Yet another Scopes Monkey Trial on the way in Tennessee

I suggest that any legislator [and/or governor] voting to approve this legislation, personally underwrite its defense [and should it lose] the costs of the parties successfully challenging it. If they are sincere they'd do it. Otherwise they are simply at the public trough to support a particular theological point.

AS a canadian YEC its great always to see the public democratically in practice and more so in spirit take on the present censorship and control over what is taught about origins to the American people.
Everywhere everyone knows times must change on these matters.
I understand 70 % agree with both sides being taught in public schools.
More then the percentage that question biological evolution.
Surely the 30% will not prevail in a democratic nation.

Its everybody that can and should decide these issues for themselves and then take a vote.
Not just a few groups or esteemed scientists should decide.

Truly evolutionism must face up to not just making a better case but that they must make a case and this with a opposition on equal terms.
This is how truth and error works itself out if we believe truth conquors error where honest and intelligent citizens get a good hearing from both sides.

Instead of evolutionism trying to knock down their opponents why not see a more exciting educational culture where the great contentions on the great ideas of origins of everything are addressed in public education.
It might truly raise interest in kids in science subjects .
I remember the actor who played the professor on Gilligans island saying many people came up to him and said he got them interested into a scientific career! Not acting but science!
If that why not the passion behind origin issues.

Anyways freedom demands an end to censorship in origin education in public schools.

Robert Byers said: Anyways freedom demands an end to censorship in origin education in public schools.

If Governor Haslam is wiiling to discuss this bill with his state board of education, then I am cautiously optimistic that he may do the right thing and veto it.

Robert,

You can't be a YEC anymore, remember? Religion isn't science and that's all you gots to support your yecishness.

You is abouts to sees the governments of the United States in action. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, multiple times. No state legislature is going to change that. Or maybe you are willing to pay the court costs for this losing strategy yourself. Can you say "Dover trap"?

I wonder how Mr Byers would feel about teaching "the strengths and weaknesses" of biblical literalism to 1st graders?

It's fine if they present the strengths and weaknesses of evolution, that's what all teachers should do. That isn't going to protect them from prosecution if they lie about the strengths and weaknesses of evolution and use that as an excuse to present pseudoscientific religious nonsense in science class. That is still illegal, immoral and possibly fattening.

If the Governor whimps out and just refuses to sign the bill, that should help out in court. After all, it will be education legislation without the support of the Governor and most likely against the advise of the Board of Education. Does anyone know what their position is likely to be? If the Governor does sign the bill and it is ruled unconstitutional, can he be held responsible, especially if he was told that it was unconstitutional before signing it? IN other words, will anyone other than the teachers duped into teaching creationism is science class ever be held accountable?

Mr. Byers, In a republic the Constitution trumps majority opinion everytime. Our Constitution precludes use of government resources to promote religion. Thus even if 99% of the country believed in creationism, it still can't be taught in public school science classrooms.

Robert, what exactly is it that you want to be taught about origins?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of your favored 'theory' of origins?

See, there is no censorship here, you are free to present the complete theory that you want taught! Just provide your references to the research, literature and relevant links.

I'd be happy to just hear Byers's notion of what he perceives as the weaknesses in his YEC "theory".

How about it, Bobby? What are the weaknesses of YECism?

DS said: It's fine if they present the strengths and weaknesses of evolution, that's what all teachers should do. That isn't going to protect them from prosecution if they lie about the strengths and weaknesses of evolution and use that as an excuse to present pseudoscientific religious nonsense in science class. That is still illegal, immoral and possibly fattening. If the Governor whimps out and just refuses to sign the bill, that should help out in court. After all, it will be education legislation without the support of the Governor and most likely against the advise of the Board of Education. Does anyone know what their position is likely to be? If the Governor does sign the bill and it is ruled unconstitutional, can he be held responsible, especially if he was told that it was unconstitutional before signing it? IN other words, will anyone other than the teachers duped into teaching creationism is science class ever be held accountable?

Robert, why oh why must you tout that you are Canadian? I am Canadian and never in all my time in school did I ever hear creationism mentioned, let alone taught, in any of my classrooms.

Even Martin (Wally) Brown (the self-supporting pastor for the fundamentalist church in Blenheim) taught biology straight up in my secondary school without mentioning creationism or creation science. When asked by a fellow student Wally said (and I'm paraphrasing here because it was a long time ago) that there is the science answer, and there is the religious answer. We were in a science class, so religious ideas were barred at the door for lack of evidence.

You, along with Dennis Markuze (aka David Mabus) are bringing shame upon us. Why don't you go hang out on Rapture Ready with your fellow travelers?

It may end up that evolution denial or outright teaching of creationism becomes the norm in southern "red" states, a constitution that is mainly resented in those areas notwithstanding.

It has become an obsession of the "Tea Party" wing of the right.

If these bills are passed, and teachers teach creationism, the only way that a court challenge will arise is if someone is willing to stand up for themselves. We have seen the level of hostility endured by those who challenged creationism in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Imagine the level in less moderate locales.

There's at least an even chance that SCOTUS won't get another right wing ideologue. However, Justice Scalia is still sitting, and he wrote the dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard. That case involved the outright teaching of YEC. The SCOTUS of the time voted 7-2 against teaching creationism, but Scalia, who is a prominent member of the current court, dissented. Thomas is virtually certain to vote in favor of creationism. Anyone who trusts Roberts or Alito on this is haplessly naive. If a case were to go all the way to the supreme court in the future, there's a good even chance that a decision against blatantly unconstitutional sectarian preaching on the taxpayer's dime might come down, but that's about the best that can be said. And even that would require the persistence and physical survival of the complaining parties.

Judge Jones, in Pennsylvania, wrote a well-thought out decision that more or less prevented the Dover case from winding its way through the court system. However, in other states, this can't be counted on http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/03/roy_moore_alabama_republican_c.html.

It's unfortunate that secession would be so incredibly impractical in the US today. It would be the ideal solution. There are some parts of the country where an authoritarian government that enforces a post-modern version of Christianity is supported by a strong majority of the population.

John said: Since the governonr is interested in discussing this with the State Board of Education which does support the teaching of biological evolution, then there is some hope for optimism that the governor will veto it.

harold said: Judge Jones, in Pennsylvania, wrote a well-thought out decision that more or less prevented the Dover case from winding its way through the court system.

The bill would encourage teachers to present the “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses” of topics that arouse “debate and disputation” such as “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning”

It will soon be four long years since Governor Jindal signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law. Seems many would have been chopping at the bit to use LSEA to introduce "balanced treatment" lessons into classrooms.

Yet, LSEA has basically collected dust these last four years. Indeed, anti-evolutionists have openly expressed dismay and frustration that LSEA has been an empty shell to date. Two Louisiana parishes wanted to use LSEA to blatantly teach "creationism", but both of these efforts were quietly muffled.

It's as if Louisiana anti-evolutionists have been nervous about cdesign proponentsists-like quicksands that can't separate anti-evolutionism from its religious roots, regardless of how much LSEA proclaims it's not allowed to promote religion.

Please, anyone, explain what benefit LSEA had brought to Louisiana (even while LSEA has led science entities to avoid the state (see here). What has LSEA done and what could a potential Tennessee law do other than set anti-evolutionists up on shaky constitutional grounds and for anti-evolutionists to pay through the nose for a very expensive court challenge.

Robert Byers said: ...freedom demands an end to censorship in origin education in public schools.

That would be ironic, but not unpredictable. In trying to cram their own religion down peoples throats, they may have inadvertently allowed other religions to use tax payer money to preach in science class as well. Maybe that will finally convince them of the depravity of their position.

mandrellian, aka "unklehank" said:

apokryltaros said: I mean, seriously, why is it that these people can not explain why it is necessary to make legislation to force "discussion" of allegedly controversial topics in science education, even though the aforementioned controversial topics are not controversial in science to begin with?

You probably know all this, but for the creationist cultists, this kind of legislation is necessary precisely because it's the only option they have left to wedge creationism into the learning time of other peoples' children - especially after Dover ruled that even the milquetoast creationism of ID was an obvious and hasty, shoddy and failed attempt to de-deify creationism and therefore unconstitutional. However, all this cult learned from Dover is that they should couch their language a little better. Convincing a bunch of gomer school board members and redneck-pandering legislators into introducing and supporting these bills is the only way they can get their cultish idiocy into classrooms. Painting evolution as a "scientific controversy" (when, as you implied, it's the exact opposite) not only gives it a veneer of respectability in the first instance to those who might not be very knowledgable, it also appeals to peoples' notions of fairness, gives the instigators plausible deniability when accusations of cultish sectarianism inevitably surface and even lets people like DI mouthpieces and their various trolls the opportunity to moan about censorship if and when their bills are quashed. It's just another front for these people in the Culture War that they started, along with sex ed, birth control and gay civil rights. They can't stand that their religious hegemony is over and kids are being taught facts by educated people, instead of obedience by priests, and that facts lead kids away from their cult - even if those kids stay Christian. They don't care that they already have their churches, homes, Bible camps, private Bible study groups, campus Christian groups (yes, they exist), US currency, the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Prayer Breakfasts and innumerable other venues and activities that worship and honour their god publicly and loudly - they want everything. That includes the entire apparatus of state, from the Oval Office to the humble public school up the street (in the shape of Dubya Bush, they had the OO for 8 years - look how that turned out for everyone). Their ignorance and foolishness and misplaced priorities are matched only by their hunger for power, their arrogance and their amazing ability to act persecuted and wounded by secular America, even as they hold the keys to the kingdom. They don't care about education, precisely because they know education leads people away from ancient codes of absolute obedience and towards reason. They don't care about fairness - the US is equally fair to all sorts of religions and sects and cults but creationist activists aren't content to share the space. Finally, they don't care about both sides because, to them, the only two sides are God's and the wrong one. They, in their ridiculous, ignorant pride and their hubris, think they know what their God wants better than their fellow believers (and therefore better than their fellow Americans) and will do anything - including flat-out lie to the country they profess to love - to impose that will on everyone else. The trolls here are simply too stupid and ignorant to realise that they live in probably the perfect country in which to belong to whatever sect they want (or had thrust upon them). However, they're also too childish and greedy to realise they have all they need in order to worship freely and honour their gods as they wish. But freedom of religion isn't enough; they want nothing less than to own the country, lock stock and barrel. They're also too shortsighted to realise that if their most fevered dreams of Christian fundamentalist theocracy came to fruition (and by some miracle didn't wake Jefferson and Paine and Adams from their graves), it'd only be a matter of time before some other sect took the reins from them - in our lifetimes, for example, predominantly Catholic Hispanics are going to outnumber white Protestants in the US. And look out, kids, the more Arab countries you bomb and the more Arab monarchies you suck up to, the more Muslim escapees and refugees you're going to get. Best-case scenario: the trolls-for-Jesus realise they've got it as good as it gets in this world, suck it the hell up and enjoy their lives.

The funny part is that the law, as written, wouldn't allow either outright Creationism or the stealthy Intelligent Design repackaging to be taught, used, or advanced in the schools. We all know that this much is not intended to be applied as written, though. Encouraging teachers to waste everybody's time and the state's money in court costs by giving them false hope about using anti-evolutionist materials is not going to further the cause of education.

It's worth noting that a nearly identical bill in Oklahoma goes further by attempting to shield students who reject evolution (or other wingnut-right issues) in a rather oblique way. It specifies that they may be evaluated on their understanding of the material being taught (you know, as with any school material), but then specifies that they cannot be penalized for holding any particular beliefs about the material being covered. I guess just to make sure that good, honest disagreement with things like evolution, AGW, and human cloning don't open up students to being persecuted by their teachers, which of course is a serious problem in the US today. *eyeroll*

I, as a Conservative Republican, have arrived reluctantly at the conclusion that we need national science standards for all of America's public schools merely to ensure that the teaching of valid mainstream science like biological evolution is not held up for ransom by either delusional creationist supporters of the Dishonesty Institute or Answers in Genitals or by Radical Leftist supporters of "relativism", who regard scientific truth as a "truth" that has as much validity as others. But such standards should be drafted by scientists and eminent K-12 science educators, not by educational bureaucrats, or else we run the risk of running into nonsense such as this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/new-york-city-bans-refere_n_1380991.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb

As an aside, I'm not convinced that simply throwing more money toward education would be the best means of curing this "disease". What is needed is the establishment of both higher educational standards and higher expectations for students, which, I might add are the very recommendations that former Washington Post journalist Alec Klein has emphasized in his writing.

