Support for Louisiana repeal effort

In what way? Do you mean that Louisiana should deal with its own legislation through its own courts and legislature and voters? If so, then that's exactly what will happen here, at least at first.If you mean that everyone outside the state should shut up, well...there's this thing called "free speech," and it crosses state lines. I guarantee Creationists from out of state are paying attention and funneling money and support into this. Why shouldn't we?Of course, since establishment of a state religion via the endorsement of religious dogma like Creationism and Intelligent Design would in fact be a violation of the US Constitution, this can very well head all the way up to Federal court, where it would most certainly NOT be a State issue any more.

Again, free speech does not stop at state lines. I'm free to express my opinion of the Louisiana law, just as you are. If I want to express my speech by donating money or time to a group supporting or against a Louisiana law, I'm free to do so. I just don't get to actually vote within the state of Louisiana.You're arguing a principle that has literally zero basis in law. Why do you think people outside of a state should remain silent about what happens within that state? Especially when the "state" issue has Constitutional implications, like this one?

So? I can exercise my free speech regarding things that aren't my business all the time. Why should a state line make any difference with regard to that?Do you hate free speech, Tram? See the Dover trial, Tram - anti-evolution laws are not religiously neutral, they are universally derived from religious dogma and as such constitute a State endorsement of a religion, and as such are a violation of the Constitution. There is no scientific "controversy" regarding evolution, and the only people trying to keep evolution out of schools are doing so for religious reasons, thus violating the religious rights of everyone who wants an actual science education.Do you hate freedom of religion, Tram?

That's really not how debate forums work, Tram. Theo is perfectly able to respond to you as he sees fit, just like anyone else.If you don't want people to argue with you, don't post on an internet debate board! Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

That's exactly what anti-evolution laws do - they impose a religious opinion, regardless of whether or not that opinion is desired. A person is more than welcome to [i]believe[/]i in ID or Creationism, but a teacher at a public school cannot teach those beliefs in a science classroom because they are a religious opinion, not scientifically accepted theories.And how is my expression of free speech supposed to impose my will on the people of Louisiana? If I donate money to a group opposing the anti-evolution laws, have I forced someone to accept evolution? I disagree, both regarding the intellectual quality of such questions as well as their usefulness in a debate.If you oppose the expression of free speech from outside a state with regard to a state law, then you oppose free speech. You don;t get to just turn it on and off for things you particularly support or don;t support, or just because there's a state line in the way. If I'm allowed to express my opinion verbally or through financial support, then I'm allowed to do so across state lines as well.I think pointing that out is extremely effective.The mechanism preventing me from actually imposing my will on Louisiana, Tram, is not restricting my free speech. Rather, it's the fact that I don;t get to vote on Louisiana law. Only Louisiana citizens do. And so long as their laws don't violate any Federal laws (like say, the Constitution), Louisianans get to solely vote and decide on their own laws regardless of outside money for campaigns or the opinions of out-of-state folks like you or me.Of course, anti-evolution laws do violate the Constitution, so the federal courts would be able to address this issue if the state doesn't handle it correctly in-house. ...a Star Trek quote? I have a disturbing image in my head of you, in some future post, screaming "KHAAAAAAAAAAAANNNN!!" at me if we should continue to disagree.Please don't do that.In any case, while the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few, that's hardly relevant to this discussion. Our society has a framework of laws, beginning with the Constitution and ending with local laws. Those laws collectively dictate who may speak and when (everyone, and just about everywhere with the exception of things like yelling "fire" in a crowded place or inciting a riot or violence, etc). They dictate who may believe what (everyone can believe whatever they want to believe, only actions are restricted). They dictate which religions the state can endorse (none).Do you have an actual argument beyond your personal opinion that people should stay out of Louisiana's business?

