Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Separation of church and state
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 201 of 313 (579688)
09-05-2010 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by marc9000
09-05-2010 3:11 PM


Look, I'm completely mystified by your obsession over how "landmarky" Everson is. What difference does it make? Everson is the law of the land. All nine Justices agreed to the interpretation of the First Amendment adopted previously by the Reynolds Court. What's your point?
subbie writes:
Here's a question for you. Why in the world are you all het up about the idea of government being able to promote religion?
marc9000 writes:
Several reasons, 1) it's needed to balance the governments current promotion of naturalism. 2) It's contained in the judicial writings of the courts in the 19th century, many of them while some/most of the founders were still alive to see them. And 3) because just about all evidence points to the fact that the founders didn’t intend for separation of church and state to be applied to the several states, enforced by the federal government.
First, please show me evidence of governmental promotion of naturalism. Sounds like another right wing myth to me. Perhaps you have the idea that if the government isn't promoting religion, that amounts to promoting naturalism under some kind of "if you're not with us you're against us" argument. In any event, I'm not aware of any governmental promotion of naturalism, so please enlighten me.
As far as the writings of 19th century jurists go, irrelevant. You may have heard of the Fourteenth Amendment. That has been construed as making many of the rights from the Bills of Rights applicable against the states. That's why the Reynolds Court's holding about the meaning of the First Amendment applies to the states. Thus, the Constitution has changed since those people wrote what they did, and their thoughts are as relevant today as their thoughts about slavery or women's suffrage.
BTW, you didn't follow up on your points about Gierke v. Blotzer or Roberts v. Madison. Does that mean you are abandoning that line of argument? If so, then we're still waiting for an example of voluntary prayer being unconstitutional.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by marc9000, posted 09-05-2010 3:11 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by marc9000, posted 09-10-2010 8:38 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 217 of 313 (580727)
09-10-2010 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by marc9000
09-10-2010 8:38 PM


I don't think that anyone here has ever argued that separation of church and state hasn't evolved. If that's your only point, we could have cut this thread quite short.
It’s promoted in science education. Naturalism, humanism, atheism, however it may be described, is considered the only guide for scientific studies, and has branched out to include virtually all modern thought in every field.
Ah, I see you're branching out, displaying your ignorance in new and different fields.
Science follows the principal of methodological naturalism. This simply means that it restricts its areas of inquiry to what can be found in the natural world. If we cannot perceive it with our senses, science doesn't deal with it. This doesn't mean that science says the supernatural doesn't exist. It means science doesn't address it. Science is against religion the same way that chess is. In other words, not at all. Thus, promotion of science is not any kind of attack on religion, nor does it even imply that there's anything wrong with religion. It simply doesn't address religion.
Now, explain to me why the government should be allowed to promote religion to offset something that has nothing to do with religion.
There doesn't seem to be much information on the net about many court cases.
Are you serious!?! I can name at least five different places off the top of my head to find U.S. Supreme Court opinions in full, and several more that give summaries. A simple google search would find those plus hundreds of others. I suspect that your real problem is that the demagogic neocons that you're relying on just aren't telling you the whole story.
You know what the difference is between you and me? You read what one side says and swallow it hook, line and sinker. I read what all sides have to say, then check what the courts actually say, then come to my own conclusion, mostly based on what the courts actually say. That's the difference between you and me (well, among other things).
I don't have a dozen other posters helping me out.
Neither do I. I'm relying on what I learned in law school, plus what I find on the internet.
If you don't believe that voluntary prayer has been under legal attack much more since after 1947 than before 1947, if you don't believe the scientific community's crusade against religion isn't stronger today than ever before, it's just something we have to agree to disagree on.
I'm willing to go this far. I'll agree with you that you haven't yet produced any evidence of it. The real question is whether you will continue to cling to your delusion now that the absence of evidence has been clearly demonstrated to you, or if you will stubbornly insist that you are right even though every example you bring up has been completely debunked.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by marc9000, posted 09-10-2010 8:38 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by marc9000, posted 09-10-2010 9:38 PM subbie has replied
 Message 250 by marc9000, posted 09-12-2010 5:24 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 223 of 313 (580738)
09-10-2010 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by marc9000
09-10-2010 9:28 PM