They don’t care that they already have their churches, homes, Bible camps, private Bible study groups, campus Christian groups (yes, they exist), US currency, the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Prayer Breakfasts and innumerable other venues and activities that worship and honour their god publicly and loudly - they want everything.

But freedom of religion isn’t enough; they want nothing less than to own the country, lock stock and barrel.

An alternative piece of education legislation:

Whereas some topics in science such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning arose debate and disputation, it is imperative teachers be encouraged to present the very best scientific findings in these fields. This is necessary in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding and to prevent the insertion of pseudoscientific or religious ideas into the science classroom. The scientific consensus should be taught exclusively, as determined by the peer reviewed literature in the relevant field. Such an approach can only serve to demonstrate and reinforce critical thinking and to demonstrate the power of the scientific method.

What? You say such legislation isn;t necessary? You say that teachers are already completely free to use this approach? RIght. Then why do they need special permission top present "strengths and weaknesses? Maybe counter legislation such as this should be introduced every time creationists try to wedge their legislation into place. After all, if this is the actual intent of their proposals, how can they possibly object?

Steve Laudig said: I suggest that any legislator [and/or governor] voting to approve this legislation, personally underwrite its defense [and should it lose] the costs of the parties successfully challenging it. If they are sincere they'd do it. Otherwise they are simply at the public trough to support a particular theological point.

Robert Byers said: Instead of evolutionism trying to knock down their opponents why not see a more exciting educational culture where the great contentions on the great ideas of origins of everything are addressed in public education. It might truly raise interest in kids in science subjects . I remember the actor who played the professor on Gilligans island saying...

https://me.yahoo.com/a/q2jAVXUO1cMvO_8xyABEwNa.FDws#bf33e said: I wonder how Mr Byers would feel about teaching "the strengths and weaknesses" of biblical literalism to 1st graders?

John said: I, as a Conservative Republican, have arrived reluctantly at the conclusion that we need national science standards for all of America's public schools...

Yet another Scopes Monkey Trial is on the way in Tennessee – that is, unless the governor vetoes the Discovery-Institute-inspired bill that the Tennessee Legislature just passed:

eric said:

John said: I, as a Conservative Republican, have arrived reluctantly at the conclusion that we need national science standards for all of America's public schools...

While I personally like the idea of national curriculum standards, I'll play devil's advocate and say that, in the vast majority of states, the state departments of education seem to be doing very well writing standards. With only a few exceptions, civil-service developed standards aren't the problem. Its elected officials adding laws or rules on top of them that cause the problems - and unfortunately, that problem wouldn't go away if we had national standards. Texas is a good example - there was nothing wrong with the science standards developed by the professional educators. It was the elected officials that caused the problems. So, while I agree that national standards might make evolution education stronger, I don't think they are the main cause of today's problems or the magic bullet fix for the problems we have. Getting legislators to legislate responsibly (and, underlying that, getting public to recognize why such creationist legislation is bad) is really the main issue here.

Byers, how about we work up a teaching module on the “strengths and weaknesses” of talking snakes,

eric said:

John said: I, as a Conservative Republican, have arrived reluctantly at the conclusion that we need national science standards for all of America's public schools...

While I personally like the idea of national curriculum standards, I'll play devil's advocate and say that, in the vast majority of states, the state departments of education seem to be doing very well writing standards. With only a few exceptions, civil-service developed standards aren't the problem. Its elected officials adding laws or rules on top of them that cause the problems - and unfortunately, that problem wouldn't go away if we had national standards. Texas is a good example - there was nothing wrong with the science standards developed by the professional educators. It was the elected officials that caused the problems. So, while I agree that national standards might make evolution education stronger, I don't think they are the main cause of today's problems or the magic bullet fix for the problems we have. Getting legislators to legislate responsibly (and, underlying that, getting public to recognize why such creationist legislation is bad) is really the main issue here.

Tenncrain said:

eric said:

John said: I, as a Conservative Republican, have arrived reluctantly at the conclusion that we need national science standards for all of America's public schools...

While I personally like the idea of national curriculum standards, I'll play devil's advocate and say that, in the vast majority of states, the state departments of education seem to be doing very well writing standards. With only a few exceptions, civil-service developed standards aren't the problem. Its elected officials adding laws or rules on top of them that cause the problems - and unfortunately, that problem wouldn't go away if we had national standards. Texas is a good example - there was nothing wrong with the science standards developed by the professional educators. It was the elected officials that caused the problems. So, while I agree that national standards might make evolution education stronger, I don't think they are the main cause of today's problems or the magic bullet fix for the problems we have. Getting legislators to legislate responsibly (and, underlying that, getting public to recognize why such creationist legislation is bad) is really the main issue here.

The sponsors of the current legislation in my home state of Tennessee admitted in hearings that they had no big problems with Tennessee's school science standards. So basically, the Tennessee General Assembly has come up with a solution looking for a problem. Time will tell if the governor will stop this nonsense. On the one hand, I'm not hopeful as he is Republican. However, he has talked about discussing this legislation with the state board of education which is a hint of hope. Let's also keep in mind that Judge John Jones is a conservative Republican, yet he ruled quite decisively for science in the Kitzmiller/Dover trial.

This is off the topic, but related. Apparently the New York City Department of Education doesn't want to harm the feelings of Fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, and Muslim school children, so it has requested that the word "dinosaur" be removed from future standardized tests:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/new-york-city-bans-refere_n_1380991.html

The New York Post makes a more sensationalist, but still on target, point:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/out_of_the_question_YegJJGCOo33j0CQsccdZuL

DS said: If the Governor does sign the bill and it is ruled unconstitutional, can he be held responsible, especially if he was told that it was unconstitutional before signing it? IN other words, will anyone other than the teachers duped into teaching creationism is science class ever be held accountable?

There really is no choice but to resist. They don’t even offer another choice.

Karen S. said:

There really is no choice but to resist. They don’t even offer another choice.

They are just as much a thread to moderate Christians, and to other people of faith.

John said:

Tenncrain said:

eric said:

John said: I, as a Conservative Republican, have arrived reluctantly at the conclusion that we need national science standards for all of America's public schools...

While I personally like the idea of national curriculum standards, I'll play devil's advocate and say that, in the vast majority of states, the state departments of education seem to be doing very well writing standards. With only a few exceptions, civil-service developed standards aren't the problem. Its elected officials adding laws or rules on top of them that cause the problems - and unfortunately, that problem wouldn't go away if we had national standards. Texas is a good example - there was nothing wrong with the science standards developed by the professional educators. It was the elected officials that caused the problems. So, while I agree that national standards might make evolution education stronger, I don't think they are the main cause of today's problems or the magic bullet fix for the problems we have. Getting legislators to legislate responsibly (and, underlying that, getting public to recognize why such creationist legislation is bad) is really the main issue here.

The sponsors of the current legislation in my home state of Tennessee admitted in hearings that they had no big problems with Tennessee's school science standards. So basically, the Tennessee General Assembly has come up with a solution looking for a problem. Time will tell if the governor will stop this nonsense. On the one hand, I'm not hopeful as he is Republican. However, he has talked about discussing this legislation with the state board of education which is a hint of hope. Let's also keep in mind that Judge John Jones is a conservative Republican, yet he ruled quite decisively for science in the Kitzmiller/Dover trial.

There are number of prominent Conservatives and Republicans involved in fighting creationism, including creationist-inspired legislation like your state's. These include the likes of frequent PT commentator Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation, skeptic Michael Shermer, biologist Paul R. Gross, judge John Jones, National Review columnist John Derbyshire and author and professor Larry Arnhart.

John said: This is off the topic, but related. Apparently the New York City Department of Education doesn't want to harm the feelings of Fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, and Muslim school children, so it has requested that the word "dinosaur" be removed from future standardized tests: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/new-york-city-bans-refere_n_1380991.html The New York Post makes a more sensationalist, but still on target, point: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/out_of_the_question_YegJJGCOo33j0CQsccdZuL

SLC said:

John said: This is off the topic, but related. Apparently the New York City Department of Education doesn't want to harm the feelings of Fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, and Muslim school children, so it has requested that the word "dinosaur" be removed from future standardized tests: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/new-york-city-bans-refere_n_1380991.html The New York Post makes a more sensationalist, but still on target, point: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/out_of_the_question_YegJJGCOo33j0CQsccdZuL

But I thought that the YECs insist that dinosaurs were present on the Ark so how could the mention of these animals be in any way, shape, form, or regard "offensive" to religious fundamentalists?

SLC said:

John said: This is off the topic, but related. Apparently the New York City Department of Education doesn't want to harm the feelings of Fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, and Muslim school children, so it has requested that the word "dinosaur" be removed from future standardized tests: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/new-york-city-bans-refere_n_1380991.html The New York Post makes a more sensationalist, but still on target, point: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/out_of_the_question_YegJJGCOo33j0CQsccdZuL

But I thought that the YECs insist that dinosaurs were present on the Ark so how could the mention of these animals be in any way, shape, form, or regard "offensive" to religious fundamentalists?

John said:

SLC said:

John said: This is off the topic, but related. Apparently the New York City Department of Education doesn't want to harm the feelings of Fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, and Muslim school children, so it has requested that the word "dinosaur" be removed from future standardized tests: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/new-york-city-bans-refere_n_1380991.html The New York Post makes a more sensationalist, but still on target, point: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/out_of_the_question_YegJJGCOo33j0CQsccdZuL

But I thought that the YECs insist that dinosaurs were present on the Ark so how could the mention of these animals be in any way, shape, form, or regard "offensive" to religious fundamentalists?

Shermer's positions are more Conservative than Libertarian, especially since he is a global warming skeptic (If you doubt me, ask Donald Prothero, since they are friends.); as for me I am a Conservative Republican who recognizes the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Jones still identifieds himself as a Conservative who favors following the original intent of the Founding Fathers with regards to interpreting the United States Constitution.

apokryltaros said: Dominionist Christians and their Creationist lackeys, and their political cronies are a threat to literally everyone who do not worship them.

terenzioiltroll said:

apokryltaros said: Dominionist Christians and their Creationist lackeys, and their political cronies are a threat to literally everyone who do not worship them.

They are a threat even to their very selfs, for all that matter: only, they do not know that.

The problem with dinosaurs is that their religious forebears, not so many years ago, denied that there had ever been any such things (those bones were of "giants" mentioned in Genesis). And anything that mentions dinosaurs is LIKELY to bring up "millions of years ago" and other things they don't want their kiddies to know about. So dinosaurs are territory best avoided.

John said: ...following the original intent of the Founding Fathers with regards to interpreting the United States Constitution.

Yeah, not only would they need vocal chords added, but they’d also need ears to hear any reply to it!

The problem with dinosaurs is that their religious forebears, not so many years ago, denied that there had ever been any such things (those bones were of “giants” mentioned in Genesis). And anything that mentions dinosaurs is LIKELY to bring up “millions of years ago” and other things they don’t want their kiddies to know about. So dinosaurs are territory best avoided.

Shermer’s positions are more Conservative than Libertarian, especially since he is a global warming skeptic

Karen S. said: Actually some fundies like dinosaurs. (Of course, they were created 6000 years ago and Noah took them aboard the ark.) Ken Ham's museum features dinos and humans living together in harmony. There is even a saddled dino there you can sit on. Ride 'em cowboy!

Just Bob said:

John said: ...following the original intent of the Founding Fathers with regards to interpreting the United States Constitution.

Way OT, but we need a reality check with this "original intent" stuff. The Founding Fathers (note: no Mothers) ORIGINALLY INTENDED for white people to own black people as SLAVES. And those slaves certainly weren't citizens, but they were to be counted a partial people for the purpose of giving slave owners more political power than folks in non-slaveholding areas. And women were not to be allowed to vote. ... Need we continue? Today's "intent" is what we need to be concerned about, not "original intent".

