Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

This is another example of you speaking from an authority which you do not possess. You have the right to express your goofy religious drivel everywhere, unless it is on the taxpayer's dime. That would constitute an establishment of religion, which is prohibited by the first clause of the first amendment to the constitution. The Tennessee Supreme Court rather speciously held that whereas Catholics, Protestants and Jews disagree on the topic of evolution, and as they disagree in their generally held beliefs within their own confessions, the Tennessee statute did not constitute an establishment of religion. That specious reasoning was flatly rejected in Epperson.

You're just making sh*t up again.

Yes, you finally got one right. The Dover Area School District was wrong to attempt to put so-called intelligent design into it's science curriculum. The judge ruled that the attempt was a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Oh . . . wait . . . that's not what you meant? You meant that the ruling was wrong? Ah-hahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

You're pontificating and displaying your ignorance again.

Wow, did some bass fishin and come back to read some of your good stuff . Im afraid though, that the boy will continue his ways, and try maintain victim status for some reason in order to keep his LATEST post sounding relevant and hide the fact that his eyes are getting browner.

Breathlessly vapid . Would that be a good name for a rock band?

I am not a victim. I am an advocate for diversity. The victim in this scenario are the people who lived in Dover that established a diverse science curriculum and because a minority of students were offended by diversity the whole school district hade to endure a legal proceeding that cost the district over a million dollars just so diverse view points could be squelched by the government. Government establishing religion means the government is imposing one view point.

Before Dover there were two view points. After Dover there was a single court imposed view point. How is that not a government established point of view. How is that freedom?

Heyyou want diversity? Let' teach the earth is flat and the sun gies around the earth. Alfter all that. Was sciebce for two rhousand years.

boy are you misinformed. ALL the faculty were against the ID pronouncements by the SChool Board 's two leaders (who got elected on a program of fiscal austerity, so they were two brazen liars who represented your concept of "diversity"). These two guy, after election and internal votes to be the chair and vice chair , they began their nefarious plot to turn Dover HS biology into the laughing tock of YORK COUNTY). The faculty was told to "keep out lest your jobs be in danger from insubordination".

The State asked Dover to back off as per the Edqars v Aguillard decision. The board chair stated that I was NOT religion and after a full year of attempts at reasoning with these two clowns in order to spare the school district such costs, the board chair (acting with a slim majority because two bord members resigned in digust (Qn act they later regretted becasue they could have been the votes that quashed the entire case)

The school board was certain they would prevail and so was the Discovery Institute and the Moore Center ,who represented the chool board (seems like all the Fundamentalists sided with the school board and Catholics and Lutherans from their archdiocese and Synod spoke against the IDrs as misinformed and anti-cience.

The case began with all the stuff of civil uits, Discoveries, Depositions, requests for Summary Jugements tc. The case proceeded to court and the IDers did so poorly that the case ws decided by the Judge after a few weeks of delibertion. (HIS decision stands as a clear and entertaining bit of judicial ruling that it became a book that was a best seller in Pa and surrounding states) NOT IN THE Bibe Belt because all the heads who always rise up as with a ganglial mind (Ben Stein, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and many others).

It was a fair objective day in court and the evidence pointed to "breathtking inanity" of the defense and its case.

Dr Behe was eviscerated on the stand because it became known that hi concept of a "sudden appearance of an organismal system by virtue of his newly coined Irreducible Complexity " was BS pure and simple. Sort of like your overuse of "paradigm shift" . There was no Irr Complexity tht could be hidden from the camera that wasnt taken apart by the plaintiffs experts and scientists working with them.

The argument about hether ID was or was not religion was argued with witnesses of the clergy and science and philosophy. Again the IDers had nothing convincing to offer. Based on the tests involved , the judge concluded (and the decision held because the School District appealed against the entire case and would not go any higher. The USSC agreed that it was a great move to just shut the **** up and get on with life. First the two board members were voted out of office and one of them was under a cloud of indictment for som fraud. His career move then included moving away to Florida and I believe he died which , as everyone agreed was a smart career move.
The winners agreed to split the costs (Usually unheard of) and the court costs were also reduced by the judge.

It was just an incompetent and totally dumbass move on behalf oof DI. They were ill prepared, lacking knowledge of what the hell they were even doing ,so that their side was loaded with "Galileo gambiting" Where people, unaware of thir incompetence , feel that they ARE competent to engage in the technical discussion they invent terms and phrases that are just nutty in order to sound competent in fields that many of the experts were not(including Dr Behe) , so they act in large measure , driven by their overall incompetence. ( I really think you should read the book by Ed Humes), its a hoot and probably the origin of what would later be called Woo).


What was clear to everyone is that ID was religious in origin, a product of the Discovery Institutes "Center for Culture" . This was where the DI took a noted Creationist Book "Of Pandas and People" and expunged the word "Creationism" and Creationist" and substituted Intelligence or Intelligent design. They expunged MOST of the Creations but left two in the book where the computer created two portmanteau phrases that read like"Creaatintelligentdesignism".
Everyone had a good laugh . The Discovery Institute guys , not so much.

