topic?

The Jumbuck said: The essential issue is not whether the Bible is a science book, but whether it is a true book.

mrg said:

The Jumbuck said: The essential issue is not whether the Bible is a science book, but whether it is a true book.

Maybe where you come from. The issue here is the states is whether it can be used as a reference in science classes ... quite a bit of fussing over that matter. If you say your scriptures are true, not much to say about it, or for that matter care about it much -- but the courts and the science community can and do say it's not a science text.

Jumbuck,

What part of the bible is true?

How do you know?

Which version?

The Jumbuck said: Why should the public school system belong to only to evolutionists? Christians pay taxes too! Why is it unfair to discuss the evidence that God created the world, or the role of buggery in spreading AIDS, or the fact that babies feel pain when being aborted.

John said:

SLC said: But even if neither Supreme Court justice did, they would still have to respect prior Supreme Court rulings against creationism, and the fact that in four other instances, the Supreme Court declined to hear cases that were judicial defeats for creationists in lower Federal courts. They don't have to do anything of the sort. The Supreme Court overturns prior decisions all the time. Roberts and Alito are both pieces of filth. You are suffering from a severe case of DLS; Deranged Liberal Syndrome, SLC. I consider that a great compliment coming from a nutcase like Mr. Kwok. Who cares about Hannity, Coulter, O’Reilly, etc. None of them have played as important a role in fighting creationism as Gross, Jones, Sandefur (who is a frequent PT contributor) and Shermer. Of course Limbaugh and co. haven't played an important role in fighting creationism. They're creationists! I daresay that the number of people who have heard of Limbaugh et al far exceeds the number who have heard of Gross et. al. By the way, Charles Krauthammer, the cheerleader for the Iraq fiasco, who is the leading agitator for bombing Iran, is a fascist war criminal. He is unable to bring himself to even denounce whackjobs like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, and Rick Santorum.

This is getting ridiculous, SLC. 1) The Supreme Court has ruled against creationism THREE TIMES: Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968), McLean vs. Arkansas (1982) and Edwards vs. Aguillard (1987). Judge Jones' Kitzmiller ruling, while not legally binding outside of his district, has been used as unofficial legal precedent in more recent cases, and the Supreme Court would most likely do likewise given his excellent legal reasoning and prose that was based on the three prior Supreme Court rulings I have cited. Moreover, the court refused to hear four other cases that were ruled against creationists, and I am certain that the court would review its reasons for refusal for those cases when it is forced to revisit the issue again. 2) Charles Krauthammer and George Will approved of Judge Jones' ruling and were critical of Intelligent Design and its proponents during the trial itself. For example, nearly a month prior to Jones' ruling, Krauthammer said this: "Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological 'theory' whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a 'theory' that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, 'I think I'll make me a lemur today.' A 'theory' that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?" The rest of his remarks can be read here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html 3) Your absurd attempt at trying to link me to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal since we are both fellow Brown alumni and Conservative Republicans is mere breathtaking inanity. It is akin to the baseless accusations by PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne that Ken Miller is a creationist. But what more can I expect from someone who posted elsewhere online that he regards Cameron Diaz as "hot", when I noted just how impress I was in hearing from Lawrence Krauss that he had a great conversation with Diaz immediately after a World Science Festival panel discussion on science faith that both Diaz and I had attended (Krauss and Miller were two of the panelists.). 1. The problem with Mr. Kwok is that he considers Alito and Roberts to be something other then the right wing ideologues that they are. I am willing to bet that, in the event of an appeal of a Dover type case, they will be right along side Scalia and Thomas. 2. Like stopped clocks, Will and Krauthammer are right about creationism and are wrong about almost everything else.

The Jumbuck said:

John said:

The Jumbuck said: Why should the public school system belong to only to evolutionists? Christians pay taxes too! Why is it unfair to discuss the evidence that God created the world, or the role of buggery in spreading AIDS, or the fact that babies feel pain when being aborted.

Public schools are not places to study scripture, except maybe in comparative religion and philosophy classes. What you wish can't be taught due to Federal Government

Your federal government can lick my bumhole clean!

recognition of the separation between Church and State; recognition that has existed since the birth of our democratic republic which occurred when the United States Constitution was ratified by the original thirteen states back in the late 1780s.