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said: This is off the topic, but related. Apparently the New York City Department of Education doesn't want to harm the feelings of Fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, and Muslim school children, so it has requested that the word "dinosaur" be removed from future standardized tests: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/new-york-city-bans-refere_n_1380991.html The New York Post makes a more sensationalist, but still on target, point: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/out_of_the_question_YegJJGCOo33j0CQsccdZuL

But I thought that the YECs insist that dinosaurs were present on the Ark so how could the mention of these animals be in any way, shape, form, or regard "offensive" to religious fundamentalists?

Shermer's positions are more Conservative than Libertarian, especially since he is a global warming skeptic (If you doubt me, ask Donald Prothero, since they are friends.); as for me I am a Conservative Republican who recognizes the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Jones still identifieds himself as a Conservative who favors following the original intent of the Founding Fathers with regards to interpreting the United States Constitution.

I seem to recall that Dr. Shermer accepted global climate change several years ago. Has he backtracked? http://www.michaelshermer.com/2008/04/confessions-of-a-former-environmental-skeptic/

SLC said:

John said: This is off the topic, but related. Apparently the New York City Department of Education doesn't want to harm the feelings of Fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, and Muslim school children, so it has requested that the word "dinosaur" be removed from future standardized tests: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/new-york-city-bans-refere_n_1380991.html The New York Post makes a more sensationalist, but still on target, point: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/out_of_the_question_YegJJGCOo33j0CQsccdZuL

But I thought that the YECs insist that dinosaurs were present on the Ark so how could the mention of these animals be in any way, shape, form, or regard "offensive" to religious fundamentalists?

John said:

Way OT, but we need a reality check with this "original intent" stuff. The Founding Fathers (note: no Mothers) ORIGINALLY INTENDED for white people to own black people as SLAVES. And those slaves certainly weren't citizens, but they were to be counted a partial people for the purpose of giving slave owners more political power than folks in non-slaveholding areas. And women were not to be allowed to vote. ... Need we continue? Today's "intent" is what we need to be concerned about, not "original intent".

Sorry Just Bob, I will have to part ways here with you. You may forget that that language was replaced by the 13th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution that were passed by Congress immediately after the Civil War and ratified by the Union states shortly thereafter: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constindex.htm I concur with Judge Jones' observations that it is not the job of the Courts to legislate from the bench. That is to a large degree what he means by "original intent".

Scott F said:

John said:

Way OT, but we need a reality check with this "original intent" stuff. The Founding Fathers (note: no Mothers) ORIGINALLY INTENDED for white people to own black people as SLAVES. And those slaves certainly weren't citizens, but they were to be counted a partial people for the purpose of giving slave owners more political power than folks in non-slaveholding areas. And women were not to be allowed to vote. ... Need we continue? Today's "intent" is what we need to be concerned about, not "original intent".

Sorry Just Bob, I will have to part ways here with you. You may forget that that language was replaced by the 13th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution that were passed by Congress immediately after the Civil War and ratified by the Union states shortly thereafter: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constindex.htm I concur with Judge Jones' observations that it is not the job of the Courts to legislate from the bench. That is to a large degree what he means by "original intent".

Yes, but the people who passed those amendments weren't the Founding Fathers, ie the ones who wrote the original Constitution in the first place. Besides, most reactionary right wingers simply hate the 14th amendment. When they say they want to get back to the "original intent", they mean the Constitution minus all those pesky, non-"original intent" amendments, which gave all those "so called" "rights" to people who don't deserve them. (And before you say anything, I too am a born and bred Republican. But I too have learned my lesson.)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: (What happened to FB login?)

John said: ... that language was replaced by the 13th and 14th amendments

Paul Burnett said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: (What happened to FB login?)

Off topic, but I'm really tired of being welcomed by name, typing my comment and then told I have to re-login. The login script's "Remember me" function needs to be tweaked to have a longer memory.

John Kwok -

I know there is at least one self-described Conservative Republican who expresses themself at least somewhat publicly, who does not deny scientific reality on any of these issues - biological evolution, human contribution to climate change, cigarette smoking health risks, and HIV/AIDS.

And that Conservative Republican is...you.

Is there a second one? This is a serious question and I'd be happy if the answer is "yes".

However, consider me skeptical but not hopelessly biased. I'd have to see pretty good evidence of support for the actual scientific consensus on all of these issues.

I hesitate to even cheapen this comment by noting this, but let's agree in advance that this question has nothing to do with alien probes, astrology, healing crystals, Bigfoot/Sasquatch or the like (none of which I personally accept). Nor does it even have anything to do with liberals, progressives, Democrats, leftists, radicals, Black Panthers, Hugo Chavez, etc, holding unscientific views. I'm sure some members of all those groups do, but that isn't the question here.

The question is, is there another publicly self-identified Conservative Republican who openly accepts the scientific consensus on the four issues I mentioned, evolution, AGW, cigarettes/health, and HIV/AIDS.

I don't want to sound harsh, but failure to clearly demonstrate and document an answer of "yes", even if it takes the form of prolonged evasive tactics, will be interpreted as a "no".

Interesting challenge. And will you, JK, be voting for any candidate who won't publicly acknowledge the scientific reality of those 4 topics? Will you be voting for a party whose platform denies or questions any one or all of them?

Just Bob said:

John said: ... that language was replaced by the 13th and 14th amendments

No, it wasn't "replaced"--it's still there (showing the "original intent of the Founding Fathers [fossil evidence]). Rather it was negated by the Amendments, which, as Scott F pointed out, were passed four generations after the "founding fathers", and several generations more before women were recognized as equal citizens (for voting at least). The "original intent" that matters is that the founders had the foresight to make it AMENDABLE. They knew it would surely need to be changed and improved and corrected and updated to reflect changing times. They immediately saw shortcomings and made 10 major amendments! The fact that they made it amendable means that they didn't intend for their "original intent" to lock the nation down to a system that seemed good to 18th Century aristocratic white male slaveholders.

harold said: It may end up that evolution denial or outright teaching of creationism becomes the norm in southern "red" states, a constitution that is mainly resented in those areas notwithstanding. It has become an obsession of the "Tea Party" wing of the right. If these bills are passed, and teachers teach creationism, the only way that a court challenge will arise is if someone is willing to stand up for themselves. We have seen the level of hostility endured by those who challenged creationism in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Imagine the level in less moderate locales. There's at least an even chance that SCOTUS won't get another right wing ideologue. However, Justice Scalia is still sitting, and he wrote the dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard. That case involved the outright teaching of YEC. The SCOTUS of the time voted 7-2 against teaching creationism, but Scalia, who is a prominent member of the current court, dissented. Thomas is virtually certain to vote in favor of creationism. Anyone who trusts Roberts or Alito on this is haplessly naive. If a case were to go all the way to the supreme court in the future, there's a good even chance that a decision against blatantly unconstitutional sectarian preaching on the taxpayer's dime might come down, but that's about the best that can be said. And even that would require the persistence and physical survival of the complaining parties. Judge Jones, in Pennsylvania, wrote a well-thought out decision that more or less prevented the Dover case from winding its way through the court system. However, in other states, this can't be counted on http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/03/roy_moore_alabama_republican_c.html. It's unfortunate that secession would be so incredibly impractical in the US today. It would be the ideal solution. There are some parts of the country where an authoritarian government that enforces a post-modern version of Christianity is supported by a strong majority of the population.

Sorry, Rehnquist, not Roberts.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Anyways freedom demands an end to censorship in origin education in public schools.

So how do you propose getting around certain US Supreme Court decisions and the Kitzmiller Federal court decision that say you can't teach creationism, "creation science" or intelligent design creationism in public schools? Because it is absolutely certain that teachers or school boards who violate those decisions will be taken to court and ordered to stop.

Robert Byers said:

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Anyways freedom demands an end to censorship in origin education in public schools.

So how do you propose getting around certain US Supreme Court decisions and the Kitzmiller Federal court decision that say you can't teach creationism, "creation science" or intelligent design creationism in public schools? Because it is absolutely certain that teachers or school boards who violate those decisions will be taken to court and ordered to stop.

No problem. The few obscure court cases on these matters just need more public attention and better lawyers. The American institutions are on the side of truth and freedom. Just keep taking them to court.

RWard said: Mr. Byers, In a republic the Constitution trumps majority opinion everytime. Our Constitution precludes use of government resources to promote religion. Thus even if 99% of the country believed in creationism, it still can't be taught in public school science classrooms.

Rolf said: Robert, what exactly is it that you want to be taught about origins? What are the strengths and weaknesses of your favored 'theory' of origins? See, there is no censorship here, you are free to present the complete theory that you want taught! Just provide your references to the research, literature and relevant links. The censorship I refer to is the prohibitions of creationisms or even any criticisms of evolution etc in public institutions primarily schools. They don't deny it but explain it as a dictate from the constitution. In short either creationisms are not true or even if true are prohibited from being presented as true or a option of truth in subjects dedicated to accuracy in their conclusions about nature. creationists don't think this will last.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/MzToB.oMrslp9lFELq_T4SJ0kjSuexs-#ecec8 said: Robert, why oh why must you tout that you are Canadian? I am Canadian and never in all my time in school did I ever hear creationism mentioned, let alone taught, in any of my classrooms. Even Martin (Wally) Brown (the self-supporting pastor for the fundamentalist church in Blenheim) taught biology straight up in my secondary school without mentioning creationism or creation science. When asked by a fellow student Wally said (and I'm paraphrasing here because it was a long time ago) that there is the science answer, and there is the religious answer. We were in a science class, so religious ideas were barred at the door for lack of evidence. I need to remind i'm a foreign observer on american matters. Very important as identity does and should rule nations. I hear always that criticisms of creation(s) are common in Canadian classes of biology or science generally. I know teachers with creationist beliefs to have presented both sides as a rule. Roman Catholic schools are paid for by the government and surely include God as a creator in their subjects on origins. Whether presenting or prohibited from presenting it taps into general Canadian apathy about matters above the mundane. Canada has a long British history, more then America, of teaching creationist ideas in schools here and only ended after WW11 at some point.

Red Right Hand said:

Robert Byers said: Instead of evolutionism trying to knock down their opponents why not see a more exciting educational culture where the great contentions on the great ideas of origins of everything are addressed in public education. It might truly raise interest in kids in science subjects . I remember the actor who played the professor on Gilligans island saying...

I'm sorry, but I'm going to stop reading now...

mandrellian said:

Robert Byers said:

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Anyways freedom demands an end to censorship in origin education in public schools.

So how do you propose getting around certain US Supreme Court decisions and the Kitzmiller Federal court decision that say you can't teach creationism, "creation science" or intelligent design creationism in public schools? Because it is absolutely certain that teachers or school boards who violate those decisions will be taken to court and ordered to stop.

No problem. The few obscure court cases on these matters just need more public attention and better lawyers. The American institutions are on the side of truth and freedom. Just keep taking them to court.

