Would the Supreme Court defend public education from the religious right?

I don't really buy that line of argument, mainly because I don't see historical cases as being very predictive of the current court's decision. After all, over the years the Republican party supported the abolishment of slavery, the formation of the EPA, and limited amnesty for immigrants. Are those predictors of what the 2016 GOP candidate will support? No, because we aren't talking about Lincoln or Nixon or Reagan, we are talking about different people who just happen to be running for the same job. Claiming the actions of the Roberts court can be predicted based on the Taney court's decision seems equally idiotic to me. The membership is different, and SCOTUS decisions are all about the current membership, not about what past members have done.

This court right now has four pretty staunch conservatives, four pretty consistent liberals, and Kennedy, who swings right on most business-related cases but swings left on some social issues such as gay rights and abortion. That information is far more relevant and predictive of what they are going to do than Dredd Scott or Plessy. It tells me that the Ark Park case might get a conservative majority, but the COPE case probably will not. It also tells me that Roberts and such are probably going to try and actively avoid taking a gay rights case with the current membership, because they know they'll lose and they don't want to set a pro-gay-rights precedent. They'd rather wait and play the odds that one of the liberal justices will retire or die before one of the conservative ones. There's four sitting justices that were born in the '30s - Ginsberg, Scalia, Kennedy, and Breyer, with Ginsberg being the oldest and generally considered most likely to retire soon - so there's a pretty good chance the waiting game will work out for them.

... I don’t see historical cases as being very predictive of the current court’s decision.

I don’t really buy that line of argument, mainly because I don’t see historical cases as being very predictive of the current court’s decision. After all, over the years the Republican party supported the abolishment of slavery, the formation of the EPA, and limited amnesty for immigrants. Are those predictors of what the 2016 GOP candidate will support? No, because we aren’t talking about Lincoln or Nixon or Reagan, we are talking about different people who just happen to be running for the same job. Claiming the actions of the Roberts court can be predicted based on the Taney court’s decision seems equally idiotic to me. The membership is different, and SCOTUS decisions are all about the current membership, not about what past members have done.

Matt Young said:

... I don’t see historical cases as being very predictive of the current court’s decision.

I do not think that is what Chemerinsky claims. He argues, rather, that the court too often comes down on the side of the majority or defends the status quo. It does not matter which party is in power or whether the Republicans were once the liberal party. The Roberts court is not going to make a reprehensible decision because the Taney court made a reprehensible decision, but it may make a reprehensible decision if that decision supports, say, entrenched religious factions. The parties may change; Democratic segregationists used to control the south, for example. If I understand Chemerinsky correctly, the Court supports not one party, as Mr. eric suggests, but the status quo, or the corporate interests, or the majority's viewpoint -- even when, as in the Dred Scott decision, the majority is so plainly wrong.

harold said:

Matt Young said:

... I don’t see historical cases as being very predictive of the current court’s decision.

I do not think that is what Chemerinsky claims. He argues, rather, that the court too often comes down on the side of the majority or defends the status quo. It does not matter which party is in power or whether the Republicans were once the liberal party. The Roberts court is not going to make a reprehensible decision because the Taney court made a reprehensible decision, but it may make a reprehensible decision if that decision supports, say, entrenched religious factions. The parties may change; Democratic segregationists used to control the south, for example. If I understand Chemerinsky correctly, the Court supports not one party, as Mr. eric suggests, but the status quo, or the corporate interests, or the majority's viewpoint -- even when, as in the Dred Scott decision, the majority is so plainly wrong.

I see that we made the same point more or less simultaneously.

harold said: 4) There is also simply substantial support for science as an unequivocal "good" thing among the general public. This is a major resource. Creationists recognize this - it's why they are obsessed with attacking this. Appealing to the public by extolling the obvious value of science remains a valuable approach.

I do not think it is just the far right -- according to Chris Mooney, here and elsewhere, opposition to vaccination and genetically modified organisms cuts pretty well across the political spectrum. The result is palpable: measles and whooping cough epidemics.

With all due respect, folks, I think you're overreacting badly here.

First of all, the Court hears perhaps a hundred cases every year, and it rarely takes cases that don't raise some serious new constitutional or legal issue. A creationism case, even an ID case, is unlikely to achieve cert. The issue has been heard by lower courts - McLean v. Arkansas, Kitzmiller v. Dover - and even has not one but two Supreme Court precedents: Epperson v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard. It's difficult to imagine any creationism case offering new ground for the Court to cover.

