Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

I'm told that Slavs are populating Tranna in great numbers these days..

The laws of the US are made up from
1whats in the Cosntitution
2whats in the Codes of Federl REgulations (CFRs)
3what the SUpremeCourt sefines the laws to mean (with respect to the Constitution)

The US Constitution NEVER contained language about slavery until the 13th Amendment which stated simply
"Neither Slavery nor Indentured servitude(except as a means of criminal punishment), shall exist in the United STates)
Prior to this, and since at least 1790's till the Civil War, there had been several laws and decisions maded by the US govt and Courts that actually Aided and ABetted the industry of slavery. (It was considered a means of conducting business in the mainly rural southern states where agriculture ruled). There were actually 2 key laws passed by Congress in 1793 and in 1850 that were called "The Fugitive SLave ACts". The last of these (the 1850 version), Actually REQUIRED any citizen to give assistance in the recapture of reunaway slaves so they could be returned. As a result of the First Fugitive SLave ACt, the vast anti slavery movement began to focus their activities to assist runaway slaves to reach freedom of the "Free STates" or into Canada. The institution called "The Underground RAilroad" had developed very sophisticated paths of escape in the East and Midwest US. (the use of these "railroads" in 19th century US literature is an example of how most people in the Northern states felt about the institution of slavery). When the 1850 lkaw was passed, it led to open defiance of the law. In Boston there were large demonstrations against the movement of several slaves to the docks for return to their "owners" and in Pa in 1851 , in a town called Christiana (about 4 miles from my farm) was the "Christiana Riot" where a bunch of slave hunters were held and fired on , and a subsequent skirmish ensued that left a person killed and several wounded and lots of propwerty dmage as the rioters "smoked the slave hunters out". This was quelled by the militia and the slaves were returned (I believe). The Christiana Riots ere considered to be the "Opening SHots of the Civil War, over 10 years later) SO, the Constitution said nothing against slavery, the SUpremes had found in FAVOR of slavery byseveral decisions during the early 19th century, and the CFRs actually included laws that aided slavery.

In 1862 Lincoln signed an executive order, "what became known as the "Emancipation Proclamation". That was actually just a kind of hutzpah because it didnt really do anything except piss off his ennemies since it really was a "command for rebelling states to return to the Union by Jan 1 1862".Then, in the second half of the Proclamation, he identified in which 10 states the actual proclamation would apply.

It really wasnt until Lincoln had securely been re-elected in 1864(thanks in part to some key victories of the Civil War) that he enacted his plan to have Congress forward to him, for his signature, an actual AMENDMENT to the Constitution (the 13th) which outlawed slavery. This amendment was signed by Lincoln in JAnuary 1865 and was ratified in December of that same year by the necessary 2/3 state legislatures (due in large part to the really brilliant career move by Lincoln to get assassinated ).

SO, as far as slavery went, we actually officially condoned it for most of our history before the civil war. It was an important issue of the civil war. The 13th amendment finally forbad slavery in December 1865.
NOW, making something illegal and getting it to be accepted, are two different things. The post '13th AMendment" history of the US requierd another (easily) 120 years to even make reasonable dent into the concept of equal rights for all. There we have a statement in our Declaration of Independence that talks about "equal rights" and "all men are created equal". These goals took over 300 years to be "fleshed out" .

So when I worry about being vigilant about the freedoms of (and from religion), I and ed, ros, set, and other US folks are a bit cynical about how things go . I doubt that an amedment to the 1st will arisethat favors one minor religious viewpoint. I do get concerned that if several states begin this great journey backwards based upon a literal view of ONE VERSION OF ONE RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT(, then the US SUpreme Court, depending on how politically mixed it is) may look favorably on some local laws that are becoming increasingly built upon fine points of constitutional law in a blatant attempt to skirt the "establishment cluse". THIS could happen should we ever get a majority conservative (Evangelical) court.
I dont think that the present court is that instrument because even Roberts and ALito, two ultra conservatives , ARE CATHOLICS not evangelical Christians> CAtholics are NOT idiots when it comes to accomodation with science. However. The SUpreme Court is made up on a purely random fashion dependent upon the
ages of its inhabitants during any particular presidents reign
2The social pressures of increasingly strident evangelicals and their minions in states like TExas, Arkansa and Louisiana.

ITs highly unlike;ly that the establishment clause will be interpreted in any fashion other than the way that Judge Jones stated in his DOver decision (Hes a conservative GOP , but is NOT an evangelically leaning one).

SO, in summary, our history of slavery has been one of quiet and public advocacy for much of our early history. The proces of change was slow and I hope I was clear in my rambling.