Yes, this was a very important event. It meant the Mother Country had to find a new dumping ground for her excess rabble! What else it means I have no idea. The arrogance and condescension of you Yanks knows no bounds. First, you dragoon as many countries as possible into your tub-thumping Middle Eastern crusades at the behest of your Zionist paymasters and then you think your lawyers should determine how all people ought to live. Your Courts have done more to discourage Christians worldwide than anything else; it tells those who love Jesus they can't win anywhere, and it tells those jurists who can't stop sniffing Yank bum they shouldn't win either.

Moreover even if the public schools could teach that "GOD created the world", then which god? Jehovah/Allah, Ahura Mazda, Rama, Jove, Odin, a Mayan GOD, or maybe a Klingon GOD?

The Jumbuck said: So, do you want to make even a half-assed attempt to justify using the Bible as a really awkward and stupid science book, troll? Or do you want to troll another topic?

Read for comprehension, moron. The essential issue is not whether the Bible is a science book, but whether it is a true book.

SLC said: 1. The problem with Mr. Kwok is that he considers Alito and Roberts to be something other then the right wing ideologues that they are. I am willing to bet that, in the event of an appeal of a Dover type case, they will be right along side Scalia and Thomas. 2. Like stopped clocks, Will and Krauthammer are right about creationism and are wrong about almost everything else.

apokryltaros said:

The Jumbuck said: So, do you want to make even a half-assed attempt to justify using the Bible as a really awkward and stupid science book, troll? Or do you want to troll another topic?

Read for comprehension, moron. The essential issue is not whether the Bible is a science book, but whether it is a true book.

So do you believe that grasshoppers have four legs, that rabbits can chew cud, or that you can magically breed striped goats by showing unstriped goats a striped stick?

apokryltaros said:

The Jumbuck said: So, do you want to make even a half-assed attempt to justify using the Bible as a really awkward and stupid science book, troll? Or do you want to troll another topic?

Read for comprehension, moron. The essential issue is not whether the Bible is a science book, but whether it is a true book.

So do you believe that grasshoppers have four legs,

that rabbits can chew cud

, or that you can magically breed striped goats by showing unstriped goats a striped stick?

Rob said: Jumbuck, What part of the bible is true?

How do you know?

Which version?

Kohls: Eliminating God from our public lives I think is a mistake and is why we have gone in the direction of spending beyond our means

John said:

SLC said: 1. The problem with Mr. Kwok is that he considers Alito and Roberts to be something other then the right wing ideologues that they are. I am willing to bet that, in the event of an appeal of a Dover type case, they will be right along side Scalia and Thomas. 2. Like stopped clocks, Will and Krauthammer are right about creationism and are wrong about almost everything else.

Apparently SLC, you are still sufferng from a most acute case of DLS (Deranged Liberal Syndrome). You were asked by eric to provide evidence demonstrating that, with regards to creationism, both Roberts and Alito are "right wing ideologues", and yet you refuse to provide such evidence. You still ignore the fact that the Supreme Court has heard only three cases pertaining to creationism and rejected creationist arguments each and every time, AND refused to hear four other cases. Again, the Supreme Court would have to consider seriously its prior legal precedents with regards to creationism, as well as other evidence like Judge Jones' Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling. Nor do you wish to concede that, at least with regards to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial and the well-established fact of biological evolution as an important part of modern science, both Krauthammer and Wills have gotten it right (We're not discussing their other opinions here, only those pertaining to evolution and creationism. But, instead, you opt to write an ad hominem attack on them. Speaking of ad hominem attacks, I think you owe me an apology for trying to claim that I have much in common with fellow Brunonian Bobby Jindal. I don't, period. If I did, do you think I'd be supporting Zack Kopplin's effort to repeal LSEA?). Since you agree with Chris Mooney's view of George Will - and of course I don't but not for any reason that you probably think of, but rather instead, because I find his examination of science policy issues to be quite superficial,= to say the least - then how come you didn't join him and Sheril Kirshenbaum in condemning the Pharyngula-posted threat to rape and to kill them? I know the answer; you are quite simply an incorrigible sanctimonious hypocrite.

The Jumbuck said: No, mathematics is completely deductive; it does not make any leaps of faith. However, when we get to the question of why mathematics works, that can only be answered by an appeal to faith in the authority of a Creator who made the universe comprehensible. Did you notice that in all of these examples you are relying on the testimony of others. That is, you have committed an act of faith. My faith in the Bible is based on similar evidence.