Second, Eric and Matt are both quite right in saying the Court is very much a political animal. A creationism case would be politically divisive, so I think the tendency would be to let the existing precedents stand.

Finally, while many people think of the Supreme Court in terms of its enormous political and cultural influence, the Court is a court first and foremost. It rules on specific issues brought before it, and it rules according to the given facts of the case and the existing, applicable law - legislative law, administrative law, common law, case law. Perhaps one in a hundred Court cases ever becomes a public political controversy, like Kelo or Citizens United. Even fewer are a Dred Scott or a Plessy, using specious reasoning to reach a blatantly ridiculous result. In the VAST majority of cases, the Court's ruling is practically a foregone conclusion, eminently sensible and completely supportable on the facts and the law, and nobody except those directly affected ever hears about it again.

IMHO, we should certainly be vigilant against the possibility of a serious new creationism case, but I see no reason to assume anything about such a case or how this Court, or any future Supreme Court, might rule on it.

Hmm. Looking back at that, I think I left the third point incomplete. What I meant to say is that most Supreme Court decisions simply aren't controversial. They're more along the lines of "The facts say X, the law says Y, therefore the correct ruling is Z." In other words, the Supreme Court justices really are good at being judges and at reaching a correct legal conclusion. I see no reason to believe that a creationism case would be among the 1% that are controversial or wrongly decided, and every reason to believe it would be among the 99% of cases that never reach the public eye.

Matt Young said: I do not think it is just the far right -- according to Chris Mooney, here and elsewhere, opposition to vaccination and genetically modified organisms cuts pretty well across the political spectrum. The result is palpable: measles and whooping cough epidemics.

I believe that this is overstated. Creationists (and Republicans in general) have to a large extent been successful in demonizing science in general, and in particular any kind of science that might conceivably touch on a right-wing taboo: biology, physics, climatology, or any kind of statistical or “historical” science. There does not appear to be any “obvious” value of science to the general public as an unequivocal “good” thing. “Science” has value to the extent that it makes things that the public wants to buy. That’s more “applied” science, or engineering.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/4i3Cj_gJ1N7rJXe.7jpNbFmo1Enkj7QA#3d0d9 said: With all due respect, folks, I think you're overreacting badly here. First of all, the Court hears perhaps a hundred cases every year, and it rarely takes cases that don't raise some serious new constitutional or legal issue. A creationism case, even an ID case, is unlikely to achieve cert. The issue has been heard by lower courts - McLean v. Arkansas, Kitzmiller v. Dover - and even has not one but two Supreme Court precedents: Epperson v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard. It's difficult to imagine any creationism case offering new ground for the Court to cover. Second, Eric and Matt are both quite right in saying the Court is very much a political animal. A creationism case would be politically divisive, so I think the tendency would be to let the existing precedents stand.

Matt Young said:

... I don’t see historical cases as being very predictive of the current court’s decision.

I do not think that is what Chemerinsky claims. He argues, rather, that the court too often comes down on the side of the majority or defends the status quo.

eric said:

Matt Young said:

... I don’t see historical cases as being very predictive of the current court’s decision.

I do not think that is what Chemerinsky claims. He argues, rather, that the court too often comes down on the side of the majority or defends the status quo.

Isn't deferring to Congress and the executive branch often what they are supposed to do? Not always and not when those branches are abusing the rights of citizens, but if the constitutional question is gray/hazy and there's no clear answer, aren't they supposed to err on the side of caution and support precedent (to include legislative acts of Congress) rather than overturn it? I am with you in agreeing that there will be many cases where they wrongly decide to defer to the other branches. I'm not saying they should rubber stamp the decisions of the other branches. I guess the analogy would be something like the operating rule: 'a tie goes to the precedent/government.' I see that as a correct methodology, not an incorrect one like you guys seem to think. I also don't necessarily agree that this court is 'going with the majority.' Like Scott F., I think Scalia, Thomas, and Alito (at least) are not majoritarians or conservative in the traditional sense of not-seeking-change, but rather they are right-wing activists, dragging the court far to the right of the majority and actively changing the law to do so every chance they get. Right now, the majority of US citizens support some form of national health care; supports campaign finance reform; supports gay rights and gay marriage, and is pro-choice. The court might barely squeak out a 5-4 'majority' opinion for partial support for two or three of those. But they are clearly not fully supportive of all four like the US public is. So no, IMO they are not 'going with the majority.' Or, rather, they go with the majority when it suits them and actively break right in casse where the majority would be more socially liberal.

