Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

It is a fact that we do not know the origin of life, nor do we have a plausible pathway by which natural causes could bring it about. Yes, we can track the natural origin of many of its building blocks, but not the ordered assembly of them into a living organism- as I have pointed out many times.

Because of this fact, it is the 'natural causes' side that is positing unproven things, I.e. abiogenesis.

They are implicitly saying - IF abiogenesis is natural, then evolution via purely natural causes is responsible for the evidence we see in the fossil record.

That is a huge IF.

When our late friend John Wandel asked the question about the (still existing) constraints placed on teaching evolution, it was back in th 2000's when the argument was just resolved (again) by a court debate that , hopefully settled the over lording of science by religion that had gone on in the 20th century. A judge then decided based on expert testimony by many pHDs whose facts resided on both sides of the case.

The history was that evolution was mostly denied in public schools till the1960"

SO much was the control of public schools by Fundamentalist thinking, that it was illegal to ven teach VOLUTION until the Butler Laws were first challenged, the Epperson case st th tone to top making teaching evolution A CRIME, Agullard case, which established what science is or is not in schools, and of course, the Kitzmiller case which was merely a Federal District case that establihed that Creationism nd Intelligent Dsign were the same thing and would therefore be governed by the Aguillard decision in Pa (also it stablished what was or wasnt evidence based science in the 3rd district)

Now Im kinda flumoxed that BJ has apparently attempted to turn this around by intimating that teaching ID in cience makes the ISer , omehow "The Victims" of mean and heartless "volutionim"

I think my admonition that BJ needs to learn about the history regarding all this before he again uses history as an argument ,is entirely valid.

Leadfoot, on the other hand , had taken the smart road. He consistently said that he just wasnt interested in the court cases as anything valid.(That way he didnt kick the dog and waken it to counterclaims that he didnt know of what he spoke).
BJ, on the other hand, did a major shifty OOPS. Because by claiming victim status, he purposely fails to prsent facts and truth in this matter. In other words He was trying to deceive. Until all the court cases ere finally adjudicated, for most of the time until Aguillard, volution in biology class was the victim.

Thats the facts,

Quite right. I wouldn’t touch arguing science or theology in a courtroom with a ten foot pole.
Any results would be meaningless. Science, because by definition, it’s never settled and theology, because, well, that outta be obvious.

they werent settling the science, merely the definition of religion . Anything religious voids a pass on the " establishment clause". So many xprts, ya think they could agree?
Dr Behe settled the argument by stating that th supernatural was science.

Judge Jones: "NEXT!"

I thought gungasnake posted that at one time. Maybe I am wrong.

The Tennessee said something similar in the scopes trial. The Tennessee Supreme court didnt have much choice, (the law was broken and they weren't about to make up anew one from the bench). But both stiflings of free speech were wrong. (Scopes and Dover)

So if it is proven scientifically that it is likely Intelligence is involved, how is a logical theory to be discussed legally? How is that good science?

There is a line where ID becomes religion and it is when objective idealism is used in interpretting the evidence.

Naturalism, naive realism, and subjective idealism is used every day to interpret the data on human intelligence. Should that be outlawed too?

This sure gets tedious--the origin of life is irrelevant to a discussion of evolution, as evolution cannot take place until life is present. It's the god squad who always bring this up, because they have no argument and evidence to bring out against biological evolution.

Like leadfoot said if ID explains away abiogenesis we can use it to explain the gaps. Pattern analysis is scientific.

Once stuck on creationism, nothing else is relevant. Don't forget; god is a jealous god who will burn you in hell forever for not following his words. http://jesus-is-savior.com/Hells_Truth/forever.htm

Why can't christians see the contradiction of these words? Must god use fear of eternal damnation to scare people to believe? I saw these contradictions as a teen, and became an atheist.

BJ's arguments with regard to Scopes and the Dover school district are completely specious. Free speech is not "outlawed" in either case. John Scopes was fined for exercising his free speech rights, but in the process, violating the state law as it stood at the time. That state law made it illegal to: “teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.” Scopes intentionally courted the trial and then enlisted the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union to fight the case. As always, BJ seems to have an obsessive need to demonstrate his ignorance.

In the Dover case, the court found that so-called "intelligent design" was not science, that it was religiously-based, and that it therefore violated the no establishment clause, the first clause of the first amendment to the constitution. You can say whatever the hell you want, you just can't spend public money to say it in schools if it is not relevant to the discipline being taught.

BJ's deceit knows no bounds--much like his ignorance.

I wish to thank you for keeping on top of this subject, and explaining the difference between ID and evolution. It's a necessary battle, because many people of religion doesn't know how to "keep their facts straight." BJ is a good example of how they are brainwashed to believe in a god that doesn't exist. That god's image is the same as man speaks volumes about how ridiculous their story is. Especially since god is at all places at once listening to all those prayers being spoken in his name. Not only that, but the christian god is a latecomer to homo sapiens having arrived only 2,000 years ago while homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years. Many religions with gods have existed long before the christian god, and the christian god takes over from Greek and Egyptian mythology. The contradiction is mind-searing.

I said the Tennessee court ruling was correct. I said the law was wrong minded in scopes and the ruling in Dover. Both for the same reason, freedom of expression.

You're absolutely wrong--as usual. The ruling in Scopes was in line with Tennessee law, but violated the no establishment clause of the first amendment. Therefore, the ruling was not correct. In Kitzmiller versus Dover the ruling was correct, upholding the no establishment clause. Neither one of them was in the"least about what you are calling "free expression.

Let me guess, you're so facile that you think: “First amendment, oh, free speech." You're wrong. The entire text of the first amendment to the constitution reads, in it's entirety: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Free speech is not mentioned until the third clause of the five clauses of the text.

What is this obsession you have with deciding that you know all about subjects about which you are so obviously ignorant? Why do you just make sh*t up--do you think that's good enough? Do you think you can deceive intelligent, well-educated people so easily? Perhaps you are so deluded with your religious obsessions that you are deceiving yourself.

That's the whole truth and nothing but in a nutshell. I'm sorry to say all my siblings are christians. Their heart is in the right place: They pray for me.

He just couldn't wait to parade his ignorance once again.



He continues that attempt.

No, pattern recognition is not "scientific." It's a human trait that predates the written word, at least, and probably predates speech. It is so frequently wrong that intelligent people have to make an effort not to get sucked in by specious applications of our penchant to apply patterns to what we see. You really need to stop making statements from authority--you possess no authority.

The ruling was correct in Tennessee because the state Supreme Court ruled on state constitutional issues. It needed to go to the federal Supreme Court for the federal ruling. Both courts were correct.

Science that suggests a religious truth, is science suggesting a religious truth. That is freedom of scientific speech. If science proves a religious truth is wrong it is still science. Both should be able to be freely expressed everywhere.

Dover was wrong.

That is absolutely untrue. The case was never appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The issue of the teaching of evolution versus state-mandated religious content in science classes was not visited by the Supremes until 1968 in Epperson v. Arkansas.

You are, once again, shamelessly making sh*t up.