Why is Kwok allowed to clog every post that even approaches politics with his Murdochian propoganda? That stuff should go to the BW where it belongs.

The Jumbuck said:

Rob said: Jumbuck, What part of the bible is true?

All of it.

How do you know?

faith

Which version?

Only the original autographs are truly perfect,but any of the standard versions (KJV,NAS) will be good enough for most purposes.

So Mr. Kwok thinks that Mr. Mooneys' characterization of George Will as a liar on the subject of global climate change is incorrect. As for the issue with Ms. Kirshenbaum, I don't comment over at the Scienceblogs Pharyngula site (although I will be commenting at Prof. Myers' new digs). As for Mr. Eric, I note that his comment was not directed at me so no response was required. I think that both Mr. Kwok and Mr. Eric are being entirely too sanguine about Alito and Roberts; I wouldn't trust either of them as far as I could throw them. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. By the way, Mr. Kwoks' characterization of President Obama as a left wing socialist is total horse pucky. Actually, on economic issues, by European standards, even those of President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel, he's rather conservative, an Eisenhower Rethuglican in fact. By the way, his chances of reelection are a hell of a lot better then either Sarkozy (currently running third in the polls) or Merkel (whose party suffered a catastrophic defeat in local elections a few months ago). I'm not a member of the Obama marching and chowder society but I will say that his supreme court selections, Sotomayor and Kagen are far superior to the likes of Rethuglican appointments, slimeballs Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia.

John said:

So Mr. Kwok thinks that Mr. Mooneys' characterization of George Will as a liar on the subject of global climate change is incorrect. As for the issue with Ms. Kirshenbaum, I don't comment over at the Scienceblogs Pharyngula site (although I will be commenting at Prof. Myers' new digs). As for Mr. Eric, I note that his comment was not directed at me so no response was required. I think that both Mr. Kwok and Mr. Eric are being entirely too sanguine about Alito and Roberts; I wouldn't trust either of them as far as I could throw them. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. By the way, Mr. Kwoks' characterization of President Obama as a left wing socialist is total horse pucky. Actually, on economic issues, by European standards, even those of President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel, he's rather conservative, an Eisenhower Rethuglican in fact. By the way, his chances of reelection are a hell of a lot better then either Sarkozy (currently running third in the polls) or Merkel (whose party suffered a catastrophic defeat in local elections a few months ago). I'm not a member of the Obama marching and chowder society but I will say that his supreme court selections, Sotomayor and Kagen are far superior to the likes of Rethuglican appointments, slimeballs Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia.

You're projecting SLC. I have said more than once that I disagree with Krauthammer, Will and Batchelor's rejection of anthropogenic global warming. But I have to credit them for having a much better understanding of science than what I have seen from Bachmann, Coulter, Palin, and other truly right wing ideologues. For Chris Mooney to assert that Will's refusal to recognize the reality of anthropogenic global warming means that Will's defense of evolution shouldn't be regarded as commendable is ridiculous, especially since he has offered superficial, quite unrealistic, prescriptions for addressing American scientific illiteracy. Nor did I say that you posted at Pharyngula in response to Sheril's complaint. I was referring to this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science/ What eric wrote in response to harold's comment, does apply to you, and again, I'll state it hear for your benefit: "Now, we all know Scalia is pro-creationism, but do you have any evidence that the other judges are? Past cases they’ve ruled on which were indicative of pro-creationism leanings? Let me ask a related question: it takes the active sign-off of four SCOTUS judges before a case is heard. What four judges do you think actively want to overturn current precedent in regards to teaching creationism? Not even Scalia may be in this category; while he certainly disagrees with current rulings, its not clear to me he cares enough about it to give it a high priority (i.e. that he wants to take this type of case over 99 others he could take)." "As John Kwok and numerous others illustrate, conservative /= pro-creationism." As for your other comments, they are not worthy of comment since they were written by a troll suffering from Deranged Liberal Syndrome.

OK folks, Jumbuck is having you on.

His behavior may be a classic example of Poe's Law, but look at the screen name he chose. A "jumbuck" is a sheep. I think we can assume that Jumbuck is male (I'm guessing a bright college sophomore with too much time on his hands, trying to push as many buttons as he can per post, and not believing any of it).

Now what kind of sexual encounters would a male sheep be inclined towards?