Forgive my ignorance of the history of the Supreme Court's rulings, but has the Court ever considered the Constitutionality of the Executive's denial of habeas corpus to inmates of the "holding facility" at Guantanamo Bay? Has it ever ruled on waterboarding, or, as the CIA calls it, "enhanced interrogation", perhaps in the context of the Eighth Amendment? Has it ever been consulted as to the President's assertion of his right to order the execution without trial of any person he names - after taking advice, that is?

If so, what rulings did it make? And if not, why the hell not?

Dave Luckett said: Forgive my ignorance of the history of the Supreme Court's rulings, but has the Court ever considered the Constitutionality of the Executive's denial of habeas corpus to inmates of the "holding facility" at Guantanamo Bay?

Has it ever ruled on waterboarding, or, as the CIA calls it, "enhanced interrogation", perhaps in the context of the Eighth Amendment? Has it ever been consulted as to the President's assertion of his right to order the execution without trial of any person he names - after taking advice, that is?

And if not, why the hell not?

harold said: But there’s something different about [Obama], I can’t put my finger on it, but some subtle difference between him and prior presidents, and that seems to fuel greater acceptance of unfair criticism by the public.

You can't put your finger on it?! He is Black.

Chemerinsky's article has been posted -- see Update, above.

harold said: A confounding variable is the total confusion of Americans, with regard to the actual policies of the parties. Polls show that Americans view both parties as more progressive than they really are, view the social safety net as much more extensive than it really is, and so on. Americans cannot seem to grasp that the parties have changed since the days of Nixon.

Thanks for the link. I read it and the LA time linked article about his book (which he's promoting). You are right; no, he doesn't say this court's decisions are either predicted by or predicated on past conservative behavior. I am 50/50 on his suggested changes. 18-yr term limits and more open court sessions seem reasonable. The 'merit selection' and 'applying ethics rules' suggestions trigger my 'bell the cat' alarm: it would be trivially easy for the political parties to manipulate those processes to reduce the indpendence and political neutrality of the courts, rather than increase it. This is not to say that those ideas couldn't be implemented right, but they could easily be implemented wrongly, and there would be enomous political incentives in both parties to see those processes implemented wrongly.

I also think his position smacks just a little a bit of grumpy-old-fartness. While he points out many past, more egregious mistakes, he also seems to think that there was a brief liberalizing era in the 50-60s and then things have gotten considerably worse since then. While there are a lot of recent legal decisions I don't agree with, practically every facet of American life has gotten better since the era he thinks was the court's best time. Crime is down. Freedom is up. Women and minorities enjoy greater equality than they ever have, even if we haven't reached the finish line on those issues. In the past eight year's we've made unexpectedly fast progress on gay rights and health care. And so on. I would say that the modern court era has been characterized by two steps forward, one step back. The steps back are annoying, but if you focus overmuch on them you might miss the fact that the country is progressing forward overall.

harold said: ... some subtle difference between [Obama] and prior presidents ... seems to fuel greater acceptance of unfair criticism by the public.

Scott F said: I think you may be missing the point. Historically you may be correct. But this particular court appears to be outside the norm, if not anomalous.

Scott F said: This Court (Scalia and Alito in particular) appears to be particularly partisan and political, and appears to care not a whit for "precedent". Where is the "precedent" for the religious freedom of a "corporation"? Where is the "precedent" for the fundamental "rights" of a "corporation"?

Scott F said: Edwards v. Aguillard? Scalia was the dissenter in that case.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/4i3Cj_gJ1N7rJXe.7jpNbFmo1Enkj7QA#3d0d9 said:

Scott F said: Edwards v. Aguillard? Scalia was the dissenter in that case.