Evolution, as a basic underpinning of ALL BIOLOGY. should NEVER be subject to the caprice of evangelistic interpretation. There can therefore, NEVER be any accomodation to Creationistic bullshit or IDiotic Bullshit in BIOLOGY CURRICULA. It takes constant vigilance to keep anything unscientific from happening in the many corners of the vast US territory.

Ill bet Ionus that, its very similar in your own country (which is about the same size as ours). Its a map that celebrates and allows huge differences of regional opinions and rules. However, there are some basic universals that should never be fucked with, and I and several of us here have been active (not only in this forum buit in the real world) in ntrying toprevent the evangelical worldview from gaining ANY toeholds.

FUCKIN time outs on posts. Grrr.
My creative spelling always leaves confusion but one important comment I failed to make is
that

"its unlikely that the establishment clause will be interpreted in any fashion other than the way Judge Jones applied it. BUT IT COULD HAPPEN in some future court makeup .
With one more normal conservative USSC justice, we actually could see the overturn of Roe v Wade and the proposal of an "Anti abortion" amendment(Would such an amendment be easily ratidfied? I dont think so but musings on how the USSC could affect our futures could be the subject of some good science fiction writing)

Holy hell. I can't believe I expended the time to read this vapid piece of hogwash.

So--you admit the arbritary nature of these decisions then? Which is to say guided by will only and thus unscientific except sociologically or psychologically. They are mere functions of a recruitment process. Which is close to saying that Constitution is an expression of the will of the power elite. Conservatism in the best sense.

It has always seemed odd to me that radicals are so fond of appealing to the tenets of fundamentalist conservative ideology to support their various whims.

Have you considered Ed that you might be a closet intellectual masochist?

Take a nap, spendi.

Since Ive been on a "dont peek at the spendishit" my a2k expweiences are on a much higher level. Im finding that sine I dont know what he is saying from his usual lack of historical pespective, I dont get all magisterial and try to act like a caring 3rd grade teacher with a kid who proudly doesnt know how to add

Aw--come on Ed--there's no need to get all petulant and mangy.

Masochists are in a very enviable scientific position you know. They are not subjected to acting performances which take their feelings into consideration. They encourage those with whom they have dealings to show themselves in their proper colours which, whatever else one might say, is a mode of scientific research.

The Book of Etiquette is hardly a scientific study of the true nature of the human psyche.

The Book of Etiquette?
He he. Pot, meet kettle.

I thought you were reading him. I don't read the other one. Interesting.

The only times Im tempted now is when someone else responds to him or quotes him. Recently there was a running dialogue tween me and Ionus, Spendi kept butting in like he was part of it, so I really couldnt avoid him.

hee hee, okseeyalater.

The "running dialogue" fm refers to could only be considered as such by adopting the Harold Pinter approach.

If no-one did any "butting in" then every thread would be an exchange between two posters. fm is quite prepared to sabotage A2K in the service of making what he thinks is a telling point. He used Roberta in the same way recently.

He has to pretend he is ignoring my posts for the very simple reason that he cannot, or will not, answer the questions I have asked him.

I think the fundamental problem is PSS. (Premature Specialisation Syndrome). PSS occurs when a sudden and personally flattering insight is obtained into a matter concerning which no previous knowledge existed. Seeing a DNA spiral on TV with little coloured balls stuck to it accompanied by swelling orchestral music and an authoritative but reassuring voice, and other trappings of scientific excellence, can have strange effects. It can easily be imagined, for example, that no-one else has seen the programme and that one is a party to things others are ignorant of. Such a pointed experience gives rise to a sense of separation from the uncouth and uneducated masses and a rush, even a gush, of enthusiasm ensues which can soon turn, by looking up a few long words, into a Hobby-Horse and from being astride one of those a sense of mission develops whereby the uncouth and uneducated masses can be enlightened and the reputation of the rider hopefully advanced.

Such a mission, especially when characterised by enthusiasm to be the centre of attention, obviously takes up so much energy that there is little left, sometimes none, for learning more about the Hobby-Horse and how to ride it to best effect. This explains the repetitive nature and brevity of further attempts at progress and also the insulting tone adopted to those who take the trouble to point out this dreadful situation.

I have quite a deal of experience in this matter of PSS. I am often called a misogynist by those whose study of the female sex has got no further than their first intimations on the matter and who therefore underestimate the sweet little darlings to such an extent that it beggars belief that an intelligent member of the fraternity will give them the time of day and any who do end up chirping like a budgie in a gilded cage. But this is not the place to bring forth any detailed examination of such matters.