Just Bob said: OK folks, Jumbuck is having you on. His behavior may be a classic example of Poe's Law, but look at the screen name he chose. A "jumbuck" is a sheep. I think we can assume that Jumbuck is male (I'm guessing a bright college sophomore with too much time on his hands, trying to push as many buttons as he can per post, and not believing any of it). Now what kind of sexual encounters would a male sheep be inclined towards?

Just Bob said: OK folks, Jumbuck is having you on.

SLC said:

John said:

So Mr. Kwok thinks that Mr. Mooneys' characterization of George Will as a liar on the subject of global climate change is incorrect. As for the issue with Ms. Kirshenbaum, I don't comment over at the Scienceblogs Pharyngula site (although I will be commenting at Prof. Myers' new digs). As for Mr. Eric, I note that his comment was not directed at me so no response was required. I think that both Mr. Kwok and Mr. Eric are being entirely too sanguine about Alito and Roberts; I wouldn't trust either of them as far as I could throw them. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. By the way, Mr. Kwoks' characterization of President Obama as a left wing socialist is total horse pucky. Actually, on economic issues, by European standards, even those of President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel, he's rather conservative, an Eisenhower Rethuglican in fact. By the way, his chances of reelection are a hell of a lot better then either Sarkozy (currently running third in the polls) or Merkel (whose party suffered a catastrophic defeat in local elections a few months ago). I'm not a member of the Obama marching and chowder society but I will say that his supreme court selections, Sotomayor and Kagen are far superior to the likes of Rethuglican appointments, slimeballs Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia.

You're projecting SLC. I have said more than once that I disagree with Krauthammer, Will and Batchelor's rejection of anthropogenic global warming. But I have to credit them for having a much better understanding of science than what I have seen from Bachmann, Coulter, Palin, and other truly right wing ideologues. For Chris Mooney to assert that Will's refusal to recognize the reality of anthropogenic global warming means that Will's defense of evolution shouldn't be regarded as commendable is ridiculous, especially since he has offered superficial, quite unrealistic, prescriptions for addressing American scientific illiteracy. Nor did I say that you posted at Pharyngula in response to Sheril's complaint. I was referring to this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science/ What eric wrote in response to harold's comment, does apply to you, and again, I'll state it hear for your benefit: "Now, we all know Scalia is pro-creationism, but do you have any evidence that the other judges are? Past cases they’ve ruled on which were indicative of pro-creationism leanings? Let me ask a related question: it takes the active sign-off of four SCOTUS judges before a case is heard. What four judges do you think actively want to overturn current precedent in regards to teaching creationism? Not even Scalia may be in this category; while he certainly disagrees with current rulings, its not clear to me he cares enough about it to give it a high priority (i.e. that he wants to take this type of case over 99 others he could take)." "As John Kwok and numerous others illustrate, conservative /= pro-creationism." As for your other comments, they are not worthy of comment since they were written by a troll suffering from Deranged Liberal Syndrome.

Excuse me, AFAIK, Dr. Krauthammer is not a climate change denier. Several years ago he mentioned in his column that he has no opinion on the subject because he had not studied the science and therefore, forbear to comment on it. This advice is something that commentors like Mr. Jumbuck, Mr. Booby Byers, and Mr. KL should follow before commenting on subjects they are totally ignorant of.

I know nothing about Mr. Batchelor, who I never heard of him until Mr. Kwok mentioned him yesterday. However, Mr. Wills' lies about global climate change involve scientific issues, contrary to Mr. Kwoks' assertions. I also don't see what the comment about Ms. Kirchenbaum on PZ Myers' blog has to do with Mr. Mooneys' criticism of Mr. Will. Perhaps Mr. Kwok will elucidate us on the issue. I think that Mr. Kwok doesn't like Prof. Myers, Abbie Smith, and Chris Mooney because they banned him from commenting on their blogs (by the way, the toothpaste twins also banned me, even though Ms. Kirchenbaum denies it). She now has her own blog to perhaps I will post a comment over there at an appropriate time to see what happens.

Incidentally, since Mr. Kwok is such a great fan of Associate Justice Samuel Alito, he might want to mosey over to Ed Braytons' blog and look back through the archives to see what his pal, Michael Heath, thinks of the justice.

How about we don't just hit the Quote button, quote 250 or 300 words of embedded text, and then type a sentence or two. That more than anything clogs up a thread. Edit the quotation to include just the portion you're responding to, please.