First, he wasn't 'the' dissenter, he was one of two. Chief Justice Rehnquist joined in Scalia's dissent. Second, have you ever read Scalia's dissent in that case? There is a certain amount of merit to it. I agree completely with the decision, mind you, and I'll be horrified if the Supreme Court ever says that teaching creationism in public school is constitutional. But as a matter of law, Scalia is entirely right when he complains about the lack of evidence in Edwards, which was decided by a summary motion, not a complete trial like Dover or McLean.

Dave Luckett said: Forgive my ignorance of the history of the Supreme Court's rulings, but has the Court ever considered the Constitutionality of the Executive's denial of habeas corpus to inmates of the "holding facility" at Guantanamo Bay? Has it ever ruled on waterboarding, or, as the CIA calls it, "enhanced interrogation", perhaps in the context of the Eighth Amendment? Has it ever been consulted as to the President's assertion of his right to order the execution without trial of any person he names - after taking advice, that is? If so, what rulings did it make? And if not, why the hell not?

Thirdly, the structure of the act (it forbade the teaching of evolution unless creation science was also taught) was obviously not neutral, because it doesn’t mention any other theories of species origins and singles out the TOE for special treatment.

— eric

Frank J said: I have never been comfortable with having to show that something is religious (violates the Establishment Clause, flunks the Lemon test, etc.) to get it banned from public education.

Eric’s quote points to why I have been long convinced that creationism, ID, and all those “replacement scams” (Strengths and ”Weaknesses”, Academic “Freedom” etc.) are 100% inappropriate for any class, especially religious ones that preach “thou shalt not bear false witness.”

I cringe every time I hear “Go teach it in Sunday School.”

something at best extraordinarily paranoid, and at worst blatantly dishonest, is behind the “evolution “ of the anti-evolution movement, at least since the mid-20th century. Despite more “sciency” language, the clear trend has been away from anything remotely resembles “any other theories of species origins.” Evolution is constantly “singled out” for bogus “weaknesses,” which means that the real weaknesses, in those mutually-contradictory “alternatives,” are effectively censored.

@Eric:

I agree 100% with what's the court's job, and what's everyone else's. Not just that it is, but that it's what ought to be, if only because it's probably the best we can get out of a system with H. sapiens in charge (Churchill said it better).

I say "my 2c" because what I see are 2 battles, one of "supply" of anti-evolution propaganda, and one of "demand." Unfortunately I see 99+% of interest in effort devoted to only the former, whereas, in the long run, the latter is much more important. And our job, not the court's.

How not to discourage "demand" ought to be obvious: Complain about religion and/or conservatism, and/or overwhelm people with lots of science facts in hopes that they "see the light," or the worst, frame it as "us vs. the creationists."

How to to is much harder, and I think something that will take decades of patient building of both literacy and appreciation of science. And the recognition that anti-evolution activists are not trying to be “fair” by any measure. What encourages me is that, despite the fact that ~70% of adult Americans have some problem with, or uncertainty of, evolution (and another 10-20% just plain indifferent), only a minority, 30% at most, are so hopelessly committed to evolution-denial, that nothing will dissuade them, or stop them from voting for radical authoritarian – not just conservative - politicians who will appoint like-minded judges. That means about half of adult Americans are “salvageable,” and can give us a sizable majority. The anti-evolution activists, especially of the ID variety, are actively targeting that ~half, while we obsess over “fundamentalists” (roughly the same ~30% from above). How crazy is that?

Discouraging demand is especially hard because other issues, from the National debt to abortion, drown out this one in most peoples’ minds. Few people struggle more than I do in finding someone to vote for, because the ones with whom I agree on most other issues are most likely to either tactfully avoid this issue, or worse, pander to the anti-science side, whether willingly, “uncontrollably” (e.g. they’re in the ~30%) or by virtue of themselves having been scammed. Educating the scammed may be the only option we have in the long run.

Frank J said: How not to discourage "demand" ought to be obvious: Complain about religion and/or conservatism, and/or overwhelm people with lots of science facts in hopes that they "see the light," or the worst, frame it as "us vs. the creationists."