The real story about ID biology being religious in nature and this in violation of the first amendment of our Bill of Rights, is in humes book ,get it on line, (its a quick and entertaining read), and I think your position oof "authority" will change 180

who claimed victim status in hi previous posts whenever mentioning any of these relevant law suits.

that is total bullshit again. Do youdeny the fact that , until Scopes began the parade and the Butler Act was finally repealed and the US SC finally acted in the several states, that teaching evolution , in most of the us ,was, at best a minor offense and at worst a crime

It wasn't a science curriculum, diverse or otherwise, if it included religion--and it also violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. What part of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion do you not understand? Your distortions are pathetic.

Did you get that job as senior fry cook at Mickey D's yet?

he uses "advocate for diversity" in the same fashion that Ms Huckabee Sanders coined the phrase "alternative facts"

He certainly has a whole raft of alternative "facts." All he has to do is hear a new name or two, or some sciency terms, and he incorporates them into his stand-up routine. I guess what I find most incredible is that he seems to think he can get away with it.

I'm enjoying this comic who thinks everybody is naive about evolution, and he can spew his ignorance in a social forum. He can take a lot of beating for his god.

Aquatic dinosaur with skin and muscle tissue intact, supposedly after 65M years:

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-scientists-species-ancient-marine-lizard.html

Let me clarify but, my first statement was not bullshit. After Scopes was decided by the supreme court and before Dover was decided by Judge Jones there were at least two points of view. After Dover there was one legally imposed view.

I already said, Tennessee was wrong before Scopes, (one point of view) it was right after Scopes (two or more points of view in Tennessee) But, they already had two points of view everywhere that didn't have biased laws. Now with Dover we are back to one point of view. But instead of a local or state imposed bias against diversity through legislation, it is now a judicially imposed bias against diversity in the entire nation.

Even though the school board had sincerely held logical beliefs that could have be turned over by the next school board election for free, a few people rushed to action taking them to court and basically broke the district with legal fees guaranteeing no other school board will ever vote that way again even if they have the same sincerely held beliefs.

The other thing is even if they were wrong and there is no God of the gaps, the students were not hurt because both sides were represented fairly in the class.

your analysis is amazingly uninfoormed. Scopes wasnt the law, it was the BUTLER ACT, that forbad teaching "anything that did not agree with tthe Genesis story of Creation"
It stayed on the books till 1969 when the governer repealed Butler.
The fact is that quite a few states saw this all the same based on Tennessee..

Apparently you want Sharia Law to govern our schools and our lives??
Which religion will you make the "state religion"?

I think you oughta think this out a wee bit deeper. As Set has quoted from the First Amendment of the Constitution (twice) about
1.Establishment of a state religion (where Genesis stories are takn as fact)

2.Protecting the "Free Expression of Religion" of everyone elses religious preference.

You seem to want to totally tear up the Bill of Rights. WHY??
People are pitchin but you aint catch... I say, you aint catchin boy.

I think our Constitution works just fine and its taken several centuries of definition and interpretation to get it better. (itll never be perfect, just MORE prfect)

Dog, he's clueless. He continues to make the sh*t up as he goes along, even though he gets buster for it every time.

You seem to mount your arguments based on your latest "catch phrases". Now it seems to be "Diversity" instead of what it is, A RELIGIOUS HEGEMONY . Keep your religious scheme to take over our land in your church. If you want to teach that crap as factual science, you realize there are many schools and universities where Christian Sharia is the way . Scientists really dont give a **** about what you believe or think is a fact, as long as you stay among your followers who actually give a **** about your wet dreams. A far as public schools, SCIENCE IS GOVERNED BY THE US CONSTITUTION.

You Dont like that ??? Then I suggest you Move to Nigeria or Chad, ( where they believe in a fashion similar to the way you do based on their chosen religious doctrines)

now hes playing with his new phrase "Im all about diversity" (as long as the diversity is all about Christian Fundamentalism )

bj's brain has already been tainted with religion. No amount of facts about evolution is going to change his mind.

The Endorsement test.


The government is not endorsing the religious views, the facts as they are presented "could" persuade someone to look at many religious views if taken to their logical conclusion. That is all. There is nothing in the curriculum that says this is scientific law. Same standard as natural evolution without intelligence.

In this case the judge decided the word "could" is an endorsement. Maybe that would be true is ID was taught by itself but it is not. So how is this ruling logical?



Once again the purpose of ID is to teach all possible theories not just ID. (Unlike the natural evolutionists and Judge Jones that were involved in this case.)

ID is a philosophical point of view that uses naturalism, naive realism, and subjective idealism. It does not inhibit the purely naturalistic view point unless you consider an alternative logical point of view inhibiting.

The excessive government entanglement is this should never have gone to trial. That is what elections and science are for.

See the following for a comprehensive argument.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-did-judge-jones-say-in-2005-part-i.html