And I think the political blather can stop now, too. I'm ill and don't have the energy to moderate closely. Moderate yourself or I'll follow PZ's lead. And if I hear one more mention of Brown I'll throw up. Get over it.

Yeah, what he said.

The Dumbass said:

Rob said: Jumbuck, What part of the bible is true?

All of it.

How do you know?

faith

Which version?

Only the original autographs are truly perfect,but any of the standard versions (KJV,NAS) will be good enough for most purposes.

Just Bob said: OK folks, Jumbuck is having you on. His behavior may be a classic example of Poe's Law, but look at the screen name he chose. A "jumbuck" is a sheep. I think we can assume that Jumbuck is male (I'm guessing a bright college sophomore with too much time on his hands, trying to push as many buttons as he can per post, and not believing any of it). Now what kind of sexual encounters would a male sheep be inclined towards?

The Jumbuck said: If Jesus can describe himself as a lamb, why shouldn't I do the same?

If Jesus can describe himself as a lamb, why shouldn't I do the same?

Just Bob said: This one's just too over-the-top.

Just Bob said:

If Jesus can describe himself as a lamb, why shouldn't I do the same?

Really? Where was that? My KJV contains not a single instance of Jesus "describ[ing] himself as a lamb". More proof that this is a prankster, folks. Anyone who truly believed all of the Bible is "true" would surely know what's in it. This joker doesn't. And a sincere Christian would realize that it's grave sin to put words in Jesus' mouth that he never uttered. The game's up, Jumbuck. See if you can invent a more believable troll next time. This one's just too over-the-top.

The Jumbuck said: Just because evolutionists like yourself spend so much time engaging in and thinking about sexual abominations does not mean Christians do the same thing.

John wrote:
Rehnquist, sided with the majority in refusing to hear the case in question (And Roberts has stated that he regarded Rehnquist as his legal mentor.):

Kwok, as always, completely clueless. Promoting Rehnquist as a paragon of virtue, and Roberts' mentor no less, while ignoring the fact that Rehnquist joined with Scalia in his dissent in Edwards. In other words, Rehnquist favored teaching creation science in public schools. Just as Roberts, Alito, and Thomas will probably favor teaching Intelligent Design if a case comes up. With the makeup of this court it will come down to Kennedy, as usual.

circleh said:

Just Bob said:

If Jesus can describe himself as a lamb, why shouldn't I do the same?

Really? Where was that? My KJV contains not a single instance of Jesus "describ[ing] himself as a lamb". More proof that this is a prankster, folks. Anyone who truly believed all of the Bible is "true" would surely know what's in it. This joker doesn't. And a sincere Christian would realize that it's grave sin to put words in Jesus' mouth that he never uttered. The game's up, Jumbuck. See if you can invent a more believable troll next time. This one's just too over-the-top.

Jesus is often referred to by Christians as the "lamb of God" by Christians. I'm not sure if there is a direct Biblical reference to that.

Okay Jumbuck,

Here is the trap.

Is god all powerful?

Is god unconditionally loving and ethical?

Think and answer carefully now.

Rob

Science Avenger said:

Kohls: Eliminating God from our public lives I think is a mistake and is why we have gone in the direction of spending beyond our means

It amazes me that people can get away with stating such a grotesque denial of reality and not get called on it. God is ubiquitous in United States public life: invoked at sporting, political, and theatrical events constantly. Let me go a year without hearing any of those people make references to their gods, and let us have the same proportion of publicly atheistic politicians as exists in the general population, and then it might fly. Right now, I can't get through a single week a football for pete's sake. Its a boldfaced lie, plain and simple, which makes Ms. Kohls a liar.

Rob said: Okay Jumbuck, Here is the trap. Is god all powerful? Is god unconditionally loving and ethical? Think and answer carefully now. Rob

Okay Jumbuck,

Are these examples of the all powerful, unconditionally loving and ethical nature of god as recorded in the true bible?

Ezekiel 9:5-6 ‘As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,…” ‘

Exodus 21:7-11 “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son,…”

Rob

The Dumfuck said:

circleh said: Jesus is often referred to by Christians as the "lamb of God". I'm not sure if there is a direct Biblical reference to that.

Look up John 1:29 morons!