Complain about religion and/or conservatism

Frank J said: It’s the misrepresentation of evolution that has been the core of every anti-evolution strategy, at least since “scientific” creationism (heliocentric YEC) was concocted 50+ years ago, that I find morally, and economically reprehensible. The “economic conservative in me” sees these scams as demanding “handouts” for something that simply has not earned the right to be taught in science class. The “social conservative” in me sees these scams, earned or not, as deliberately misleading students about the evidence for evolution (refutations of the bogus arguments against evolution are always censored) and the nature of science. Anyone who has read more than a few of my comments over the last ~15 years knows that I often play up the differences between YEC, OEC, ID, etc., while most others are only concerned with the similarities. My point, which I admit I rarely make well, given the constant misinterpretation, is not that the similarities are not crucial – they certainly are - but that the differences clearly show that something at best extraordinarily paranoid, and at worst blatantly dishonest, is behind the “evolution “ of the anti-evolution movement, at least since the mid-20th century. Despite more “sciency” language, the clear trend has been away from anything remotely resembles “any other theories of species origins.” Evolution is constantly “singled out” for bogus “weaknesses,” which means that the real weaknesses, in those mutually-contradictory “alternatives,” are effectively censored. And they have the audacity to accuse us of censorship! Edwards, if not McLean before it, gave the anti-evolution movement a perfect opportunity: Ditch the “creation” and “design” language, and the bogus “weaknesses” of evolution, and instead develop and test your own theories, have them pass peer review, and you will not have a problem (or we’ll help if you do). Of course, anti-evolution activists have spent the last ~30 years doing everything but that. On the Biblical side (Ham et al) they are practically admitting that the evidence doesn’t matter (& that some book overrules anything inconvenient). While on the ID side they are practically admitting that mainstream science is correct about evolution (& ~4 billion years of common descent), while simultaneously playing word games to fool most nonscientists – mostly not Biblical literalists - that the opposite is true (but don’t ask, don’t tell what happened, where, when, how in lieu of evolution). For a mind-blowing example of the latter, see the thread on Behe’s latest rant and Miller’s nice smackdown.

When I point out the fact that organized political science denial in the United States is o coming from the Republican party and their supporters, I am not complaining about conservatism.

— harold

I think that many folks in the churches don’t like the kinds of games the ID/creationists are playing; and if one can highlight the dishonesty in those games, most folks will see what is going on and draw the correct conclusions. My audiences were quite dismayed by and annoyed with the ID/creationists’ tactics.

— Mike Elzinga

Frank J said: I say "my 2c" because what I see are 2 battles, one of "supply" of anti-evolution propaganda, and one of "demand." Unfortunately I see 99+% of interest in effort devoted to only the former, whereas, in the long run, the latter is much more important. And our job, not the court's.

How to to is much harder, and I think something that will take decades of patient building of both literacy and appreciation of science. And the recognition that anti-evolution activists are not trying to be “fair” by any measure.

And yes, it frustrates me to no end that organized anti-evolution activity found refuge in the Republican party

harold said: On the other hand, I see plenty of evidence that science is quite popular. I guess it could be popular with a large subculture and despised by all others or something, but there are plenty of web sites, television shows, and so on that market science.

harold said: Americans cannot seem to grasp that the parties have changed since the days of Nixon.

eric said: While there are a lot of recent legal decisions I don't agree with, practically every facet of American life has gotten better since the era he thinks was the court's best time. Crime is down. Freedom is up. Women and minorities enjoy greater equality than they ever have...

harold said: ...firearms safety denial (I don't oppose gun ownership by law abiding citizens, but I do oppose unscientific claims that guns make you safer, when in fact accidents and suicides are far more common than successful self-defense according that bastion of feel good liberalism, the University of Utah Department of Pathology...).

As a medical student I was trained that if I was concerned that a patient might be suicidal, I should ask them if they have a gun at home. That's a valid, logical question. We want to help patient's avoid suicide. It's also a valid, logical clinical question in the rarer cases where we have concern that the patient might be a homicidal maniac. But Republicans in Florida have passed a law making it illegal for doctors to ask that question. Putting aside the absurd violation of the first amendment, that's essentially science denial. I'm sure you're frustrated by that too.

eric said: Personally I think this is a 'rising tide lifts all boats' situation. Give most kids a sound liberal arts education, ensure they come into contact with many different ideas and people, and for 60-80% of them, you never need to address creationism directly at all: they'll get it. Mike's church lectures sound like an example of a great grassroots way to supplement that, but my money's on colleges and universities as having the biggest critical thinking bang for the buck.