What I'd like to know, Byers, is why these people even care. There are churches, Bible study groups, campus Christian groups, homes, home-schools, private religious schools (even Bible colleges and Christian universities) and all manner of venues available to creationists to teach their own children what they want. There is literally NOTHING stopping an American creationist from teaching their children about creationism and whatever else they want. I presume the situation is similar in Canada. Why are creationists so disrespectful of other peoples' right to have their children educated as they see fit? Why can't non-creationists send their kids to a state school and be confident that they'll just learn science? Why are creationists so threatened by science in the first place? Why must they constantly try to undermine state school education with these endless attempts to cast both unjustified doubt on evolution and aspersions on people who understand science? They repeatedly are shown the door on Constitutional grounds and they always bounce back with a new phrase for creationism: it went from "creationism" to "creation science/scientific creationism" to "intelligent design" and now it's "teach both sides" and "teach the controversy" and "academic freedom" and there's usually some inane bleating about censorship to go along with it. Newflash: it's not censorship to call a spade a spade and only teach science in a science class. The FACT is that creationism is NOT science, any more than astrology or alchemy are, and it IS religion. Therefore, teaching creationism in a science class in a state school is not only unscientific but illegal as it violates the Constitution. You know this, but you obviously don't care - either about what's legal OR what's science. The only thing that matters is you getting into kids' heads to skew their education. If you don't like how education affects kids' religion, then perhaps you should evaluate whether your religion needs to be adjusted to better comport with reality. OR if you don't want your kids to be taught actual science in school, take them out of state school and homeschool them, or enrol them in some Bible academy that panders to your sect's worldview. Too hard to homeschool? Private school too expensive? Too bad. Then DEAL with your kid learning actual science and don't be such an ass as to try and deny all their classmates a real education. Tell your kid to block their ears. Or just lie their arses off and pretend to understand so they'll pass. What, no good? Oh, of course - they might actually learn something if they pay attention. They might actually figure out by themselves (I know, a horrifying prospect) that Genesis isn't a textbook - the first crack in the fundamentalist edifice, which of course will lead them to voting for black people and getting gay-married. OR, it might lead to them becoming scientists and discovering interesting new things or perhaps even making the world a little better. But I suppose we can't have that, considering that any improvement made to the human condition might delay your precious Apocalypse, which of course will delay your countless billions of years of torture porn as you gloat over your enemies roasting in Hell (it really is a disturbing little death-cult you've got going on - and you have the temerity to pick on heavy metal for its dark imagery!). The creationism front in this Culture War you people started really is the most petty, childish and ridiculous thing to be expending your energy on. Biology takes up, what - a few weeks or months total, in high school, if that? How much of that is even spent on evolution at all - especially considering how uncomfortable you rednecks have already made the science teaching environment in the US? All I can say is, you people must be really, really scared of science to be fighting it so hard. In addition to my general state of frustration with creationists, I pity the lot of you and especially your kids. Most people like new information and new ideas and new discoveries; you people seem like you'd be happier in the Middle Ages where noone knew a damn thing except that Jesus loved them and 50 was a ripe old age. Well, if only I had a time machine, I'd pop you back there for a few weeks to see how you dug it.

Byers has no means of discerning truth. He is incapable of assessing evidence - he doesn't even understand what evidence is. It's useless to refer him to the concept. It's meaningless, to him.

He knows nothing whatsoever about history or theology or science, and he doesn't want to know, and he doesn't need to know. He can't be taught, and is completely impervious to fact. He believes what he believes because he believes it, and any further consideration is simply a waste of time.

He also hasn't the faintest idea of what is meant by "theory", so it's useless to use that word and expect any sort of responsive reply; so of course, Rolf didn't get one.

To Byers, it isn't a theory that God created the Universe and everything in it, a few thousand years ago. It isn't a theory that there was a world-wide flood. It isn't a theory that Genesis is literal history. That's simply fact; and it is fact because he believes it. He needs no other reason; truly, no other reason exists, or could exist.

Part of his total blindness to evidence consists of the belief that there is no evidence for origins. No, not even the Bible. The Bible is not "evidence" to the mind of Byers. It is simply an account of what happened. It isn't evidence for the event, it's the event itself, in words. Genesis is true, because it is part of his religion, and his religion is not merely true, it is truth. Absolute truth, in and of itself.

He doesn't have to prove that. He doesn't have to show why. Evidence is simply irrelevant, remember. His religion is truth in itself, and that's simply how it is.

So it doesn't matter in the least to Byers that the courts have always, invariably, inevitably, ruled against his idea that the US Constitution allows the teaching of his religion in public schools. It doesn't bother him that the justices of the Supreme Court have between them centuries of legal experience and are deeply learned in the law, while he, Byers, is totally ignorant of it. He knows they're wrong. He doesn't need to know anything about the law to know that.

They're wrong because his religion is not just true, it's the same thing as truth. Saying that his religion can't be taught in public schools is, to Byers, exactly the same thing as saying that truth can't be taught in public schools. So obviously the courts are wrong. Possibly they'll return to a proper understanding of the Constitution. If not, they'll be changed to reflect one.

That day will come, inevitably. Byers knows this. He needs no evidence to know this; he needs no evidence to know anything. He knows it, because he knows it.

That is the sort of mind we are dealing with, here.

For a scientist to deal with it is a bit like me trying to deal with quantum mechanics. It just doesn't make sense. It's... alien.

But like quantum mechanics, it's real, and someone has to deal with it.

Robert Byers said: AS a canadian YEC its great always to see the public democratically in practice and more so in spirit take on the present censorship and control over what is taught about origins to the American people. Everywhere everyone knows times must change on these matters. I understand 70 % agree with both sides being taught in public schools. More then the percentage that question biological evolution. Surely the 30% will not prevail in a democratic nation. Its everybody that can and should decide these issues for themselves and then take a vote. Not just a few groups or esteemed scientists should decide. Truly evolutionism must face up to not just making a better case but that they must make a case and this with a opposition on equal terms. This is how truth and error works itself out if we believe truth conquors error where honest and intelligent citizens get a good hearing from both sides. Instead of evolutionism trying to knock down their opponents why not see a more exciting educational culture where the great contentions on the great ideas of origins of everything are addressed in public education. It might truly raise interest in kids in science subjects . I remember the actor who played the professor on Gilligans island saying many people came up to him and said he got them interested into a scientific career! Not acting but science! If that why not the passion behind origin issues. Anyways freedom demands an end to censorship in origin education in public schools. No problem. The few obscure court cases on these matters just need more public attention and better lawyers. The American institutions are on the side of truth and freedom. Just keep taking them to court. The censorship I refer to is the prohibitions of creationisms or even any criticisms of evolution etc in public institutions primarily schools. They don’t deny it but explain it as a dictate from the constitution. In short either creationisms are not true or even if true are prohibited from being presented as true or a option of truth in subjects dedicated to accuracy in their conclusions about nature. creationists don’t think this will last. I need to remind i’m a foreign observer on american matters. Very important as identity does and should rule nations. I hear always that criticisms of creation(s) are common in Canadian classes of biology or science generally. I know teachers with creationist beliefs to have presented both sides as a rule. Roman Catholic schools are paid for by the government and surely include God as a creator in their subjects on origins. Whether presenting or prohibited from presenting it taps into general Canadian apathy about matters above the mundane. Canada has a long British history, more then America, of teaching creationist ideas in schools here and only ended after WW11 at some point. Hey come on. The professor was great. he could do anything . His cocanut experiments started the the fiber optics age as I understand it. he also showed kids could do science even if not wearing glasses. in reality always one reads people got interested in science from science fiction. I knoe Star trek claims many people as first getting the bug. Dinosaur interest for kids led to many careers. Nurturing interest in science from any directiobn breeds results of interest. bringing the origin contentions into science class in high schools would surely motivate many into these careers who otherwise would not be interested. A reasonable prediction and desirable. Another reason to free up public institutions to the popular contentions of America. Creationists and all Americans do and should care about what is taught or prohibited from being taught in their country, in their schools, to their kids. The great ideas about the great origins of everything are a most worthy subject for the nations children and youth. if it doesn’t matter then opposition should cease and desist. Saying it doesn’t matter really is just trying to keep the status quo eh. Reaching large audiences should be a focus about great matters. Evolutionism certainly strives to do this in schools.

Robert Byers said:

Rolf said: Robert, what exactly is it that you want to be taught about origins? What are the strengths and weaknesses of your favored 'theory' of origins? See, there is no censorship here, you are free to present the complete theory that you want taught! Just provide your references to the research, literature and relevant links. The censorship I refer to is the prohibitions of creationisms or even any criticisms of evolution etc in public institutions primarily schools. They don't deny it but explain it as a dictate from the constitution. In short either creationisms are not true or even if true are prohibited from being presented as true or a option of truth in subjects dedicated to accuracy in their conclusions about nature. creationists don't think this will last.

However, Justice Scalia is still sitting, and he wrote the dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard.

per wikipedia it was Scalia and Rehnquist who dissented in the case.

Perhaps they had read Pandas & People after “creationist” was changed.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Scott F said:

John said:

Way OT, but we need a reality check with this "original intent" stuff. The Founding Fathers (note: no Mothers) ORIGINALLY INTENDED for white people to own black people as SLAVES. And those slaves certainly weren't citizens, but they were to be counted a partial people for the purpose of giving slave owners more political power than folks in non-slaveholding areas. And women were not to be allowed to vote. ... Need we continue? Today's "intent" is what we need to be concerned about, not "original intent".

Sorry Just Bob, I will have to part ways here with you. You may forget that that language was replaced by the 13th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution that were passed by Congress immediately after the Civil War and ratified by the Union states shortly thereafter: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constindex.htm I concur with Judge Jones' observations that it is not the job of the Courts to legislate from the bench. That is to a large degree what he means by "original intent".

Yes, but the people who passed those amendments weren't the Founding Fathers, ie the ones who wrote the original Constitution in the first place. Besides, most reactionary right wingers simply hate the 14th amendment. When they say they want to get back to the "original intent", they mean the Constitution minus all those pesky, non-"original intent" amendments, which gave all those "so called" "rights" to people who don't deserve them. (And before you say anything, I too am a born and bred Republican. But I too have learned my lesson.)

Scott F, it's JK (What happened to FB login?). When I think of "original intent", the definition I endorse is Judge John Jones, not lunatic Republican presidential candidates like Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. However, I will have to agree with them that the Constitution should not be seen as a "living, breathing document" that needs to be updated for our time. Moreover, I have met some so-called "progressive" intellectuals - including one political scientist - who thinks the Constitution should be revised so that it includes the notion of "fairness", and that I strongly disagree, on the grounds of whom decdes what is and what isn't fair?

Robert Byers said:

Paul Burnett said: So how do you propose getting around certain US Supreme Court decisions and the Kitzmiller Federal court decision that say you can't teach creationism, "creation science" or intelligent design creationism in public schools?

No problem. The few obscure court cases on these matters just need more public attention and better lawyers.

The American institutions are on the side of truth and freedom. Just keep taking them to court.

SLC said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Scott F said:

John said:

Way OT, but we need a reality check with this "original intent" stuff. The Founding Fathers (note: no Mothers) ORIGINALLY INTENDED for white people to own black people as SLAVES. And those slaves certainly weren't citizens, but they were to be counted a partial people for the purpose of giving slave owners more political power than folks in non-slaveholding areas. And women were not to be allowed to vote. ... Need we continue? Today's "intent" is what we need to be concerned about, not "original intent".

Sorry Just Bob, I will have to part ways here with you. You may forget that that language was replaced by the 13th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution that were passed by Congress immediately after the Civil War and ratified by the Union states shortly thereafter: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constindex.htm I concur with Judge Jones' observations that it is not the job of the Courts to legislate from the bench. That is to a large degree what he means by "original intent".

Yes, but the people who passed those amendments weren't the Founding Fathers, ie the ones who wrote the original Constitution in the first place. Besides, most reactionary right wingers simply hate the 14th amendment. When they say they want to get back to the "original intent", they mean the Constitution minus all those pesky, non-"original intent" amendments, which gave all those "so called" "rights" to people who don't deserve them. (And before you say anything, I too am a born and bred Republican. But I too have learned my lesson.)

Scott F, it's JK (What happened to FB login?). When I think of "original intent", the definition I endorse is Judge John Jones, not lunatic Republican presidential candidates like Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. However, I will have to agree with them that the Constitution should not be seen as a "living, breathing document" that needs to be updated for our time. Moreover, I have met some so-called "progressive" intellectuals - including one political scientist - who thinks the Constitution should be revised so that it includes the notion of "fairness", and that I strongly disagree, on the grounds of whom decdes what is and what isn't fair?

A strict interpretation of the Constitution would mean that the setting up of a separate air force is unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically spells out that an army and a navy can be established but nowhere does it talk about an air force. Note that allowing the army and the navy to have an air arm is constitutional because an air arm can be construed as merely increasing the range of the army's artillery and the navy's guns. A separate air force, no.

SLC said: A strict interpretation of the Constitution would mean that the setting up of a separate air force is unconstitutional.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: If the Constitution is a document that is reinterpreted all the time, then explain why in the more than two hundred twenty years that the United States has been a democratic republic under the Constitution, that only (?) twenty six amendments have been passed? [emphasis and parenthesis added]

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Yours is a ridiculous example since you've forgetten that the United States Air Force was originally the United States Army Air Force. Try harder, SLC.