atheistic teachings in public schools
There are no atheistic teachings in public schools. Public schools teach science, not atheism. They are not the same, no matter how many times you or any others of your ilk repeat the lie.
If you feel that science is anti religion simply because it fails to provide support for, and actually undermines many of the claims of, religion, the fault is with religion, not science. Science is based on evidence. If science doesn't support religion, it's because the evidence is against it.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by marc9000, posted 09-10-2010 9:28 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 229 of 313 (580744)
09-10-2010 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by marc9000
09-10-2010 9:38 PM


That I couldn't find one opinion hardly means that I can't find many. Instead, my suspicion is that the opinion doesn't even exist. In any event, if the opinion doesn't appear any place other than in some rabblerousing book, it certainly can't be very important or influential, can it?
I love this place!
Glad you've found a home. Here's hoping you stick around long enough to learn something, although I won't hold my breath.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by marc9000, posted 09-10-2010 9:38 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Theodoric, posted 09-10-2010 9:59 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 233 of 313 (580753)
09-10-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Theodoric
09-10-2010 9:59 PM


That citation is from US District Court. It's not a Nebraska state case.
I don't know whether PACER gives access to opinions from 20 years ago, but a trip to just about any county law library would get you to the opinion in about 5 minutes, with a bit of help from the librarian.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Theodoric, posted 09-10-2010 9:59 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 252 of 313 (580968)
09-12-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by marc9000
09-12-2010 5:24 PM


...in spite of the fact that it has been completely demolished...
Evidence?
Public school biology textbooks go into speculation into naturalistic origins, something we can't perceive with our senses. Not only do they speculate on them, they declare them to be fact, only that we haven't yet discovered the details of them.
Evidence?
I recently borrowed my friend's son's biology textbook, and saw it with my own eyes. I don't need to prove it to anyone.
Given your poor track record in this thread, you'll forgive me if I'm not particularly inclined to take your word for anything. Besides, this is a debate forum where you are expected to present your evidence. And "I've seen it but I'm not going to share it with you" doesn't count as presenting evidence.
There is plenty of evidence that the courts have become more powerful than the spirit of the constitution allows them to be. I base my conclusions on what the US founding documents actually say.
Spirit of the Constitution? Is that like the Holy Ghost? Unfortunately for you, the Constitution has been amended a couple of times since then.
Actually, you base your conclusions on what you want them to say. Then, when the vast majority of people who've spent time studying and practicing law come to a different conclusion, you simply dismiss them with a wave of your hand as if calling them names means they are wrong.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by marc9000, posted 09-12-2010 5:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 260 of 313 (581668)
09-16-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by marc9000
09-16-2010 7:43 PM


Re: Combined response
And no matter how much evidence I show you. For those who constantly demand evidence, it’s amazing how quickly they dismiss clear evidence once they see it.
You've provided evidence? Well, I don't claim to be infallible, and I've largely been concentrating my attention on what you've been saying to me so I might have missed it. Please show me where it is and I'll have a look.
No, it’s because church and state have been separated, and science is somewhat dull and boring unless it’s providing intellectual fulfillment for atheism.
That you find science dull and boring may explain why you don't understand it. Or, perhaps the fact that you don't understand it explains why you find it dull and boring. In any event, that's a purely subjective assessment and one that many people disagree with, me included.
crashfrog writes:
Origin of life isn't taught in any school, public or private, for the very simple reason that there remains precious little to teach. It's an emerging field of research, not yet a field with robust findings to be communicated to schoolchildren.
marc9000 writes:
And yet when I borrowed my friend’s son’s biology textbook a few months ago, I found that it had plenty to teach. It gushed all over Darwin, his thinking processes, why he searched for what he did, yet left off any references to his personal problems (the death of his young daughter) to inspire him to search for intellectual fulfillment in atheism.
I made a note of the first paragraph of chapter 17;
quote:
The history of life on earth is filled with mystery, life and death struggles, and bizarre plants and animals as amazing as any mythological creatures. Studying life’s history is one of the most fascinating and challenging parts of biology, and researchers go about it in several different ways. One technique is to read the pieces of the story that are written in ancient rocks.
You may call that precious little to teach, but there’s no shortage of inspiration for students to chuckle at mythological creatures (that they may have heard about in Sunday School) and to speculate on all the unguided naturalism that was going on during all those life and death struggles for millions of years.
Wow, that's a powerful imagination you have there, mate.
I'm sure others will point this out to you (actually, I'm sure it's already been pointed out to you and you refuse or are unable to understand the point), but let me add my input anyway. Darwin didn't study origin of life. You might recall, the name of the book was On the Origin of Species. Evolution describes how life changes once it starts. If you can't understand this simple point, there's no reason to continue.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by marc9000, posted 09-16-2010 7:43 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 3:44 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 261 of 313 (581670)
09-16-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by marc9000
09-16-2010 7:46 PM