But more importantly, any study that only considers a gun used for self defense if it was fired (which the one I googled using your reference does) reveals mass incompetence and bias. One might as well only consider a karate black belt as a deterrant if you kill someone. There are also other factors that play far more of a role than the left ever gives them credit for. If you hear of a murder on your street, the safest conclusion isn’t that the murderer has a gun, but that the murderer has a penis, and is relatively young. And of course there is the influence of criminal and mental health issues that almost never get addressed. I’ve looked at a lot of gun studies, and I’ve never seen one that could conclude that a gun in my home (no small children, criminals, or suicidal tendencies) represents a danger to me any more than my kitchen knives do.

harold said:

But more importantly, any study that only considers a gun used for self defense if it was fired (which the one I googled using your reference does) reveals mass incompetence and bias. One might as well only consider a karate black belt as a deterrant if you kill someone. There are also other factors that play far more of a role than the left ever gives them credit for. If you hear of a murder on your street, the safest conclusion isn’t that the murderer has a gun, but that the murderer has a penis, and is relatively young. And of course there is the influence of criminal and mental health issues that almost never get addressed. I’ve looked at a lot of gun studies, and I’ve never seen one that could conclude that a gun in my home (no small children, criminals, or suicidal tendencies) represents a danger to me any more than my kitchen knives do.

I still stand by my points here, even though your raise some valid issues. By "googled my reference" I assume you mean you looked at the University of Utah Department of Pathology web site. You are correct. The bias you state does exist. If you shoot someone, that's a body with a bullet in it, maybe dead, maybe taken to a hospital, and then that's a data point that can be recorded. Especially by pathologists; we aren't sociologists, we study mortality and morbidity. If you stop a murderer from killing you by drawing a gun and scaring him away, that is more difficult to record, and if recorded more likely to draw the attention of a social scientist than of a pathologist. However, the rate of both suicides and accidents is each quite a bit more than the rate of self-defense shootings. Therefore the onus is on those who claim that guns increase public safety to show that "used gun to defend self, didn't even have to shoot" incidents are sufficiently common to compensate for the difference. To repeat obessively, I'm about where you are on gun control and maybe even a little laxer. I even old-fashioned enough to think that excessive gun control can be a reactionary policy, not a progressive one. I'm not arguing against guns, and I'm not arguing against chainsaws or motorcycles either. I'm arguing against saying that guns increase public safety. They don't. Of course, if someone else is shooting at you, a gun massively increases your safety, it's just that it doesn't the rest of the time. Your second point about guns being safe in an ideal environment is certainly true, but a bit like noting that cars are very safe if driven on private roads by well-trained drivers who never drive drunk and so on. You could also have raised the valid point that gun crime is very low in some of the states with high gun ownership, like New Hampshire. New Hampshire has high gun ownership but one of the lowest crime rates, pretty universally across the state, not only in the US, but in the developed world. But gun deaths and injuries are not super-low in New Hampshire, just gun crime. I should note that my attitude toward guns is probably similar to that of an NRA member - an NRA member from 1960, that is. I'm not disturbed by law abiding people owning guns, nor am I arguing that guns are some super-terrible risk. I am disturbed by latter day gun fetish and reality denying irresponsible behavior. I don't have a problem with law abiding gun owners, but I'd like them to be able to honestly assess the risks and benefits.

scienceavenger said: I’ve looked at a lot of gun studies, and I’ve never seen one that could conclude that a gun in my home (no small children, criminals, or suicidal tendencies) represents a danger to me any more than my kitchen knives do.

My last post was primarily a response to your desire to ban bad science from the clasroom (quote: “I have never been comfortable with having to show that something is religious (violates the Establishment Clause, flunks the Lemon test, etc.) to get it banned from public education.”)

— eric

Last paragraph should be:

For years I often say that no one wants...

Frank J said: To clarify more, I don't really like the idea of banning in the first place, but if it has to be, I personally would have preferred another reason, such as to protect the integrity of public science education.

For years I often say that [no] one wants students to learn more creationism/ID than I do. Anti-evolution activists in fact do not want students to learn most of creationism/ID, i.e. where and how it fails, contradicts itself, evades, covers up, etc. They say "let the students decide" - and most people fall for it. But they don't mean it. I instead truly mean it, if only because it will eventually convince the great majority that creationism/ID is a scam. But that lesson is certainly not appropriate for science class, public or private.