Just Bob said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: If the Constitution is a document that is reinterpreted all the time, then explain why in the more than two hundred twenty years that the United States has been a democratic republic under the Constitution, that only (?) twenty six amendments have been passed? [emphasis and parenthesis added]

Think about that. That's about once every 8 1/2 years. More than twice every generation. It's been amended SIX times in my own lifetime! I'd call that a fair amount of change. And I don't think an amendment can fairly be called a "reinterpretation". "Reinterpretation" is what (most) fundamentalists did when they could no longer maintain that the sun orbits the Earth. Enough bickering with the conservative rowing backwards. Back to not reading Byers.

Just Bob said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Yours is a ridiculous example since you've forgetten that the United States Air Force was originally the United States Army Air Force. Try harder, SLC.

All right, last one, I promise. SLC's example is not ridiculous. What difference does it make if it was originally a branch of the Army? It is NOW a separate military arm, which is NOT authorized under a strict reading of the Constitution.

Sane courts simply cannot sign off on creationism, because it totally subverts the meaningful use of evidence--ID essentially attacks evidence directly by railing about "naturalism" and "materialism."

We may as well go back to witch trials if we're going to pretend that magic significantly affects, or has affected, our world.

Glen Davidson

Rolf said: Robert, what exactly is it that you want to be taught about origins? What are the strengths and weaknesses of your favored 'theory' of origins? See, there is no censorship here, you are free to present the complete theory that you want taught! Just provide your references to the research, literature and relevant links. Robert Byers said: The censorship I refer to is the prohibitions of creationisms or even any criticisms of evolution etc in public institutions primarily schools. They don't deny it but explain it as a dictate from the constitution. In short either creationisms are not true or even if true are prohibited from being presented as true or a option of truth in subjects dedicated to accuracy in their conclusions about nature. creationists don't think this will last.

Tenncrain said:

Rolf said: Robert, what exactly is it that you want to be taught about origins? What are the strengths and weaknesses of your favored 'theory' of origins? See, there is no censorship here, you are free to present the complete theory that you want taught! Just provide your references to the research, literature and relevant links. Robert Byers said: The censorship I refer to is the prohibitions of creationisms or even any criticisms of evolution etc in public institutions primarily schools. They don't deny it but explain it as a dictate from the constitution. In short either creationisms are not true or even if true are prohibited from being presented as true or a option of truth in subjects dedicated to accuracy in their conclusions about nature. creationists don't think this will last.

Both a 6000 year old earth and a world Flood started to fall out of scientific favor by about the 1820s, almost 200 years ago - long before Darwin and Alfred Wallace came on the scene. These basic paradigms have been discarded because of lack of scientific merit, not out-of-hand censorship. What is left of a 6000 year old earth/world Flood is grounded in religion. Such religion being force-fed into public school science classrooms violates the US Constitution, as numerous court cases has ruled. It's fine for your YEC ideas to be taught in a public school comparative religion course, just not in public school science classrooms. Heck, even some private Christian/Jewish schools have virtually no religion in their science classes and teach mainstream science including evolution. Byers, if your 'scientists' come up with real scientific evidence that sways the current scientific consensus, *then* your ideas might be included in public school science classes. Unless this happens, forget it. Unless you also want astrology, alchemy, pyramid power, Cherokee Indian creationism also forced into science classes.

Robert Byers said: Creationists and all Americans do and should care about what is taught or prohibited from being taught in their country, in their schools, to their kids. The great ideas about the great origins of everything are a most worthy subject for the nations children and youth. if it doesn't matter then opposition should cease and desist. Saying it doesn't matter really is just trying to keep the status quo eh. Reaching large audiences should be a focus about great matters. Evolutionism certainly strives to do this in schools.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

SLC said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Scott F said:

John said:

Way OT, but we need a reality check with this "original intent" stuff. The Founding Fathers (note: no Mothers) ORIGINALLY INTENDED for white people to own black people as SLAVES. And those slaves certainly weren't citizens, but they were to be counted a partial people for the purpose of giving slave owners more political power than folks in non-slaveholding areas. And women were not to be allowed to vote. ... Need we continue? Today's "intent" is what we need to be concerned about, not "original intent".

Sorry Just Bob, I will have to part ways here with you. You may forget that that language was replaced by the 13th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution that were passed by Congress immediately after the Civil War and ratified by the Union states shortly thereafter: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constindex.htm I concur with Judge Jones' observations that it is not the job of the Courts to legislate from the bench. That is to a large degree what he means by "original intent".

Yes, but the people who passed those amendments weren't the Founding Fathers, ie the ones who wrote the original Constitution in the first place. Besides, most reactionary right wingers simply hate the 14th amendment. When they say they want to get back to the "original intent", they mean the Constitution minus all those pesky, non-"original intent" amendments, which gave all those "so called" "rights" to people who don't deserve them. (And before you say anything, I too am a born and bred Republican. But I too have learned my lesson.)

Scott F, it's JK (What happened to FB login?). When I think of "original intent", the definition I endorse is Judge John Jones, not lunatic Republican presidential candidates like Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. However, I will have to agree with them that the Constitution should not be seen as a "living, breathing document" that needs to be updated for our time. Moreover, I have met some so-called "progressive" intellectuals - including one political scientist - who thinks the Constitution should be revised so that it includes the notion of "fairness", and that I strongly disagree, on the grounds of whom decdes what is and what isn't fair?

A strict interpretation of the Constitution would mean that the setting up of a separate air force is unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically spells out that an army and a navy can be established but nowhere does it talk about an air force. Note that allowing the army and the navy to have an air arm is constitutional because an air arm can be construed as merely increasing the range of the army's artillery and the navy's guns. A separate air force, no.

Yours is a ridiculous example since you've forgetten that the United States Air Force was originally the United States Army Air Force. Try harder, SLC.

And right-wingers are perfectly happy to treat the 2nd Amendment quite elastically: "A well regulated Militia..." (when it was written, there were citizens' militias that met and drilled regularly, armed with muzzle-loading MUSKETS) being stretched to mean that I should be able to own as many modern assault rifles, machine guns, and antitank weapons as I can afford, and purchase more on a moment's notice. How's that for strict construction and Founding Fathers' intent?

The few obscure court cases on these matters just need more public attention and better lawyers.

The American institutions are on the side of truth and freedom. Just keep taking them to court

Just Bob said: And right-wingers are perfectly happy to treat the 2nd Amendment quite elastically: "A well regulated Militia..." (when it was written, there were citizens' militias that met and drilled regularly, armed with muzzle-loading MUSKETS) being stretched to mean that I should be able to own as many modern assault rifles, machine guns, and antitank weapons as I can afford, and purchase more on a moment's notice. How's that for strict construction and Founding Fathers' intent?

SLC said:

Just Bob said: And right-wingers are perfectly happy to treat the 2nd Amendment quite elastically: "A well regulated Militia..." (when it was written, there were citizens' militias that met and drilled regularly, armed with muzzle-loading MUSKETS) being stretched to mean that I should be able to own as many modern assault rifles, machine guns, and antitank weapons as I can afford, and purchase more on a moment's notice. How's that for strict construction and Founding Fathers' intent?

I actually had someone over at Ed Brayton's blog argue that, under the 2nd amendment, it was unconstitutional to deny anyone from keeping a nuclear weapon in their garage.

SLC said: Generally, getting into a pi*sing contest with Mr. Kwok is a waste of time but I would suggest that he read what I actually said, not what he thinks that I said. Notice the word separate in my statement (Just Bob noticed it). Notice my closing sentence in which I specifically stated that an army and navy air arm were constitutional, based on extension of the range of the army's artillery and the navy's guns. Thus his comment relative to the Army Air force in WW 2 is totally irrelevant. Of course, I don't believe this for a minute but a strict constructionist and originalist, which I am not, would have to believe it to be consistent. The fact is that the words "air force" appear nowhere in the Constitution, just as the words separation of church and state appear nowhere in the Constitution, but are, in fact implied by the 1st amendment. As someone who believes in the elastic clause in the Constitution, IMHO, the separate air force can be construed as constitutional by extending the explicit mention of armies and navies in the Constitution to mean a military force in general.

bbennett1968 said:

SLC said:

Just Bob said: And right-wingers are perfectly happy to treat the 2nd Amendment quite elastically: "A well regulated Militia..." (when it was written, there were citizens' militias that met and drilled regularly, armed with muzzle-loading MUSKETS) being stretched to mean that I should be able to own as many modern assault rifles, machine guns, and antitank weapons as I can afford, and purchase more on a moment's notice. How's that for strict construction and Founding Fathers' intent?

I actually had someone over at Ed Brayton's blog argue that, under the 2nd amendment, it was unconstitutional to deny anyone from keeping a nuclear weapon in their garage.

Well, corporations are people, my friend (right, John Kwok?), and if it's all reasonable and constitutional-like for a person like myself to own a dozen assault rifles to protect myself from the evils of the world, isn't it perfectly reasonable for a person as large and important as, say, Exxon or IBM, to claim the right to have nuclear weapons to defend itself? Corporations are people, my friend, so the prospect of being murdered (i.e., put out of business) by a competitor might reasonably warrant a nuclear strike in self-defense (right, Kwok)?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: I would say that by the dawn of the 19th Century, both a 6,000 year-old Earth and a worldwide flood were rejected by the European scientific community, which consisted of genuine "scientific creationists" like geologist Adam Sedgwick - Darwin's Cambridge University geology professor - who saw "creationism" primarily from the vantage point of Newtonian physics, not from any emotional ties to his Anglican faith.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

bbennett1968 said:

SLC said:

Just Bob said: And right-wingers are perfectly happy to treat the 2nd Amendment quite elastically: "A well regulated Militia..." (when it was written, there were citizens' militias that met and drilled regularly, armed with muzzle-loading MUSKETS) being stretched to mean that I should be able to own as many modern assault rifles, machine guns, and antitank weapons as I can afford, and purchase more on a moment's notice. How's that for strict construction and Founding Fathers' intent?

I actually had someone over at Ed Brayton's blog argue that, under the 2nd amendment, it was unconstitutional to deny anyone from keeping a nuclear weapon in their garage.

Well, corporations are people, my friend (right, John Kwok?), and if it's all reasonable and constitutional-like for a person like myself to own a dozen assault rifles to protect myself from the evils of the world, isn't it perfectly reasonable for a person as large and important as, say, Exxon or IBM, to claim the right to have nuclear weapons to defend itself? Corporations are people, my friend, so the prospect of being murdered (i.e., put out of business) by a competitor might reasonably warrant a nuclear strike in self-defense (right, Kwok)?

Yours is an observation replete in its breathtaking inanity. Possession of nuclear weapons by individuals is illegal and its possession by virtually all nuclear weapons-possessing states have been regulated by international treaties.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that possession of nuclear weapons by private persons or corporate entities is unlawful. The question is, "Is that prohibition Constitutional, given the right to bear arms granted by the Second Amendment?"

That amendment does not include any restriction on the scale, type or nature of the arms, only stipulating that they could rightly be borne by bodies of citizens coming together as "well-regulated militia". This would seem to me to imply that it is certainly Constitutional for corporate entities to form such a body and equip it as they please, and that for a government to legislate to restrict whole classes of weapons to itself alone is unConstitutional, a forcible arrogation of power to itself that can easily be kept in very few hands; and this has certainly been the case with nuclear weapons. This necessarily must lead to a supremacy of government power over the rights of the citizen that must be detrimental to the Republic and the principles upon which it was founded.

I shall now put my tongue back where it ought to be - it was so far in my cheek that it was sticking out of my ear - and retire.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

SLC said: Generally, getting into a pi*sing contest with Mr. Kwok is a waste of time but I would suggest that he read what I actually said, not what he thinks that I said. Notice the word separate in my statement (Just Bob noticed it). Notice my closing sentence in which I specifically stated that an army and navy air arm were constitutional, based on extension of the range of the army's artillery and the navy's guns. Thus his comment relative to the Army Air force in WW 2 is totally irrelevant. Of course, I don't believe this for a minute but a strict constructionist and originalist, which I am not, would have to believe it to be consistent. The fact is that the words "air force" appear nowhere in the Constitution, just as the words separation of church and state appear nowhere in the Constitution, but are, in fact implied by the 1st amendment. As someone who believes in the elastic clause in the Constitution, IMHO, the separate air force can be construed as constitutional by extending the explicit mention of armies and navies in the Constitution to mean a military force in general.

