Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

What a silly, trite and juvenile little piece of amateur satire that Pope Splendious XXX piece is (.)

Yes--I know. People of low intelligence are often amused by silly, trite and juvenile satire and particularly when it has been washed out, wrung dry and hung out on the washing line with the bloomers and underpants as often as that piece has been.

Don't strain your creativity too much on our behalf Wiz.

Says he who has not one creative bone in his entire body except that little two inch thing between his legs.

(That's after a full dose of Viagra to boot).

You guys should calm down.

What's the purpose of slinging insults at each other?

It's not even funny..

Ah, come on, Francis -- you really think we are not calm?
It's not suppose to be funny.

What? Not supposed to be funny?

Most of the time I'm ROTFLMAO.

It passes the time Francois and I find it quite amusing occasionally.

Have you noticed that these guys never risk having their creativity tested by trying the Acronym game. They actually think that calling into question the creativity of others is sufficient to prove their own. Such techniques are the basic strand of all their thinking.

I'm sorry for spelling zeitgeist incorrectly. But it was a fairly creative post in which I used the word don't you think in that it exposed those who jump all over insignificant errors to avoid dealing with the substantive matter.

My sense of humour tends to run along the lines of comparisons of the daughters of Eve with the daughters of the Venus of Willendorf and her simian forbears. Evolution being too slow to bring about observable changes in a mere few thousand years.

A quite predictable comment, I wouldn't expect nothing less.

And spot on.

But I've no interest in these "substantive matters", other than their ludic aspects.

And the fact that the participants are obviously not talking in the same semiological acceptance, regardless to their propensity to think they are..

He means describing himself with an ACRONYM:
Acidic Commentary Revealing Onerous Nincompoop Yuppie Moot

So let's go nitpicking -- I'm sure that feminize in GB is not spelled with an "s."

I always do for aesthetic sense.

Astounding Complexity Revealing Ontological Neuroblastic Yonian Motifs.

www.npr.org
Dinosaur fossils found in China show that the Sinornithosaurus had grooved teeth connected to what could be venom ducts. Several researchers hypothesize that the dinosaur may have used venom to kill its prey, much like the Gila monsters of the American Southwest.

A report on tonight's BBC News claimed that Paganism is growing rapidly in England. There is a Pagan group, it said, in almost every town. It gave the explanation as a declining attachment to traditional religion.

A spokesperson said that they objected to the "inflexible" nature of traditional doctrine which translates as a call for "flexible" doctrines.

Hang on to your hats you innocent boy scouts and girl guides.

Every generation shrugs off bits of the past.

Huh? Paganism is the past. Need I mention it again, Ayn Rand, the champion of objectivism was forming a religion based on Paganism. So as far as "tradition," Paganism trumps Christianity -- the Christmas season is derived from a Pagan holiday. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing but if you're going to believe in the supernatural, why be so deadly dull and mannered. Christianity is, again, not monotheistic.

Seems feasible. But I'm not sure they have enough evidence yet to make a convincing case.

Texas Law Bars Atheists From Holding Office

Pat Smith was surprised to hear that a clause in the Texas Bill of Rights bars atheists from office.

Smith, the president of the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Lubbock's board of trustees, said the law is outdated.

“There is separation of church and state, and which church someone belongs to or whether or not they attend a church should not affect their ability to serve,” she said.

While it appears that Texas candidates have never been challenged based on the clause, a similar law in North Carolina is causing controversy regarding one Asheville city councilman.

Cecil Bothwell assumed office on Dec. 14, only to hear an outcry from a group of conservative activists. Those activists are requesting Bothwell, an atheist and member of the Unitarian Universalist Church, be removed from office based on a clause in North Carolina's Constitution that disqualifies officeholders “who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”

The controversy went viral, attracting the attention of national newspapers, Web sites and TV programs, when one foe, H.K. Edgerton, threatened to take the city of Asheville to court in a lawsuit, the Associated Press reported. Legal experts predict the case wouldn't advance very far because the state law is trumped by the U.S. Constitution.

“Frankly, this is one of the easiest cases I've ever seen,” said Arnold Loewy, George R. Killam Jr. Chair of Criminal Law at Texas Tech, who teaches a course of the First Amendment. “It's crystal clear that the North Carolina and Texas law is unconstitutional.”

The law is found in Section 4 of the Texas Constitution Article I, the Bill of Rights. It reads, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”

In 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins, a case similar to the current events in Asheville, went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court exercised separation of church and state by ruling in favor of a Maryland atheist seeking public appointment.

The fact the U.S. Constitution overwrites the state law may be what's prevented the Legislature from changing the law.

Loewy said rewriting the state Constitution is unnecessary and typically not done by legislators.

Rewriting the law would take time away from lawmakers who would rather deal with current issues, said Dan Rodriguez, a University of Texas professor of law who specializes in state law.

“Often it's just not worth the effort or the energy,” Rodriguez said. He said with laws like this, state leaders “just have to hold their breath and hope no one notices.”

“But you always have to be wary,” he added.

Loewy said the issue may not have been raised before because it's not common for candidates to mention their religious beliefs, particularly if an atheist were running in a place like Lubbock with more than 400 churches.

Bothwell's views caught the public's attention when he took an alternative oath that did not mention God or require him to place his hand on the Bible.

Rodriguez said such laws were written as a result of the ideas that dominated the South during the American Reconstruction, when many of those states' constitutions were rewritten. Texas' Constitution was completed in 1876, while North Carolina's Constitution was adopted in 1868. Constitution authors incorporated the religious language to speak out against the radical Republican rule that dominated the time.

“I imagine it's still in the books because no one has challenged it and the Legislature has not acted to remove it,” said Lisa Graybill, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

John Watts, Texas Tech associate professor of law, said other antiquated laws in many state Constitutions go unnoticed. Decades ago atheists were not allowed to testify in court on grounds that they could not be trusted to tell the truth if they didn't believe in God, he said. Watts agreed that it would be unlikely for the state constitution to be re-written.

“It's unnecessary,” he said. “And from what I've seen of Texans, they don't like to be told what to do.”

Off hand, it sounds unconstitutional to me.