Re: Combined response #2
marc9000 writes:
I recently borrowed my friend's son's biology textbook, and saw it with my own eyes. I don't need to prove it to anyone.
subbie writes:
Given your poor track record in this thread, you'll forgive me if I'm not particularly inclined to take your word for anything.
marc9000 writes:
You’re forgiven. If you deny that it’s happening, we have little more to discuss. It’s like everyone telling me that the word separation is in the first amendment. Sometimes we just have to move on.
Or, you could actually provide evidence of what you say. I suspect that the problem is that you are conflating the beginning of life with evolution. Of course, if you refuse to provide evidence to support what you claim is being taught, it's quite impossible to know for sure what you are arguing against. And if you refuse to provide evidence, you give me little choice but to move on.
subbie writes:
Actually, you base your conclusions on what you want them to say. Then, when the vast majority of people who've spent time studying and practicing law come to a different conclusion, you simply dismiss them with a wave of your hand as if calling them names means they are wrong.
marc9000 writes:
Vast majority? There are a lot of well known people who have spent a lot of time studying and practicing law that basically agree with me. Former Supreme court justice William Rehnquist is one of them.
Well, that's one. If you think one equals a lot, I'm afraid we're never going to agree on anything. Of course, you could add Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and probably Alito to your list. That wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of Supreme Court Justices, including unanimous opinions in Reynolds v. U.S. and Everson v. Board of Education disagree with you. Keep in mind, "a lot" of people might agree with you and still the vast majority disagree. "A lot" doesn't really mean much.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by marc9000, posted 09-16-2010 7:46 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 3:47 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 269 of 313 (583382)
09-26-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by marc9000
09-26-2010 3:47 PM


Justices who disagree with you
Here is a partial list of Supreme Court Justices who disagree with your interpretation of the Establishment Clause, together with their take on it:
Reynolds v. U.S.
Justices: Waite Hunt Clifford Strong Miller Bradley Swayne Harlan Field
quote:
Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.
Everson v. Board of Education
Justices: Vinson Black Frankfurter Rutledge Douglas Murphy Reed Burton Jackson
quote:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 98 U. S. 164.
(Although this was a 5-4 decision, the dissent agreed with the majority’s statement of the meaning of the Establishment Clause, but disagreed with the application.)
Engel v. Vitale
Justices: Warren Black Brennan Douglas Clark Harlan
quote:
The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.
School Dist. of Abington Tp. v. Schempp
Justices: Warren Black Goldberg Brennan Douglas Clark White Harlan
quote:
The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality. Though the application of that rule requires interpretation of a delicate sort, the rule itself is clearly and concisely stated in the words of the First Amendment. Applying that rule to the facts of these cases, we affirm the judgment in No. 142.
Epperson v. Arkansas
Justices: Warren Fortas Brennan Douglas Marshall White Harlan
quote:
Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion, and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.
As early as 1872, this Court said: "The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect."
I omitted citations and footnotes in several of these quotes.
I recognize that there is some overlap in the various collections. Taking that into account, there are the names of 27 Justices. You provided one. Even considering the four or five more that I provided for you, 27 still amounts to a "vast majority."
Also, I don't claim that this list is exhaustive. I stopped when I figured I had a long enough list to make my point. However, it took me no small amount of time to put this list together. If you intend to continue to dispute my position, I would hope your response will be well-considered and similarly supported.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 3:47 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2010 7:32 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 270 of 313 (583384)
09-26-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by marc9000
09-26-2010 2:51 PM