You're picking at straws and sounding very Clintonish (Define the meaning of the word "is".). The United States Army Air Force may have been conceived originally as a part of "artillery", but its potential was realized very late in World War I when it participated in its first bombing missions. Later, between the wars, there were military aviation advocates in the United States, Great Britain and Germany who would recognize the potential of strategic bombing, which would be carried out, with devastating effect, first during the Spanish Civil War, and then, later in the German invasions of Poland and Western Europe and during the Battle of Britain. However, SLC, I should note that I have found you exceptionally difficult to reason with. You and Just Bob need to heed what Paul Burnett wrote earlier in this thread today and why I supported it.

Dave Luckett said: It is a truth universally acknowledged that possession of nuclear weapons by private persons or corporate entities is unlawful. The question is, "Is that prohibition Constitutional, given the right to bear arms granted by the Second Amendment?" That amendment does not include any restriction on the scale, type or nature of the arms, only stipulating that they could rightly be borne by bodies of citizens coming together as "well-regulated militia". This would seem to me to imply that it is certainly Constitutional for corporate entities to form such a body and equip it as they please, and that for a government to legislate to restrict whole classes of weapons to itself alone is unConstitutional, a forcible arrogation of power to itself that can easily be kept in very few hands; and this has certainly been the case with nuclear weapons. This necessarily must lead to a supremacy of government power over the rights of the citizen that must be detrimental to the Republic and the principles upon which it was founded. I shall now put my tongue back where it ought to be - it was so far in my cheek that it was sticking out of my ear - and retire.

Dave Luckett said: It is a truth universally acknowledged that possession of nuclear weapons by private persons or corporate entities is unlawful. The question is, "Is that prohibition Constitutional, given the right to bear arms granted by the Second Amendment?" That amendment does not include any restriction on the scale, type or nature of the arms, only stipulating that they could rightly be borne by bodies of citizens coming together as "well-regulated militia". This would seem to me to imply that it is certainly Constitutional for corporate entities to form such a body and equip it as they please, and that for a government to legislate to restrict whole classes of weapons to itself alone is unConstitutional, a forcible arrogation of power to itself that can easily be kept in very few hands; and this has certainly been the case with nuclear weapons. This necessarily must lead to a supremacy of government power over the rights of the citizen that must be detrimental to the Republic and the principles upon which it was founded. I shall now put my tongue back where it ought to be - it was so far in my cheek that it was sticking out of my ear - and retire.

Scott F said:

Dave Luckett said: It is a truth universally acknowledged that possession of nuclear weapons by private persons or corporate entities is unlawful. The question is, "Is that prohibition Constitutional, given the right to bear arms granted by the Second Amendment?" That amendment does not include any restriction on the scale, type or nature of the arms, only stipulating that they could rightly be borne by bodies of citizens coming together as "well-regulated militia". This would seem to me to imply that it is certainly Constitutional for corporate entities to form such a body and equip it as they please, and that for a government to legislate to restrict whole classes of weapons to itself alone is unConstitutional, a forcible arrogation of power to itself that can easily be kept in very few hands; and this has certainly been the case with nuclear weapons. This necessarily must lead to a supremacy of government power over the rights of the citizen that must be detrimental to the Republic and the principles upon which it was founded. I shall now put my tongue back where it ought to be - it was so far in my cheek that it was sticking out of my ear - and retire.

But that's exactly correct... for a "strict constructionist" or a strict NRA member. They hate those "slippery slopes". Remember, the world is black and white. There is only Absolute right and Absolutely wrong. No grey allowed in between. If you can enumerate "arms", and can somehow define some "arms" that a citizen is not allowed to have, where will it end? Think of the children!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

bbennett1968 said:

SLC said:

Just Bob said: And right-wingers are perfectly happy to treat the 2nd Amendment quite elastically: "A well regulated Militia..." (when it was written, there were citizens' militias that met and drilled regularly, armed with muzzle-loading MUSKETS) being stretched to mean that I should be able to own as many modern assault rifles, machine guns, and antitank weapons as I can afford, and purchase more on a moment's notice. How's that for strict construction and Founding Fathers' intent?

I actually had someone over at Ed Brayton's blog argue that, under the 2nd amendment, it was unconstitutional to deny anyone from keeping a nuclear weapon in their garage.

Well, corporations are people, my friend (right, John Kwok?), and if it's all reasonable and constitutional-like for a person like myself to own a dozen assault rifles to protect myself from the evils of the world, isn't it perfectly reasonable for a person as large and important as, say, Exxon or IBM, to claim the right to have nuclear weapons to defend itself? Corporations are people, my friend, so the prospect of being murdered (i.e., put out of business) by a competitor might reasonably warrant a nuclear strike in self-defense (right, Kwok)?

Yours is an observation replete in its breathtaking inanity. Possession of nuclear weapons by individuals is illegal and its possession by virtually all nuclear weapons-possessing states have been regulated by international treaties.

Tenncrain said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: I would say that by the dawn of the 19th Century, both a 6,000 year-old Earth and a worldwide flood were rejected by the European scientific community, which consisted of genuine "scientific creationists" like geologist Adam Sedgwick - Darwin's Cambridge University geology professor - who saw "creationism" primarily from the vantage point of Newtonian physics, not from any emotional ties to his Anglican faith.

I knew of Sedgwick, but didn't know he was Darwin's geology professor. Very interesting. Here in this link are Sedgwick quotes from 1825 supporting a worldwide Flood and 1831 statements where he recants and abandons at least a *worldwide* Flood.

bbennett1968 said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

bbennett1968 said:

SLC said:

Just Bob said: And right-wingers are perfectly happy to treat the 2nd Amendment quite elastically: "A well regulated Militia..." (when it was written, there were citizens' militias that met and drilled regularly, armed with muzzle-loading MUSKETS) being stretched to mean that I should be able to own as many modern assault rifles, machine guns, and antitank weapons as I can afford, and purchase more on a moment's notice. How's that for strict construction and Founding Fathers' intent?

I actually had someone over at Ed Brayton's blog argue that, under the 2nd amendment, it was unconstitutional to deny anyone from keeping a nuclear weapon in their garage.

Well, corporations are people, my friend (right, John Kwok?), and if it's all reasonable and constitutional-like for a person like myself to own a dozen assault rifles to protect myself from the evils of the world, isn't it perfectly reasonable for a person as large and important as, say, Exxon or IBM, to claim the right to have nuclear weapons to defend itself? Corporations are people, my friend, so the prospect of being murdered (i.e., put out of business) by a competitor might reasonably warrant a nuclear strike in self-defense (right, Kwok)?

Yours is an observation replete in its breathtaking inanity. Possession of nuclear weapons by individuals is illegal and its possession by virtually all nuclear weapons-possessing states have been regulated by international treaties.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. I'm saying those prohibitions are unconstitutional because corporations are people, my friend, and you can't expect a multi-billion dollar corporation to defend itself using small arms, can you? Where in the constitution is a strict constitutionalst to find justification for a ban on Apple arming itself with nuclear weapons against Microsoft, which would surely like to murder it?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

bbennett1968 said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

bbennett1968 said:

SLC said:

Just Bob said: And right-wingers are perfectly happy to treat the 2nd Amendment quite elastically: "A well regulated Militia..." (when it was written, there were citizens' militias that met and drilled regularly, armed with muzzle-loading MUSKETS) being stretched to mean that I should be able to own as many modern assault rifles, machine guns, and antitank weapons as I can afford, and purchase more on a moment's notice. How's that for strict construction and Founding Fathers' intent?

I actually had someone over at Ed Brayton's blog argue that, under the 2nd amendment, it was unconstitutional to deny anyone from keeping a nuclear weapon in their garage.

Well, corporations are people, my friend (right, John Kwok?), and if it's all reasonable and constitutional-like for a person like myself to own a dozen assault rifles to protect myself from the evils of the world, isn't it perfectly reasonable for a person as large and important as, say, Exxon or IBM, to claim the right to have nuclear weapons to defend itself? Corporations are people, my friend, so the prospect of being murdered (i.e., put out of business) by a competitor might reasonably warrant a nuclear strike in self-defense (right, Kwok)?

Yours is an observation replete in its breathtaking inanity. Possession of nuclear weapons by individuals is illegal and its possession by virtually all nuclear weapons-possessing states have been regulated by international treaties.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. I'm saying those prohibitions are unconstitutional because corporations are people, my friend, and you can't expect a multi-billion dollar corporation to defend itself using small arms, can you? Where in the constitution is a strict constitutionalst to find justification for a ban on Apple arming itself with nuclear weapons against Microsoft, which would surely like to murder it?

Your response, as well as Scott F's and especially SLC's border on lunacy. Or rather, a literal reading of Richard K. Morgan's post-cyberpunk novel "Market Forces". Even if your comments had any validity, corporations would have to abide by nuclear arms treaties, and no treaty permits private ownership of nuclear weapons, PERIOD.

SLC said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

SLC said: Generally, getting into a pi*sing contest with Mr. Kwok is a waste of time but I would suggest that he read what I actually said, not what he thinks that I said. Notice the word separate in my statement (Just Bob noticed it). Notice my closing sentence in which I specifically stated that an army and navy air arm were constitutional, based on extension of the range of the army's artillery and the navy's guns. Thus his comment relative to the Army Air force in WW 2 is totally irrelevant. Of course, I don't believe this for a minute but a strict constructionist and originalist, which I am not, would have to believe it to be consistent. The fact is that the words "air force" appear nowhere in the Constitution, just as the words separation of church and state appear nowhere in the Constitution, but are, in fact implied by the 1st amendment. As someone who believes in the elastic clause in the Constitution, IMHO, the separate air force can be construed as constitutional by extending the explicit mention of armies and navies in the Constitution to mean a military force in general.

You're picking at straws and sounding very Clintonish (Define the meaning of the word "is".). The United States Army Air Force may have been conceived originally as a part of "artillery", but its potential was realized very late in World War I when it participated in its first bombing missions. Later, between the wars, there were military aviation advocates in the United States, Great Britain and Germany who would recognize the potential of strategic bombing, which would be carried out, with devastating effect, first during the Spanish Civil War, and then, later in the German invasions of Poland and Western Europe and during the Battle of Britain. However, SLC, I should note that I have found you exceptionally difficult to reason with. You and Just Bob need to heed what Paul Burnett wrote earlier in this thread today and why I supported it.

This has nothing to do with anything. The fact is that there is no mention of the establishment of separate air force in the constitution while there is explicit mention of the establishment of an army and a navy. Mr. Kwok's rationalizations are 100% true and 100% irrelevant. There is no provision for establishing a separate air force in the Constitution. Period, end of story. Of course I'm picking at straws and am setting up a straw man. So are all the originalists and strict constructionists like Antonin Scalia. Mr. Kwok and Mr. Burnett have totally missed the point.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Tenncrain said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: I would say that by the dawn of the 19th Century, both a 6,000 year-old Earth and a worldwide flood were rejected by the European scientific community, which consisted of genuine "scientific creationists" like geologist Adam Sedgwick - Darwin's Cambridge University geology professor - who saw "creationism" primarily from the vantage point of Newtonian physics, not from any emotional ties to his Anglican faith.

I knew of Sedgwick, but didn't know he was Darwin's geology professor. Very interesting. Here in this link are Sedgwick quotes from 1825 supporting a worldwide Flood and 1831 statements where he recants and abandons at least a *worldwide* Flood.

Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't realize Sedgwick had accepted a worldwide flood as recently as 1825. What is especially noteworthy are these paragraphs by the poster, Pagano, which are worth reminding to creationists: "The answer is simple: empirical evidence. Because the 'diluvial' strata which had been cited as evidence for a global flood were composed of gravel and other unconsolidated sediments, they were harder to investigate than the older, consolidated sedimentary rock. However, after a great deal of study, some geologists had been able to map portions of the 'diluvium' and demonstrate conclusively that they were the result of different events, clearly separated in time. Once this was firmly established, it became clear to Sedgwick and others that if the deposits were clearly the result of a series of distinct events, they could not have been the result of a single global flood. Therefore, as a conscientious scientist, Sedgwick rejected his previous hypothesis." "Sedgwick's rejection of a hypothesis which was contradicted by the empirical evidence, despite his religious beliefs, is the act of the true scientist, and stands in stark contrast to the example provided by modern young-earth creationists. The modern YEC is in posession of the same data that Sedgwick was -- as well as over 150 more years of research -- but is unwilling to make the same concession Sedgwick did, even in the face of more overwhelming evidence."