The Jumbuck said: Gee, what about the foreign policy wing of your government? What about your courts? What about your uber-hateful, over-the-top evolutionist movement? While its true that Christians tend to be more overt in your country than in most places, the same is true of American evolutionists. While Jesus tends to be praised more in your country, it is more than negated by all the folks who spit on him. The decisions of your courts against the rights of Christians have been cited as precedents by Christ-haters all over the world including Down Under. I hear inane crap about your "Constitution" and "Founding Fathers" here in Queensland. Why should anybody care? Do we even need to talk about how the Zionist entity that owns your country exterminated the Christians from Palestine because they thought Hamas would be easier to work with? Your paymasters got more than they bargained for, huh? Becuase of this evolution-based anti-Muslim propaganda is stock and trade in your media. Nothing gives you Yanks the urge to bomb than bleats from Middle Eastern women about how they're being abused, whatever that means. You evolutionary yanks really hated Bush because he stole the Zionist, anti-Muslim issue right from under your noses, didn't he?

Richard Hoppe has enough to deal with right now.

I really hope that Reed or one of the other moderators can send this sun-baked, sheep herder abused ewe over to the Bathroom Wall. This Dumbuck jerk obviously spammed a bunch of threads in order to taunt people into mud-wrestling with him.

Roger said:

Robert Byers said: Court decisions in America at the top should be based on a passion and study of what law should be imposed on a free people. Its a great power and surely this has been destroyed by decades of picking judges for preconceived conclusions and including in the picking is the issue of identity and this affects ideology presumptions. Nevertheless on truth and freedom to seek and discuss truth there is nothing wrong with the constitution. Creationism simply needs more cases to bring before America the absurdity of the present censorship in state institutions. In censoring creationist(s) conclusions on matters of origins the state can't escape the charge it is enforcing conclusions on wrong and right answers. if it says its doing this because some conclusions are touching on religion then the state is admitting its saying some religious conclusions are wrong. This is not the job of the state and in fact illegal. Creationism just needs a few more and better lawyers. Time has come. The times are changing.

Wrong. You don't seem to understand the differences in role between judges and lawmakers. You are not censored. You don't understand the US consitution's stance on government and religion. All this aside, I have one question I'd like you to answer. Why do you believe the government wants to censor creationism and what do they gain from doing so?

This an excellent point, but it's not the whole story. The anti-Christian animus cooked up by Zionist ACLU lawyers in Eagleland now engulfs the entire Western World. Anti-Christianism is now taken for granted by government officials everywhere. As far as the motivation goes, you should start with this book. It explains the motivation for everything that happens in American goverment.

The last comment was a reply to Robert Byers. The quoting system didn't work.

circleh said:

The Dumfuck said:

circleh said: Jesus is often referred to by Christians as the "lamb of God". I'm not sure if there is a direct Biblical reference to that.

Look up John 1:29 morons!

Ah, that is where JOHN THE BAPTIST referred to Jesus as "the Lamb of God". You said, "If Jesus can describe himself as a lamb, why shouldn't I do the same?" So, where is the quote where Jesus himself said, "I am the Lamb of God"? He said a lot of things about himself, but not that! I could refer to Jesus as "the Rabbit of God" but that would not mean much unless he endorsed it.

Yep, that's a poe. Desperate one, too. Tell me, sheepie, is attention - any sort of attention - that important to you?

circleh said:

The Jumbuck said: Just because evolutionists like yourself spend so much time engaging in and thinking about sexual abominations does not mean Christians do the same thing.

Please specify the sexual abominations we are supposed to be engaging in. This should be fun.

Dave Luckett said: Yep, that's a poe. Desperate one, too. Tell me, sheepie, is attention - any sort of attention - that important to you?

Dave Luckett said: Yep, that's a poe. Desperate one, too. Tell me, sheepie, is attention - any sort of attention - that important to you?

The Jumbuck said:

circleh said:

Just Bob said:

If Jesus can describe himself as a lamb, why shouldn't I do the same?

Really? Where was that? My KJV contains not a single instance of Jesus "describ[ing] himself as a lamb". More proof that this is a prankster, folks. Anyone who truly believed all of the Bible is "true" would surely know what's in it. This joker doesn't. And a sincere Christian would realize that it's grave sin to put words in Jesus' mouth that he never uttered. The game's up, Jumbuck. See if you can invent a more believable troll next time. This one's just too over-the-top.

Jesus is often referred to by Christians as the "lamb of God" by Christians. I'm not sure if there is a direct Biblical reference to that.

Look up John 1:29 morons!

The Jumbuck said: Jesus was the true author of the whole Bible. He dictated it to the human authors via the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit! You really are stupid!