I have met many Hobby-Horsicals in relation to certain writers. Emily Bronte, Gustave Flaubert, Marcel Proust, Bob Dylan and suchlike. No sooner have I engaged in two minutes conversation with any of these enthusiasts that it becomes obvious they are merely using these names as badges for snobbery considerations and their knowledge of the purport of the messages in the works is not only non-existent but feared. The minutiae, of which there is an endless supply, obscures anything of that nature.

It is a form of arrested development. The gush of enthusiasm stops them in their tracks. PPS is particulary apparent in discussions of economic and political questions.

fm has PSS bad. His views on art are not worth a blown out candle. He's just an Arts&Craft shop punter who wants to share.

Our news broadcasters have just offered the "BREAKING NEWS" that scientists have determined that the volcano in Iceland has stopped billowing plumes of dense black smoke and ash thirty thousand feet into the sky.

One assumes that 5 year old Icelanders could have told us just as well.

Which just goes to show how cuddly media is with science. Which one is the pitcher and which the catcher I don't know but I would bet on media being the former because the scientific profession is riddled with Premature Specialisation Syndrome, and its associate Wide Eyed Innocence, which is presumably the reason that Calamity Jane called the scientists she knew to be "nerds" as do most intellectual movies. Especially Laurel and Hardy and documentaries feechwering Professor Dawkins.

I understand you have a lot of trouble following the simplest of arguments, so I find myself yet again explaining what was obvious to everyone else.
This is very difficult for you to grasp, but that was an example of a widespread opinion. If two people in each state hold that opinion it is widespread. If many people hold that opinion that would make it widepsread and popular. Does that help you understand, moron ?

According to you, the constitution can not be changed by a vasy majority. So much for a democracy. Perhaps you should make your opinion known to your fellow USAians. I am sure they will listen to an obnoxious belligerant prick like you telling them they are all stupid and you are right.

You have to be setting me up so I look good. What a dribbling idiot you are when it comes to history ! Lincoln was reluctant to free the slaves....why would such an astute politician be reluctant ? I will help you puzzle this out....because he didnt have the backing retard ! So millions of Canandians, Mexicans, Argentinians, all wanted to fight in the war ? Idiot. Northerners fought to maintain the Union and there were so many volunteers they had to conscript even more....what a zoob you are.

Utter crap. The voting rights of states was protected, but it was the constitution that was used to outlaw slavery. Where do you think the statutory power came from ? Moron.

See if you can follow this....if you call people names they will insult you back....maybe you should ask someone to explain it to you. Not big on people skills are we ? Better stick to associating with dogs. They love you because you can open a can....of course if you ever forget how to you wont have a friend in the world, but hey...it couldnt happen to a nicer guy.

So what ? Cant stay on topic at your age ? Find your mind wandering a bit do we ? Never mind, you will feel better after your afternoon nap. Dont walk around the Old People's home muttering insults, they will increase your medication again and we will be on the recieving end of another of your factless outbursts.

Looking at the time the 13th amendmant was made, there is the change over from English Law, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments), previous court decisions and (at the time) current popular opinion. The clear legal decision, based on all that, is the courts were legally wrong to support slavery. Given a choice of two, they sided with the easy way. However, it is very clear the legally correct thing was to go against slavery, it was the support for it by some states that made this politically impossible but the correct legal decision would have been to decide against it in all court decisions.

We have been in agreeance on this point before.

Before the somewhat heated sidetrack of the law, I was making the point that the danger in any democracy is that if the people are stupid then you will get stupid results. Religion seems to increase inversely proportional to the economic well being of people. Easy times, atheists.....disasters or great hardships, theists. It is not impossible for religious fundamentalists to be in power, given the number of Presidents and others who flout their religion, as opposed to those who flout their atheism. A small percentage can make the difference between power and opposition so anything that seems confronting to the fundamentalists has to be avoided.

Biology in particular is at the frontlines of this fight. Abortion, Evolution, Stem Cells, Cloning, DNA research, etc...a long list. I have suggested it might help if you have a national curriculum for science, esp Biology. That there are obstacles to this has been pointed out to me, but it is a solution if it can be brought about.

You are an embarrasement. Dont you do anything but bark at heels ? Wouldnt it have been better to say why you think that rather than just your opinion without any facts or contribution at all ?