SLC said: There is no provision for establishing a separate air force in the Constitution. Period, end of story. Of course I'm picking at straws and am setting up a straw man. So are all the originalists and strict constructionists like Antonin Scalia. Mr. Kwok and Mr. Burnett have totally missed the point.

Paul Burnett said:

SLC said: There is no provision for establishing a separate air force in the Constitution. Period, end of story. Of course I'm picking at straws and am setting up a straw man. So are all the originalists and strict constructionists like Antonin Scalia. Mr. Kwok and Mr. Burnett have totally missed the point.

So your position is that the very existence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the (old) Atomic Energy Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are all unconstitutional? Right?

Paul Burnett said:

SLC said: There is no provision for establishing a separate air force in the Constitution. Period, end of story. Of course I'm picking at straws and am setting up a straw man. So are all the originalists and strict constructionists like Antonin Scalia. Mr. Kwok and Mr. Burnett have totally missed the point.

So your position is that the very existence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the (old) Atomic Energy Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are all unconstitutional? Right?

SLC said:

Paul Burnett said:

SLC said: There is no provision for establishing a separate air force in the Constitution. Period, end of story. Of course I'm picking at straws and am setting up a straw man. So are all the originalists and strict constructionists like Antonin Scalia. Mr. Kwok and Mr. Burnett have totally missed the point.

So your position is that the very existence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the (old) Atomic Energy Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are all unconstitutional? Right?

Mr. Burnett and Mr. Kwok seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that I actually believe that the separate air force is unconstitutional. I raise the issue to point out the absurdity of the strict originalist position, which Justice Scalia claims to support. Just to set the record straight and make it perfectly clear so that there be no misunderstanding, I am not, repeat not an originalist and it is my contention that NASA, the FAA, the AEC, and the separate air force are all constitutional, based on the necessary and proper clause in the Constitution. In this regard, there is no disagreement between myself and Burnett/Kwok.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

SLC said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

SLC said: Generally, getting into a pi*sing contest with Mr. Kwok is a waste of time but I would suggest that he read what I actually said, not what he thinks that I said. Notice the word separate in my statement (Just Bob noticed it). Notice my closing sentence in which I specifically stated that an army and navy air arm were constitutional, based on extension of the range of the army's artillery and the navy's guns. Thus his comment relative to the Army Air force in WW 2 is totally irrelevant. Of course, I don't believe this for a minute but a strict constructionist and originalist, which I am not, would have to believe it to be consistent. The fact is that the words "air force" appear nowhere in the Constitution, just as the words separation of church and state appear nowhere in the Constitution, but are, in fact implied by the 1st amendment. As someone who believes in the elastic clause in the Constitution, IMHO, the separate air force can be construed as constitutional by extending the explicit mention of armies and navies in the Constitution to mean a military force in general.

You're picking at straws and sounding very Clintonish (Define the meaning of the word "is".). The United States Army Air Force may have been conceived originally as a part of "artillery", but its potential was realized very late in World War I when it participated in its first bombing missions. Later, between the wars, there were military aviation advocates in the United States, Great Britain and Germany who would recognize the potential of strategic bombing, which would be carried out, with devastating effect, first during the Spanish Civil War, and then, later in the German invasions of Poland and Western Europe and during the Battle of Britain. However, SLC, I should note that I have found you exceptionally difficult to reason with. You and Just Bob need to heed what Paul Burnett wrote earlier in this thread today and why I supported it.

This has nothing to do with anything. The fact is that there is no mention of the establishment of separate air force in the constitution while there is explicit mention of the establishment of an army and a navy. Mr. Kwok's rationalizations are 100% true and 100% irrelevant. There is no provision for establishing a separate air force in the Constitution. Period, end of story. Of course I'm picking at straws and am setting up a straw man. So are all the originalists and strict constructionists like Antonin Scalia. Mr. Kwok and Mr. Burnett have totally missed the point.

I find you now as edifying as the time I encountered you praising the "hotness" of certain science bloggers over at either Mooney and Kirshenbaum's "The Intersection" blog or somewhere else at Science Blogs (As well as singing of the praises of actress Cameron Diaz, after I had mentioned that both Diaz and I had attended a World Science Festival panel consisting of Kenneth R. Miller and Lawrence Krauss, among others, and then, later, hearing from Krauss that he had a most insightful discussion about Hollywood's perception and interest in science with Diaz.). Any discerning reader should have realized immediately that you are some sex-crazed loon of the pro-science variety, and one whose rhetorical skills are nearly as vapid as any I have seen from the creotard trolls lurking here. As for reading comprehension skills, SLC, you seem to echo that of former Berkeley law professor Philip Johnson, or even that of fellow Brown alumnus David Klinghoffer (Now, I suppose, you will probably retort by claiming that mine must be as bad as Klinghoffer's since we are both fellow alumni of Brown University. A claim that is absolutely ludicrous at face value, moron.).

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Correction, sorry, Scott F, I actually meant SWT (And SWT I am stunned you would follow in the wake of a delusional loon like SLC since you are usually as a much a paragon of virtue here as Dave Luckett is.).

Dang, he's off his meds again. In full name-dropping flood.

Possession of nuclear weapons by individuals is illegal and its possession by virtually all nuclear weapons-possessing states have been regulated by international treaties.

SLC said: The fact that Ms. Diaz might not be a typical tinsel town airhead isn't surprising. There are/were a number of female actors who have/had high IQs. For instance, Judy Holliday...Jill St John...Natalie Portman...

Just Bob said: Dang, he's off his meds again. In full name-dropping flood.

SLC said: Mr. Kwok, a year or two ago, admitted on this very site that he was turned on by the presence of 15 year old girls on the NY subway. That makes him a potential pedophile. And by the way, I consider Denise Richard to be even hotter then Cameron Diaz.

Karen S. said:

Possession of nuclear weapons by individuals is illegal and its possession by virtually all nuclear weapons-possessing states have been regulated by international treaties.

Oh dear! So what can I do with the one in my garage? I know the town dump won't take it. Should I wait for "toxic waste day"?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

SLC said: Mr. Kwok, a year or two ago, admitted on this very site that he was turned on by the presence of 15 year old girls on the NY subway. That makes him a potential pedophile. And by the way, I consider Denise Richard to be even hotter then Cameron Diaz.

You forget, jackass, that such a comment was made as a sarcastic observation. No, I am NOT "turned on by preeence of 15 year old girls". But obviously you still seem fixated on "hotness" as your comments illustrate. @ Just Bob - Blame SLC for name dropping. I opted to mention Berkeley since he loves reminding us that he has a Ph. D. from there and seems to have the same degree of reasoning as professor emeritus of Law Philp Johnson, the "godfather" of Intelligent Design cretinism.

Paul Burnett said:

SLC said: The fact that Ms. Diaz might not be a typical tinsel town airhead isn't surprising. There are/were a number of female actors who have/had high IQs. For instance, Judy Holliday...Jill St John...Natalie Portman...

You should also mention Hedy Lamarr, who co-invented an early technique for spread spectrum communications and frequency hopping, used in Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and some cordless and wireless phones.

SLC said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

SLC said: Mr. Kwok, a year or two ago, admitted on this very site that he was turned on by the presence of 15 year old girls on the NY subway. That makes him a potential pedophile. And by the way, I consider Denise Richard to be even hotter then Cameron Diaz.

You forget, jackass, that such a comment was made as a sarcastic observation. No, I am NOT "turned on by preeence of 15 year old girls". But obviously you still seem fixated on "hotness" as your comments illustrate. @ Just Bob - Blame SLC for name dropping. I opted to mention Berkeley since he loves reminding us that he has a Ph. D. from there and seems to have the same degree of reasoning as professor emeritus of Law Philp Johnson, the "godfather" of Intelligent Design cretinism.

Let me correct the record here. I do not have a PhD in physics from UC Berkeley. I have a BA degree in physics from that university. My PhD in physics is from the University of Rochester, which, oddly enough, is located in Mr. Kwok's home state of New York. I will resist the temptation to counter Mr. Kwok's name dropping by refraining from citing the 4 Nobel Prize winners in physics from whom I have taken courses.

SLC said: Let me correct the record here. I do not have a PhD in physics from UC Berkeley. I have a BA degree in physics from that university. My PhD in physics is from the University of Rochester, which, oddly enough, is located in Mr. Kwok's home state of New York. I will resist the temptation to counter Mr. Kwok's name dropping by refraining from citing the 4 Nobel Prize winners in physics from whom I have taken courses.

Karen S. said:

Possession of nuclear weapons by individuals is illegal and its possession by virtually all nuclear weapons-possessing states have been regulated by international treaties.

Oh dear! So what can I do with the one in my garage? I know the town dump won't take it. Should I wait for "toxic waste day"?

SLC said:

Karen S. said:

Possession of nuclear weapons by individuals is illegal and its possession by virtually all nuclear weapons-possessing states have been regulated by international treaties.

Oh dear! So what can I do with the one in my garage? I know the town dump won't take it. Should I wait for "toxic waste day"?

To set the record straight, I too am opposed to the private ownership of nuclear weapons. I brought it up to demonstrate the absurdity of the absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment taken by certain extreme libertarians on Ed Brayton's blog.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Paul Burnett said:

SLC said: The fact that Ms. Diaz might not be a typical tinsel town airhead isn't surprising. There are/were a number of female actors who have/had high IQs. For instance, Judy Holliday...Jill St John...Natalie Portman...

You should also mention Hedy Lamarr, who co-invented an early technique for spread spectrum communications and frequency hopping, used in Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and some cordless and wireless phones.

Actually Lamarr is the more notable example, Paul, and definitely, a Hollywood talent in a class that is unique; the actor as a talented inventor.

SWT said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said: Correction, sorry, Scott F, I actually meant SWT (And SWT I am stunned you would follow in the wake of a delusional loon like SLC since you are usually as a much a paragon of virtue here as Dave Luckett is.).

John, you need to modify your diet, you appear to be suffering from an irony deficiency. IMO, "originalism" is practiced very much like "Biblical literalism" is practiced: inconsistently. Originalism appears to be used when it provides the desired result and argued away when it doesn't. I doubt that the framers would have had any problems with restrictions on individual ownership of WMDs, just as I doubt that they would have any problems with the existence of the US Air Force or NASA. It would, I think, also be consistent with the framers' thought that individual ownership of "arms" would be regulated by the states rather than by the federal government.

SLC said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Paul Burnett said:

SLC said: The fact that Ms. Diaz might not be a typical tinsel town airhead isn't surprising. There are/were a number of female actors who have/had high IQs. For instance, Judy Holliday...Jill St John...Natalie Portman...

You should also mention Hedy Lamarr, who co-invented an early technique for spread spectrum communications and frequency hopping, used in Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and some cordless and wireless phones.

Actually Lamarr is the more notable example, Paul, and definitely, a Hollywood talent in a class that is unique; the actor as a talented inventor.

Oddly enough, it is my information that Jill St John started out to be a marine biologist, just like Mr. Kwok's pal Sherill Kirchenbaum. Unfortunately, she was turned off by being hit on by professors and TAs at UCLA and left the field. Fortunately, that sort of behavior has become verboten at most colleges and universities these days.

SLC said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Paul Burnett said:

SLC said: The fact that Ms. Diaz might not be a typical tinsel town airhead isn't surprising. There are/were a number of female actors who have/had high IQs. For instance, Judy Holliday...Jill St John...Natalie Portman...

You should also mention Hedy Lamarr, who co-invented an early technique for spread spectrum communications and frequency hopping, used in Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and some cordless and wireless phones.

Actually Lamarr is the more notable example, Paul, and definitely, a Hollywood talent in a class that is unique; the actor as a talented inventor.