Science is not opinion. Science is the modeling, the describing, of reality, using repeatable, observable, testable evidence. When science classifies a new species, the classification is not based on the "opinion" of a scientist, like a preference for blue over green. It's based on the objective physical characteristics of the organism, things that anyone else can look at and verify.Science is about fact Facts don't care what you believe - whether you believe in evolution or not, bacteria can still mutate into antibiotic-resistant strains; new species will continue to develop out of existing species. There are still people right now who believe that no men ever set foot on the moon, yet the plaque we left is still there whether they believe it or not.Science is religiously neutral in the way that saying that the Earth is round is religiously neutral; there may be specific faiths that believe that the Earth is flat, but their beliefs are wrong as a matter of easily observable fact.When you take a biology class in High School and your teacher tells you about genes and DNA, it's not opinion. It's a factually-supported set of scientific theories upon which a great deal of the modern world is based.To put it simply, science is not a religion. The two are not comparable in the way you're comparing them. 1) Expressing an opinion is not imposing an opinion.2) Encouraging people from other states to express their opinions IS imposing an opinion.Your two points are mutually exclusive, Tram, they contradict each other. Either speech IS the imposition of an opinion, or it is not. A state line does not suddenly make speech forceful. Do you remember why we have such things as the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion?History contains numerous examples of other societies who established state religions and/or restricted speech. In fact, in a Deomcracy, the majority can still enact a state religion, or restrict speech that the majority disapprove of.That's the entire reason we live in a Constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy. It;s the reason we have the Constitution in the first place: to prevent the tyranny of the majority.When the majority of people in a state are Creationists, they could vote (as happened in Louisiana) to teach Creationism in their schools. The result would be that all of the children who are not Creationists (more liberal Christians and non-Christians of all kinds) would have their rights violated, because a purely religious dogma would be forced upon them at public school.The Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court Justices after them have been wise in the established interpretation of the Freedom of Religion: Congress may make no law that establishes a state religion, nor prohibit the free expression thereof. The only way to guarantee that everyone is able to believe according to their own conscience, to truly have the freedom to believe whatever they choose, is for the governmnet, including State governments, to avoid the topic of religion altogether.No public school teacher may extol the virtues of Jesus, or Allah, or Vishnu to their students. Conversely, no public school teacher may tell Muslims that they're going to Hell, or Christians that they believe in a false deity. Public schools are direct agents of the government, paid for with public funds and subject to the restrictions of religious endorsement set forth in the Constitution. Public schools must remain religiously neutral.Schools may teach math, because math does not involve endorsing a religion. Schools may teach foreign languages, because languages do not endorse religions.Schools may teach science, because science does not endorse any religion.Creationism and ID, however, have been very clearly demonstrated, particularly at the Dover trial, to be exclusively religious in nature. There is no scientific controversy regarding evolution, just as there is no scientific controversy regarding the existence of gravity or tectonic plate theory or atomic theory or the germ theory of disease. The only controversy is religious in nature - only religious individuals from specific religious persuasions (most religious people are not Creationists) claim that evolution is false, and they do so for exclusively religious reasons, not any reason at all grounded within science.Therefore Creationism and ID are very clearly religious ideals, and as such must not be allowed in public schools, because their inclusion in a curriculum would constitute the state's endorsement of one set of religious ideas above others.Evolution, on the other hand, is religiously neutral in that it has no "agenda." It's not religious dogma. It comes from no holy book. It;s not pushed by any manner of preacher. It has nothing to do with anything spiritual or moral or supernatural or any of the other defining aspects of "religion." Evolution is a scientific theory, well-tested and well-supported by repeatable, observable fact. Virtually all of modern biology touches in some way on the Theory of Evolution.If you're going to have a science class at all, evolution deserves a place.Creationism and ID are very clearly religious in nature and thus have no place in a public school as they violate the Constitutional ban on state endorsement of religion. Schools are agents of the government, not individuals. A teacher, as an individual, outside of his/her role as a teacher, may practice whatever religion they choose, and can speak about that religion all they want. As an agent of the government, meaning when in a classroom with students, the teacher's right to free speech is restricted. He/she may not express any religious ideas to the children, as that would constitute the endorsement by the state of those religious views above others.Individuals have the right of free speech. The government, because it represents all of us and must respect the rights of the majority [i]and[/]i the minority, does not.Free speech doesn't even come into the classroom. Representatives of the government, including teachers, give up some of their free speech rights when acting in their official capacity, because of things like the separation of church and state.Incidentally, teachers