I can see him married to the Sadist **** for brains. What a great sado-masochist couple they would make.....
SfB - Mister Ed, you are a stupid idiotic moron...
Mister Ed - Yes

I have no idea what youre getting at here.
We had a series of industries that relied upon slaves or some form of indentured servitude either by force or by economic methods (mining and big agriculture come to mind) These industries had either needs for large labor forces that were low waged and low skilled. So since the Constitution never even broached the subject before the 13th amendment, any decision of the SUpreme Court or any state court that supported slavery WAS A LEGAL DECISION, maybe the word youre wanting is "morally"

By the way, The entire world was "in the business" of providing the commodity , human flesh. The Muslim countries were big supporters of the slave trade . So were the Europeans and the Aisans. Providing slaves to its colonies was a big business to British Imperialism until 1833 when the Slaevry Abolition Acts were finally passed and Britain did an about face (even though 40 years earlier they fought the Freench over this very issue) Stupid to me, is fighting a war against an issue and then, as the war winds down, get back into the business of that very issue. (That defines stupidity ad hutzpah to me).

US tore itself apart over the issue and , as any war got really ugly at the end as the US was just in a position to bring the CSA to its knees by just grinding the CSA into the ground. The 13th amendment was attempted by Congress as Lincolns demand of "Unconditional Surrender and repatriation of 10 states" became almost a certainty by January 1865. The ratification process took another 12 months and was aided by the CAnonization of Lincoln after his assasination. WOULD the 13th have been ratified had Lincoln lived or the plot foiled? I dont know.


WE had some 80 years separating the two "monkey trials" of DAyton Tennessee and Dover Pennsylvania. Between thos times, the US gradually (and reluctantly) gave up its hold on Fundamentalism in its education systems. It took many years and many court battles to gain a decent definition of "Separations of church and state" as definable within science education. Thats another reason I collect old sciencebooks. They actually show, by the changes published in successive editions of the same books, how secular the education systems was becoming in the areas of science.
Ive one book of "Standard Biology For the New Age" that actually had an account of how the Biblical account of Creation was scientifically unimpeachable and evidence was fairly "in order" with Genesis (account of CreationI). That same text, less than 3 years later produced a new edition that was letting loose with the Biblical Inerrancy. By the 1930's two additions later (I need to get the edition in between) the entire Biblical account was dropped and a growing enlightenment of the sciences became popular. (I think it occured at about the same time as "neo-Darwinian thinking" was growing .
Texts mirror, (or propogate) the thinking of a time and make a clear test of what we knew when. I like to use em as passive measurement points of scientific sophistication of the general population. Now, of course there are still holdout populations that, due to their need for control over their members, will insist on maintaining a Fundamental "Anti-modernism" liturgy.
Their postions look ridiculous in view of what we know about the truth of the Biblical account, (or lack thereof).

IN NO FASHION has science tried to de empasize anyones freedom of worship. In fact, quite the opposite has occured where the religious Fundamentalists have attempted to discredit science, andhistory all the while spouting that their beliefs are credible and evidence proven truth.

It has nothing to do with any "rise in atheism" .Thats just a red herring by the folks with nothing to add to anything herein. It shows a deep lack of understanding that our Constitution, by not taking sudes, doesnt give a rats ass about whether you call your belief Jaynism, Buddhism, Animism, Catholocism, Judaism , Islam, or atheism, the US will not support it as a "national favorite".
In the US, the belief of equality in religion (as defined in our Constitution) grants you free access to your belief , so long as it doesnt mess with mine. I inda like the music there. The Anti-id spouters (whatever the **** that even means) merely need a cram course in Problems of American Democracy to get it through their thick skulls that most all religions support the proper teaching of biology and natural science in our shools that are publically funded. In fact, even the parochial schools teach from the same curriculum base in most states (even though they have the freedom to teach about how the Cherokee myth of Creation within a week follows the Biblical version in science) BUT, for the most part, most parochial schools (with the exception of the Fundamentalist Charter Cshools) seek to support good science in their sxience classes. In Pa, we have a state test requirement that everyone must demonstrate a minimal comprehension and competence in the sciences including Biology. This is a requirement for graduation in our Commonwealth. SO, no matter what a Fundamentalist Charter school tries to indoctrinate its kids with, the kids need to demonstrate proficiency in understanding natral selection in order to graduate. Most other states are reaching this level and some exceed our requirements by showing advanced placement results for the "talented and gifted".

The change over from English Law, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments), all have demands and guarantees of freedom. Lesser courts can only make decisions as to what the law states, and in some cases set precedent which is subject to review. High courts, or Supreme courts, make decisions as to the nature of Law itself, although they are supposed to follow the intent of the politicians in making these laws, they quite often interpret in ways that strike up new laws and intent by themselves.

The interpretation of these fore-mentioned are used to guarantee religious freedom, the right to bear arms and other problems based on the rights of the individuals over those of the state.

These documents guarantee the right of the individual whereas laws applicable to slavery within the constitution guarantee the rights of the states. Courts were in legal error to place the right of the state over that of the individual and all it achieved was a delay to the inevitable....the Civil War to restructure the balance of state power versus that of the individual.