Oddly enough, it is my information that Jill St John started out to be a marine biologist, just like Mr. Kwok's pal Sherill Kirchenbaum. Unfortunately, she was turned off by being hit on by professors and TAs at UCLA and left the field. Fortunately, that sort of behavior has become verboten at most colleges and universities these days.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

SLC said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Paul Burnett said:

SLC said: The fact that Ms. Diaz might not be a typical tinsel town airhead isn't surprising. There are/were a number of female actors who have/had high IQs. For instance, Judy Holliday...Jill St John...Natalie Portman...

You should also mention Hedy Lamarr, who co-invented an early technique for spread spectrum communications and frequency hopping, used in Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and some cordless and wireless phones.

Actually Lamarr is the more notable example, Paul, and definitely, a Hollywood talent in a class that is unique; the actor as a talented inventor.

Oddly enough, it is my information that Jill St John started out to be a marine biologist, just like Mr. Kwok's pal Sherill Kirchenbaum. Unfortunately, she was turned off by being hit on by professors and TAs at UCLA and left the field. Fortunately, that sort of behavior has become verboten at most colleges and universities these days.

I presume the initials SLC stand for "Still Lusting after Chicks". This post of yours clearly demonstrates it.

Still Lusting After Chicks barfed: Ah, what would the Panda's Thumb do without Mr. Kwok to provide some levity.

If I'm being cited as a paragon of virtue, it's about time to start cultivating some new vices.

(That line is not my own.)

Dave Luckett said: If I'm being cited as a paragon of virtue, it's about time to start cultivating some new vices. (That line is not my own.)

Dave Luckett said: If I'm being cited as a paragon of virtue, it's about time to start cultivating some new vices. (That line is not my own.)

SWT said: Besides, I've blown all my free cash on trumpets.

Gee, so Mr. Kwok's position is that anyone who didn't earn his/her PhD from an Ivy League school is to be looked down on. That include MIT? By the way, one of my former colleagues at Rochester, Gerald Guralnik, an MIT graduate, was a faculty member in the physics department at Brown. I once visited him there when we were collaborating on a paper and was greatly underwhelmed by Providence, RI. Did Mr. Kwok ever happen to run into him?

You need a new vice strategy.

Vaughn said:

SWT said: Besides, I've blown all my free cash on trumpets.

Kool! Another trumpeter! My last purchase was a Callet Jazz. The lead pipe is corroding through (previous owner wasn't obsessive about cleaning like me), so now I am lusting after a Kanstul 1500 Bb. Since that digression has nothing to do with the OP or subsequent digressions, I would love to read anyone's ideas about why so many scientists are also musicians. We can take that to the Bathroom Wall.

Still Lusting after Chicks barfed: Gee, so Mr. Kwok's position is that anyone who didn't earn his/her PhD from an Ivy League school is to be looked down on. That include MIT? By the way, one of my former colleagues at Rochester, Gerald Guralnik, an MIT graduate, was a faculty member in the physics department at Brown. I once visited him there when we were collaborating on a paper and was greatly underwhelmed by Providence, RI. Did Mr. Kwok ever happen to run into him?

Maybe you should learn when to shut up and to follow your bliss by still lusting after chicks.

Ian Derthal said:

The few obscure court cases on these matters just need more public attention and better lawyers.

I suggest you read the transcripts of the Dover trial, and then ask yourself why the case for ID creationism failed.

The American institutions are on the side of truth and freedom. Just keep taking them to court

Interestingly, at that trial, two of the witnesses (both supposedly evangelical Christians)lied under oath.

This has to be some sort of milestone: I was actually GLAD to see a post by R. Byers! As unreadable as he is, at least he's ON TOPIC, polite, and never goes off the rails on personality rants/character assaults, nor gives any indication that he just might be dangerous if you dared to persistently disagree with him. Unlike...

Robert Byers said: Court cases in america are as common as snow up here. it has been just a few obscure cases and never has the public really been presented with this issue. Creationism easily can build the climate or culture that it has complete right to teach its truth on subjects presented as being about truth on origins. America always had freedom on this and it was quiet decision after ww11 that sneaked in under the radar. They might cling to some cases they 'Won" but the issue is greater then these. court decisions are made to be looked over and thrown out by later decisions. No problem here. jUst gaining an audience for creationist demands for freedom of thought and speech is the problem. the court cases just help to start this process. loses are useful or more so then wins in reality. its not about obscure towns or companies but a greater concept of truth and freedom to teach and discover truth. Its a great american and human crusade.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Still Lusting after Chicks barfed: Gee, so Mr. Kwok's position is that anyone who didn't earn his/her PhD from an Ivy League school is to be looked down on. That include MIT? By the way, one of my former colleagues at Rochester, Gerald Guralnik, an MIT graduate, was a faculty member in the physics department at Brown. I once visited him there when we were collaborating on a paper and was greatly underwhelmed by Providence, RI. Did Mr. Kwok ever happen to run into him?

Au contraire, moron. My doctor is an undergraduate alumnus of the University Rochester who also studied at the Eastman School of Music, and he was a high school classmate of one of my relatives (I won't name the high school, but I think you can guess.). I happen to have a very high regard for scientists, doctors and engineers who lack an Ivy League pedigree and are preeminent in their respective fields. I just don't have a high regard for someone like yourself who has bragged that he studied with four Nobel Prize laureate physicists at Berkeley; surely someone with such an exemplary distinction as yours should have been able to write his admission ticket to premier graduate physics programs at Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Brown or Chicago. Maybe you should learn when to shut up and to follow your bliss by still lusting after chicks.

Just Bob said: This has to be some sort of milestone: I was actually GLAD to see a post by R. Byers! As unreadable as he is, at least he's ON TOPIC, polite, and never goes off the rails on personality rants/character assaults, nor gives any indication that he just might be dangerous if you dared to persistently disagree with him. Unlike...

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Still Lusting after Chicks barfed: Gee, so Mr. Kwok's position is that anyone who didn't earn his/her PhD from an Ivy League school is to be looked down on. That include MIT? By the way, one of my former colleagues at Rochester, Gerald Guralnik, an MIT graduate, was a faculty member in the physics department at Brown. I once visited him there when we were collaborating on a paper and was greatly underwhelmed by Providence, RI. Did Mr. Kwok ever happen to run into him?

Au contraire, moron. My doctor is an undergraduate alumnus of the University Rochester who also studied at the Eastman School of Music, and he was a high school classmate of one of my relatives (I won't name the high school, but I think you can guess.). I happen to have a very high regard for scientists, doctors and engineers who lack an Ivy League pedigree and are preeminent in their respective fields. I just don't have a high regard for someone like yourself who has bragged that he studied with four Nobel Prize laureate physicists at Berkeley; surely someone with such an exemplary distinction as yours should have been able to write his admission ticket to premier graduate physics programs at Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Brown or Chicago. Maybe you should learn when to shut up and to follow your bliss by still lusting after chicks.

Still Lusting after Chicks crowed

Just Bob said: This has to be some sort of milestone: I was actually GLAD to see a post by R. Byers! As unreadable as he is, at least he's ON TOPIC, polite, and never goes off the rails on personality rants/character assaults, nor gives any indication that he just might be dangerous if you dared to persistently disagree with him. Unlike...

Ah, the Kwok is OK. I get a big laugh out of his rants.

Still Lusting after Chicks crowed:: By he way, Scarlett Johansson is hot too.

Still Lusting after Chicks crowed::

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Still Lusting after Chicks barfed: Gee, so Mr. Kwok's position is that anyone who didn't earn his/her PhD from an Ivy League school is to be looked down on. That include MIT? By the way, one of my former colleagues at Rochester, Gerald Guralnik, an MIT graduate, was a faculty member in the physics department at Brown. I once visited him there when we were collaborating on a paper and was greatly underwhelmed by Providence, RI. Did Mr. Kwok ever happen to run into him?

Au contraire, moron. My doctor is an undergraduate alumnus of the University Rochester who also studied at the Eastman School of Music, and he was a high school classmate of one of my relatives (I won't name the high school, but I think you can guess.). I happen to have a very high regard for scientists, doctors and engineers who lack an Ivy League pedigree and are preeminent in their respective fields. I just don't have a high regard for someone like yourself who has bragged that he studied with four Nobel Prize laureate physicists at Berkeley; surely someone with such an exemplary distinction as yours should have been able to write his admission ticket to premier graduate physics programs at Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Brown or Chicago. Maybe you should learn when to shut up and to follow your bliss by still lusting after chicks.

Kwok who lusts after 15 year old girls. I was a third year graduate student having just passed the qualifying exams when I took courses from two of the Nobel Laureates at a summer institute at Brandais, Un., namely Steven Weinberg and Julian Schwinger.

Robert Byers said:

Ian Derthal said:

The few obscure court cases on these matters just need more public attention and better lawyers.

I suggest you read the transcripts of the Dover trial, and then ask yourself why the case for ID creationism failed.

The American institutions are on the side of truth and freedom. Just keep taking them to court

Interestingly, at that trial, two of the witnesses (both supposedly evangelical Christians)lied under oath.

Court cases in america are as common as snow up here. it has been just a few obscure cases and never has the public really been presented with this issue. Creationism easily can build the climate or culture that it has complete right to teach its truth on subjects presented as being about truth on origins. America always had freedom on this and it was quiet decision after ww11 that sneaked in under the radar. They might cling to some cases they 'Won" but the issue is greater then these. court decisions are made to be looked over and thrown out by later decisions. No problem here. jUst gaining an audience for creationist demands for freedom of thought and speech is the problem. the court cases just help to start this process. loses are useful or more so then wins in reality. its not about obscure towns or companies but a greater concept of truth and freedom to teach and discover truth. Its a great american and human crusade.

Really, Kwok? You're pulling this argumentum ad verecundiam bullshit, still? Despite your performance at various blogs over the years, I've been appreciative of your occasional appearances here. But this series of back-and-forths, wherein you're making up childish names based on fellow-posters' chosen 'nyms, and disparaging their schools, makes me realize that your second-chance-in-my-mind was undeserved.
Grow up.

John said:

Still Lusting after Chicks crowed::

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Still Lusting after Chicks barfed: Gee, so Mr. Kwok's position is that anyone who didn't earn his/her PhD from an Ivy League school is to be looked down on. That include MIT? By the way, one of my former colleagues at Rochester, Gerald Guralnik, an MIT graduate, was a faculty member in the physics department at Brown. I once visited him there when we were collaborating on a paper and was greatly underwhelmed by Providence, RI. Did Mr. Kwok ever happen to run into him?

Au contraire, moron. My doctor is an undergraduate alumnus of the University Rochester who also studied at the Eastman School of Music, and he was a high school classmate of one of my relatives (I won't name the high school, but I think you can guess.). I happen to have a very high regard for scientists, doctors and engineers who lack an Ivy League pedigree and are preeminent in their respective fields. I just don't have a high regard for someone like yourself who has bragged that he studied with four Nobel Prize laureate physicists at Berkeley; surely someone with such an exemplary distinction as yours should have been able to write his admission ticket to premier graduate physics programs at Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Brown or Chicago. Maybe you should learn when to shut up and to follow your bliss by still lusting after chicks.

Kwok who lusts after 15 year old girls. I was a third year graduate student having just passed the qualifying exams when I took courses from two of the Nobel Laureates at a summer institute at Brandais, Un., namely Steven Weinberg and Julian Schwinger.

I don't lust after fifteen year old girls. Obviously, you do, since you've been bringing it up. Anyway, you did have two Nobel Laureate physicist professors at Berkeley, so still with credentials like those, you should have been able to write your ticket to Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Brown, Chicago, MIT or Johns Hopkins, not Rochester. Admit it, Still Lusting after Chicks, you thought chasing after fifteen year old girls was more important than studying with a first-rate theoretical physicist like Weinberg, right? I also doubt you ever studied at Brandeis University, since you don't know how to spell it correctly.

SLC said: Once again, Mr. Kwok demonstrates his lack of reading comprehension. What I said was that I attended a summer institute at Brandeis, Un. Also, Mr. Kwok the birther, is the one who informed us that he had the hots for some 15 year old girls he met on the NY Subway. They certainly are derelict in their teaching of reading comprehension skills at Stuyvesant.

What the heck happened to this thread? Shutting it down now-ish.