Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Maybe he hasn't heard, we have this thing called the US Constitution.

Joe(It's right there in black and white, and maybe some red and blue)Nation

This Indiana thing took me by surprise. It actually passed the state senate committee. I am ashamed that God made me a public servant.

What would we do without it? Not the original lawyer fees and penalties missing link but the most perfectly adapted descendent so far.

I wouldn't worry too much about it wande. You'll only get 10 million aeons with your head stuck in a red hot iron pot and hungry dogs biting your legs if you look contrite at your trial. There is probably a great deal of mitigation to be said for your case.

Well, as they ay, Its a Lawyers Dream. I would imagine that some class woukd be established as soon as some district actually began teaching Creationism as a science in class.

Im amazed at how boneheaded some of our legislators seem to be.
Here we discuss this issue from our armchairs. Even spendi has been educated enough by the discourse to provide intelligent comments (although infrequently). The legislators have, by virtue of their positions in the state govts, access to all kinds of legal and education doctrines and rule . As far as I know, the telegraph reaches into Indianapolis and the news of the several USSCcases is still part of parlor discussions in the midwest.

I dont get it. I know that, at least the IDers are trying to stretch their brand of religion to form fit the laws(even though they havent yet hit upon a key that would open the doors) These guys are insisting to drive the truck right into the store window.
You know theyre gonna get stomped in court.

Of course, the legislators are grandstanding. They don't give a rat's ass about some hapless school district like Dover that gets bankrupted by the lawsuit, they just want to appeal to their constituency. If they pass the legislation, knowing it will get slapped down, they can always rhetorically spread their hands and say "well, we tried."

There also might be some goofy expectation that the Court as currently composed might rule in their favor if such a case ever makes it as far as the Supremes.

Thank you fm for the nice things you said about me. I am very gratified that you thought fit to take the trouble.

Might I draw your attention to the second last post, penultimate in fmspeak, on the previous page.

Before you lot got going, in order to draw attention to yourselves and make a little dough, your opposition was imperceptibly melting away. You were too impatient to receive those benefits and possibly to assuage your guilt of the many sins you have committed. There are no sins in evolution. There are only crimes and if you lot come to power it will be a crime to say things to the detriment of the NCSE.

They're getting around teaching ID by adding an elective bible course. That's the first foot in their battle to win the ID challenge.

.

I think that, according to the news article , they wish to teach it in SCIENCE. If it was teaching Creationism in some kind of religious survey course, that would be perfectly within the bounds of the Establishment clause, and it would be a matter of "what would we call the class"?

If they are indeed allowed to teach creationism in science class, what is there beyond Genesis? It should be called "Create Creationism From Imagination." In other words, what's beyond the first seven days of creation as delineated in the bible?

The 7,000 year old earth?

ID did not mount any challenge. ID, in some form, has been the settled system since records began. And as far as I know in every culture that has been heard of.

It is the system of bifurcation or reduplication. One might say from the facts of that that it is a necessary mechanism in the evolution of social organisation because no known culture has been without it. Ours included.

What bifurcation is is a normal method of providing social arrangements with sanction and authority through transcendental reduplication. Presumably to prevent us fighting over them and thus weakening the system and to give continuity through generations.

It is sometimes known as the Mirror or Balance theory of faith.

In such a system the social arrangements come first. The transcendental authority mirrors those arrangements and reinforces them. The 10 commandments for example list the most important matters relating to social stability because they are the most tempting to disregard.

Another advantage of such things is that these reduplications can be adjusted to take account of changing circumstances. Science cannot. Science has no theologians. It is inflexible. Science obeys the laws of "stuff". To prostrate oneself before the idol "stuff" is contemptible. That is a resignation.

It is anti-ID that has mounted the challenge.

The manner in which social arrangements change relating to such things as marriage customs, human sacrifice, diet, property relations and the like, can be scientifically studied through their bifurcated manifestations.

If science says not to eat more than 2,000 calories a day it has very little effect on obesity, which is a threat. If God says thou shalt not eat more than 2000 calories a day those who believe in that God will not do. Or only occasionally on special days of a Saturnalia.

Thou shalt not steal coming from God will stop people stealing. Thou shalt not steal coming from secular law can be wangled as we have seen.

But those who steal are under both secular and god's laws, and most criminals belong to a religious institution.

ci, in case you havent noticed, there is an entire curriculum based on a 6000 year old earth. There are Creation "Scientists" who are actually doing field work ad other research to show how several of the bases of science are incorrect, like isotope dating, stratigraphy, genomics
"doesnt support" evolution (in their minds).
They merely base their science upon an inerrant Genesis (or IKu'ran). "Teaching" Creationsim isnt merely a short tale of Biblical history, its a whole discipline that they want us to believe is actual science.

This is the stuff gungsnake tries to push. Now that he estblished his position re: evolution, he has begun taking shots at quantum theory, relativity,atomic theory etc.

Its not as simple s youd like to believe. What we take s fact, the Creationists MUST prove in error and they are busy. (Fortunatley they aint finding anything yet and Ill wager that they never will)

While we disagree on anthropogenic climate change, I agree there is no necessity to bind it to evolution. I think both are strong enough to stand on their own.

I disagree that either loses status as a "real science" by being used in the same sentence.

A
R
T

They'll die trying to prove something that's impossible to prove from their POV. Their time and energy; let them waste their life on this planet; maybe they'll be rewarded by their god(s) for their effort.

You cant dispose of what I'm saying by finding yourself a nice, convenient bunch of "Creation scientists" of the type you describe. You don't demolish Christianity by demolishing them. You can demolish Islam by such a method. Or anything else.

We have a modern form of bifurcation in our cult of the celebrity where their daily doings are put before us as examples for us to mimic. Living gods. We even name children after them. Follow their fashions. Eat what they eat. And much more. A form of paganism. And just as confusing.

We already know that you define science to suit your position.

The WASP is getting a bad press from the dirt being dug in the Republican dog fight.

You can't disagree with fm on such matters fa. He has all the science at his fingertips to prove you are bullshitting.

What's up with "man made". Is "anthropogenic" a euphemism to make it seem not as much our fault as "man made" does. Aaaah!

And fm's previous argument about Creation Science applies to you as well. If your bullshitting on GW then you are bullshitting on religion.

How do you waste a life ci? Not being like you I suppose.

Whtever they do in their caves, temples, and places or worship, is of no concern to me. I ony get my activation button pushed when they try to inflict their own beliefs into public schools science.
I think Id actually give my approval to a public school teaching a religion survey course that would include foundation myths and other aspects of their histories, like Inquisitions and purges, ethnic cleansings and church/statehood. I think that a well educated population dose noone any hrm. Evangelical and Fundamentl religions are uusully bsed upon ignorance of other cultures