You were asked for specifics
marc9000 writes:
And yet when I borrowed my friend’s son’s biology textbook a few months ago, I found that it had plenty to teach.
crashfrog writes:
And what, specifically, did it say about origin of life?
marc9000 writes:
That it happened some way in all the primordial soup, and there’s a lot to learn, and we’ll learn all of it someday.
I'd bet my last dollar that that isn't, specifically, what the textbook said. Instead, it's your take on what you think you remember it said. As such, it's completely worthless in this discussion.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 2:51 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 271 of 313 (583386)
09-26-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by marc9000
09-26-2010 3:44 PM


Evidence, please
subbie writes:
You've provided evidence?
Yes, as I described in Message 250. What do you want me to do, get your address and visit you personally and show you the book?
No. I want you to tell me what the book said, in its words, not yours. In this discussion, it's important to be specific with accurate details. I suspect that you are giving us what you think you remember the book said. There are problems with this. One, you may not remember correctly. Two, you might have mis-understood what the book said and thus are summarizing it inaccurately. Three, you may be purposely twisting what the book said to suit your agenda.
Tell us what the book actually said.
{AbE}
You quoted the ICR as follows:
One example is William B. Provine, professor of biological science at Cornell. He notes that at the beginning of his class about 75% of his students "were either creationists or believed in purposive evolution" guided by God or a divine power. Research on his incisive, direct, hard-hitting teaching on origins (how students often describe his lectures) reveals that the number of creationists and those who "believed in purposive evolution" dropped to about 50% by the end of the course.[8] No one has hauled him into court for his openly indoctrinating students in atheism, and indeed, scientists in general have applauded him.
This proves nothing. The facts presented are equally consistent with the idea that Professor Provine's students changed their minds during the courses because of the scientific evidence that the Professor taught them during the class. As I told you upthread, the mere fact that science teaches facts that are inconsistent with certain religious beliefs doesn't make science anti-religion, much less atheistic.
Give us evidence of what the Professor actually taught and we'll have something to discuss. As hesitant as I am to accept your interpretation of something, I'm even less inclined to accept the ICR's.
The forming of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in 1958 was largely a political act to combine biology with politics — the beginning of something that is well underway today.
Maybe I should just cut and paste my repeated requests for evidence.
Don't tell me what you thought the BSCS was, give me evidence of what it was. Tell me what part of it you think was political, and explain why.
subbie writes:
I'm sure others will point this out to you (actually, I'm sure it's already been pointed out to you and you refuse or are unable to understand the point), but let me add my input anyway. Darwin didn't study origin of life.
marc9000 writes:
But that doesn’t stop textbook authors from speculating outside of Darwinism, and combining that speculation with Darwinism.
Since you've yet to provide evidence that they've done any of that, I can only conclude that it does stop them.
Yes yes, that Darwinism doesn’t have one single thing to do with naturalistic abiogenesis. Well, except one, that they both involve change over long periods of time, Well wait, maybe two, that they’re both unguided and happen solely by naturalistic processes. When science textbooks devote one or two chapters referring to both, speculating about both, combining them both, it’s clear that the closer one looks, the more closely related the two subjects really are.
Well, as we've explained to you countless times, science is limited to studying nature. So I suppose you are correct that they both have in common that science describes them in naturalistic terms. But that's true of everything science studies.
As far as the rest of your attempted indictment, since you've yet to provide any evidence of any of those charges, I shan't waste any time on them.
Edited by subbie, : As noted

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 3:44 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2010 7:48 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 279 of 313 (583531)
09-27-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by marc9000
09-27-2010 7:32 PM