The Jumbuck said: The last comment was a reply to Robert Byers. The quoting system didn't work.

John said: I love your fiery retort...

Dave Luckett said:

John said: I love your fiery retort...

Heavens, John, where I come from that's in the nature of general conversation, with humorous overtones.

The Jumbuck said: Jesus was the true author of the whole Bible. He dictated it to the human authors via the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit!

What about your courts? What about your uber-hateful, over-the-top evolutionist movement? While its true that Christians tend to be more overt in your country than in most places, the same is true of American evolutionists. While Jesus tends to be praised more in your country, it is more than negated by all the folks who spit on him.

"Federal law simply says that it is illegal to require the teaching of creationism," Kohls said last week. "We're not talking about that; we're talking about adding it as a supplement to curriculum."

eric said:

The Jumbuck said: Jesus was the true author of the whole Bible. He dictated it to the human authors via the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit!

Even the parts written before he was born? Neat trick, that.

What about your courts? What about your uber-hateful, over-the-top evolutionist movement? While its true that Christians tend to be more overt in your country than in most places, the same is true of American evolutionists. While Jesus tends to be praised more in your country, it is more than negated by all the folks who spit on him.

I told you, we don't care if you discuss creationism in a bible study class, just don't call it science. And you agreed with me on that point. So in what way is demanding creationism not be falsly advertised as science 'spitting on Jesus?'

Seems to me that by agreeing that creationism isn't science, you have essentially agreed with our ACLU. With our courts. With the - as you call it - evolutionist movement.

Kohls' response:

"Federal law simply says that it is illegal to require the teaching of creationism," Kohls said last week. "We're not talking about that; we're talking about adding it as a supplement to curriculum."

Richard B. Hoppe said: Kohls replied to ACLU's warning by claiming that they don't intend to require creationism:

"Federal law simply says that it is illegal to require the teaching of creationism," Kohls said last week...

Richard B. Hoppe said: The ACLU has weighed in.

Robert Byers said:

"I’m always saying banning religious conclusions on subjects proclaiming conclusions in schools etc is therefore the state declaring religious conclusions to be false."

John_S said:

Robert Byers said:

"I’m always saying banning religious conclusions on subjects proclaiming conclusions in schools etc is therefore the state declaring religious conclusions to be false."

Yes, ad nauseum, I might add ... Your logic seems to go: "the government bans teaching false conclusions; they ban teaching religious conclusions; therefore they believe religious conclusions are false." That's like saying "parents ban children from touching hot things; they ban children from touching knives; therefore they believe knives are hot". It's called "affirming the consequent". To correct the logical error, you would need to change the first premise to "the only reason the government bans teaching something is because they believe it's false". That fixes the logic, but now the premise is false. The reason for banning Genesis (and the Vedas and the Aggañña Sutta and the creation stories of other religions) from science classes has been clearly stated by the courts: it violates the First Amendment because the primary purpose in teaching it is to advance a particular religious belief and teaching it serves no valid secular purpose - a fancy way of saying it's only being taught in order to use the schools for proselytizing your religious beliefs to other peoples' children; not to educate them for any secular purpose. In most of the court cases that have dealt with the issue, the judges have been careful to note that they do not pass judgment on the validity of the belief. For example, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which invalidated the teaching of Intelligent Design, the judge said "we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position [emphasis mine], ID is not science."

The Jumbuck said: Gee, what about the foreign policy wing of your government?

What about your courts?

What about your uber-hateful, over-the-top evolutionist movement?

While its true that Christians tend to be more overt in your country than in most places, the same is true of American evolutionists.

While Jesus tends to be praised more in your country, it is more than negated by all the folks who spit on him.

The decisions of your courts against the rights of Christians have been cited as precedents by Christ-haters all over the world including Down Under.

SLC said: As Judge Jones has stated on several occasions, both sides asked him to rule on whether, based on the evidence presented, ID was a scientific proposition. This is something that the IDiots always neglect to inform their readers when they castigate the judge for having the temerity to pronounce ID not science. They asked for it and they got it, just not what they asked for.

I also don t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it s doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

“Federal law simply says that it is illegal to require the teaching of creationism,” Kohls said last week. “We’re not talking about that; we’re talking about adding it as a supplement to curriculum.”

Ian Derthal said: Is that not what they tried to do at Dover ?

I think this thread has run its course, folks. Thanks for participating.