They also want to get ID/creationism into colleges and universities; and the various fiascos that have occurred over the years - most recently at Ball State University - tell us that they really do fear the effects of a liberal education.

Oops I apologize for the lack of attribution. The last quote in my prior post is from Mike Elzinga, not Frank J.

School curricula have to be decided by someone. The usual method is that legislatures delegate the power to school boards, which may be elected. The school boards are then guided by recognized experts in the various subjects. Frequently publishers play a key role. The publishers pay the experts to generate and edit grade appropriate material at one end and recommend purchase of it to school boards at the other end.

It's an imperfect but usually quite benign system. Almost all contemporary attacks on the system are from Republican politicians at the legislative or school board level. That's a fact and if it was the Green Party doing it I'd say so. The attacks are always an effort to include reality denial material. We focus on science denial here but the same people typically want to include history denial, especially denial or mis-representation of slavery, segregation, and relations with Amerindians. They always attempt to achieve these results by telling school boards to deviate from the recommendations of mainstream experts and to use or create revisionist material that denies reality.

In a sense it is the "government" who makes up the curricula, informed by experts. I don't what alternative anyone proposes to that.

There is absolutely no censorship issue. Censorship is a term with negative connotations. It implies suppression of speech where there is a reasonable expectation that such speech should be permitted. It implies either the illicit suppression of speech by the government, or sometimes, the legal but excessive and overbearing suppression of speech by private entities.

School is for a purpose. There is no reasonable expectation that anything other than education guided by the curriculum and appropriate social functioning that facilitates imparting education guided by the curriculum be expressed in the classroom. Teachers have quite a bit of flexibility to teach the curriculum in their own style, including use of non-offensive and appropriate analogies or examples if they are so inclined. However, there is no reasonable expectation that classrooms must allow any and all speech on any and all topics during the limited school day. The difference between a disruptive student interrupting the curriculum with fart noises and disruption of the curriculum by a teacher forcing narrow sectarian science denial into the lessons is that the former violates school rules but not fundamental constitutional rights, whereas the latter violates both.

A teacher doesn't have the right to read the sports pages out loud or play music videos instead of teaching the material. They likewise don't have a right to teach crap instead of the material.

I’m okay with an ID course in the catalog, even one taught by a pro-ID professior, as long as its presented as an ID course and it’s taught in philosophy or theology.

— eric

eric said:

They also want to get ID/creationism into colleges and universities; and the various fiascos that have occurred over the years - most recently at Ball State University - tell us that they really do fear the effects of a liberal education.

I am much more tolerant of that. When it comes to the University level, I think the major issue is one of 'false advertising.' I.e., I'm okay with an ID course in the catalog, even one taught by a pro-ID professior, as long as its presented as an ID course and it's taught in philosophy or theology. The real problem is when creationist professors market a course one way and then basically bait-and-switch in creationism. Which is how I would describe the Ball State affair. "HONORS 296, Sec. 001, Symposium in the Physical Sciences: “The Boundaries of Science”" is not the place to teach 'all creationism all the time.'

My objection to situations such as the one that developed at Ball State is that the instructors don’t reveal - they probably don’t know - that the “science” they are teaching is bogus.

— Mike Elzinga

Mike Elzinga said: I wouldn't object to having such a course at the university level if it were properly identified as teaching about a sectarian "version" of "science" along with other such historical dead end notions.

My objection to situations such as the one that developed at Ball State is that the instructors don't reveal - they probably don't know - that the "science" they are teaching is bogus.

I suspect that most of the instructors who worm their way into these teaching positions are young, full of themselves with their fresh PhDs, and are on a sectarian mission. They have many of the common misconceptions that all ID/creationists have and don't know they have them. They are not capable of sustaining a viable research program in anything but some applied science area; they can't do basic research and wouldn't survive in a university with vigorous, ongoing basic research programs.

Frank J said:

My objection to situations such as the one that developed at Ball State is that the instructors don’t reveal - they probably don’t know - that the “science” they are teaching is bogus.

— Mike Elzinga

With the caveat that my mind-reading ability is no better than yours (both are zero), I would nevertheless say that they very probably do know that the “science” they are teaching is bogus. Or at least if they didn't know it at first, know it now. I wish I had more than a thought experiment, but I always ask myself, what would these people, given their radical paranoid authoritarian ideology and agenda, say and do if they were personally convinced that evolution is true. And the only answer I can come up with is "exactly what they're doing now."