Focusing on the real issue
Justice Rehnquist's summary of apparently conflicting opinions does indeed highlight the undeniable fact that the Court has not been entirely consistent in its application of First Amendment principles. However, this is largely irrelevant for purposes of this thread.
The real problem that you have is that you have yet to produce any evidence whatsoever for the things that you claim are happening.
Invaded, when science is taught as atheism, opposed, retarded, when 10 commandment displays are declared unconstitutional - it goes on and on, and has been only since 1947.
Science is not taught as atheism, no matter how many times you claim it is. Ten Commandment displays are unconstitutional on government property because no government has a constitutional right to express religion. The Court has never, despite your various claims to the contrary, ever ruled that private, voluntary expressions of religion are unconstitutional
While I won't deny the possibility that you might, as an academic position, disagree with the Court's First Amendment jurisprudence, I'm fairly confident that at this point, you don't understand it well enough to express an informed opinion. Nevertheless, the real issue you have is what you think courts are doing. Since I know that they aren't doing what you think they are doing, and you have yet to present any credible evidence in support of your claims, I really see little point to continue this discussion. If you can see your way to presenting actual evidence (as opposed to the unsupported claims you've made to this point) of things you think courts are doing that they shouldn't, I'll happily address that evidence.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2010 7:32 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by marc9000, posted 10-02-2010 10:48 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 281 of 313 (583533)
09-27-2010 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by marc9000
09-27-2010 7:48 PM


Re: Evidence, please
Not told? This is an establishment of atheism, my friends.
Are you insane? You equate not telling everything in a grade school textbook on biology to atheism? I think we've finally reached the root of your problem. Your brain doesn't work.
Please explain how not telling everything is atheism.
Now, if the textbook said something like, "The biological evidence proves that there's no god," I'd be on your side. Teaching that in schools would be an unconstitutional attack on religion. Since you haven't claimed that it does, I'm going to assume it doesn't.
I saw William Provine's arrogance in the movie "Expelled".
Wonderful. Did you see what he taught in his classes? If not, we have nothing to discuss.
In the future, something may happen to bolster one of our positions. I think it will be mine.
You can bolster your position right now. Present evidence. I really can't understand why this simple request is so difficult for you to understand.
And I accept the ICR's interpretation far more than Provine's, Dawkin's or Stenger's.
For purposes of this discussion, I'm not willing to accept anyone's "interpretation." I want to see what the book says. You can't tell me, so we have no evidence to consider.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2010 7:48 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by jar, posted 09-27-2010 8:50 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 283 of 313 (583536)
09-27-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by jar
09-27-2010 8:50 PM


Re: Evidence, please
Quite. In essence, it's what I said in Message 217. As long as someone is saying something he agrees with, he takes what they say as gospel.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by jar, posted 09-27-2010 8:50 PM jar has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 300 of 313 (584684)
10-03-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by marc9000
10-02-2010 10:48 PM


Evidence redux
(That link is, ~evidence~)
I linked some evidence in several messages, including numbers 118, 184, and 274.
None of that is evidence.
I have, but you'd claim that I haven't no matter what I do.
Actually, what I and others here have done is explain to you, repeatedly, what would constitute evidence. All you have to do is comply with the clear requests we've repeatedly made. If you claim there is a court opinion that says something, show us the opinion. If you claim something is taught in a textbook, quote the textbook. If you claim a professor teaches something in class, quote the professor. If you claim Thurgood Marshall said something, link us to a source for the quote.
Instead, again and again, you present claims. More often than not, you present what others claim, apparently not even having seen the original source yourself at all.
All of this has been explained to you so many times by so many people that it's become very difficult to believe you are debating in good faith. Either you don't have the wit to understand the distinction between evidence and claims, or you're ignoring it. Either way, it's apparent that further debate of this topic with you is a waste of time, effort and bandwidth. I for one have lost interest; banging my head against a brick wall was never my favorite activity, and I feel confident that I've made my point clear enough that lurkers and anyone interested in truly learning about this topic will dismiss what you have to say as the paranoid ravings that they are.
I'll likely continue to follow this thread in the unlikely event that you do get around to providing actual evidence. As far as the article that you linked from World Nut Daily, here is the actual opinion in the case. You can read to see what the Court approved what it did approve and why it rejected what it did reject. I'll leave with this point. The Court held as follows:
Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is superstitious nonsense. The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by marc9000, posted 10-02-2010 10:48 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by marc9000, posted 10-03-2010 9:55 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024