It is not uncommon, however, for newly minted PhDs to have some major misconceptions in their basic understanding of science; it takes time to assimilate and work out the kinks in one’s understanding of science. A lot of learning takes place after the PhD.

— Mike Elzinga

Frank J said: I also had a personal experience with a sort of "Morton's Demon," when I was 7 during the first few weeks of being told about Santa Claus. I recall making some "creative" rationalizations. With ID peddlers, however, Morton's Demon does not have much to do, it may filter out evidence for evolution, but doesn't help convince them of any alternative, because they either don't state one, or it's so close to evolution (e.g. Behe's origin scenario, the only clear position taken by anyone at the DI) that it defeats the whole purpose.

To the Politics of Evolution! USA Universities cannot accept an origin of life, other than the Obvious: "We come from Mother Nature", from the irrational cold state of Atoms, to the rational warm state of Multicelular beings and Bodies perfected...!!!
EVOLUTION is the worst LOGIC! It does not give anybody false hopes of an after life, nor a real reason for life!!! YOU CANNOT MAKE IT A WORSE SCIENCE OR IDEA!

Mind you I am no Religious person, BUT rather some kind of Philosopher and Agnostic!

But Governments and other English countries, still have Bible Theology in their Universities! TO GIVE people a reason for life!

Of course if the Bible were right, we would be "good or bad slaves" of a DESPOT DICTATOR God of the Bible...!

CHEERS...!

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said: EVOLUTION is the worst LOGIC! It does not give anybody false hopes of an after life...

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said: To the Politics of Evolution! USA Universities cannot accept an origin of life, other than the Obvious: "We come from Mother Nature", from the irrational cold state of Atoms, to the rational warm state of Multicelular beings and Bodies perfected...!!! EVOLUTION is the worst LOGIC! It does not give anybody false hopes of an after life, nor a real reason for life!!! YOU CANNOT MAKE IT A WORSE SCIENCE OR IDEA! Mind you I am no Religious person, BUT rather some kind of Philosopher and Agnostic! But Governments and other English countries, still have Bible Theology in their Universities! TO GIVE people a reason for life! Of course if the Bible were right, we would be "good or bad slaves" of a DESPOT DICTATOR God of the Bible...! CHEERS...!

To the Politics of Creationism! USA Universities can accept an origin of life, the Obvious: "We come from Mother Nature", from the rational cold state of Atoms, to the rational state of Multicelular beings and Bodies not perfected...!!!
CREATION is the worst LOGIC! It gives anybody false hopes of an after life, not a real reason for life!!! YOU CANNOT MAKE IT A WORSE SCIENCE OR IDEA!

Mind you I am no Religious person, BUT rather some kind of Philosopher and Agnostic!

But Governments and other English countries, still have Bible Theology in their Universities! It's not TO GIVE people a reason for life! It's just a sad history of irrational nonsense.

Of course if the Bible were right, we would be "good or bad slaves" of a DESPOT DICTATOR God of the Bible...! But since it is obviously wrong, why try to substitute it for science?

CHEERS...!

Thing is when you've studied evolution to the limit made your conclusions, put your tools down closed the classroom door, go home for your tea, look in the mirror, and think well now what's next; it's another adventure another puzzle to solve but why are you doing these things, most likely to find the truth. Evolution isn't all and end all it's just the puzzle to solve with another end insight, that could be -what should we be striving to, hopefully a better world.

Marilyn said: Thing is when you've studied evolution to the limit made your conclusions, put your tools down closed the classroom door, go home for your tea, look in the mirror, and think well now what's next; it's another adventure another puzzle to solve but why are you doing these things, most likely to find the truth. Evolution isn't all and end all it's just the puzzle to solve with another end insight, that could be -what should we be striving to, hopefully a better world.

He spoke at the FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) conference in 2014 on the same subject if you prefer audio. The FFRF just posted it on their youtube channel in the last couple weeks.

Definitely troubling to see that this is a consistent trend that is getting worse. I had no idea of the idealogy the Justices were using to come up with these rulings.

Frank J said: Had my job been more directly related to evolution, e.g. research or teaching in biology, that "eureka moment" would have come much earlier.