in their official capacity aren't allowed to tell kids that a specific political party is good or bad, either. It's not jsut religion that's restricted. Do you support free speech or not, Tram? If you do, then you [i]must[/]i support the right of people from outside of Louisiana to express their speech across state lines, including the donation of money.The only way to not support the right of people outside of Louisiana to speak regarding the anti-evolution laws is to oppose free speech.You cannot have it both ways. Either speech is free and people can express whatever they want regardless of state lines, or not.Which is it, Tram? And in fact they will be, to an extent. Outside opinions are only speech, after all, and as you agreed earlier, speech cannot force anything on anyone. Only Louisianans can vote in Louisiana - I can express my opinion all I want, but they get to decide for themselves whether my arguments are moving or even relevant.The only exception is if the case is brought before the courts on Constitutional grounds. The citizens of a state can decide for themselves how they want their state run, except when those decisions conflict with the Constitution. Do you understand why?Who exactly do you think I am? I'm not some politically-stereotyped white-tower intellectual. I'm just a regular guy. I don't even have a bachelor's degree.You don't need a great education or a huge vocabulary to argue with me, Tram. All you need are logically consistent arguments and facts to back them up.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Tram. We don;t live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. The majority rules except where the majority conflicts with the Constitution. The many do not have the right to oppress the few.Free speech is completely relevant when discussing whether I, as a citizen of California, have the right to comment on or donate money to a political faction in Louisiana. The freedom to express my speech is what gives me the unassailable right to make such a donation or speak out if I so choose.Free speech is only not relevant when talking about what should and should not be taught at schools, because that's not a free speech issue. According to that line of thought, if a majority of people in Weed, California decided that 2+2=5, they could vote to have that mandated into the curriculum because "it doesn't matter if it is a fact or not."We don't tiptoe around beliefs that religiously-neutral facts might come into conflict with - there are thousands of different belief systems, and it's impossible to avoid contradicting any of them, especially when some of them come into conflict with basic facts like whether the Earth is round or flat.Facts are facts. Facts are not indoctrination. 2+2=4, not 5. The Earth is not flat. The Moon orbits the Earth, and the Earth orbits the Sun. The stars are other Suns, very far away. Human beings are primates, mammals, and vertebrates. ...what? Schools don't push "homosexual literature," Tram. The only even remotely related thing I can think of that you might be twisting would be the recent California law that ensures homosexual historical figures don;t get left out - which, you may note, is a matter of accurately reporting historical facts to kids, not about telling them whether they should be gay or not.Further, no school teaches that it's "not okay" to believe in Creationism! Teachers aren't allowed to say that Creationists are dumb any more than they're allowed to teach that Creationists are right - all they can do is present the currently accepted scientific theories as accurately as possible. Sometimes those theories will come into conflict with religious beliefs, but that's impossible to avoid in every case. I'm sure you'd agree that one can know about the Theory of Evolution without necessarily believing it to be true; after all, I know about Creationism without believing it to be true. You keep on using that word, "indoctrination." I do not think that it means what you think that it means. By whom? Certainly not me. Full Democracy degenerates into tyranny of the minority by the majority. Under the American political system, a Constitutional Republic, individual rights like the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion (as examples) are unassailable, and can only be limited in very specific instances like crying "fire!" in a crowded place.But teaching evolution does not in any way violate anyone's religious freedom, nor their freedom of speech.Teaching Creationism does not violate the freedom of speech of the teacher, but does violate the religious rights of the students - and the teacher has a diminished right to speech when acting as an agent of the government in the classroom, to the students' rights win out.I know you're aware of Dover, Tram, and how the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past. But I'll ask again, are you aware of why?

Whoa whoa whoa.Stop.There's a difference between "morally right" and "factually right."2+2=4 is a factually right statement. It's correct. I can prove it any time.2+2=4 gives no moral direction at all.Observing that the Earth is round and not flat is factually right. The roundness of the Earth makes absolutely no suggestions as to ethics or morality.The theory of evolution is a theoretical framework that attempts to explain a large number of observed facts, and whose predictions have been tested and shown to be extremely accurate.Evolution makes no suggestions as to how we should behave towards each other. Excuse me, but that's both absolutely wrong and extremely insulting. Morality and ethics do not need to come from religion, as every Atheist who is not a mass-murdering rapist thief cannibal proves.Further, you cannot teach children religion in a public school without choosing which religion(s) to teach...which then functions as the state endorsing those religions above the others. If a Christian sent his child to a public school, would he want his child to be taught Islam? Judaism? Hindu? Buddhism? You're suggesting that we violate the religious rights of children to teach them "morality," when morality does not require religion to be taught.You're operating under the assumption that morality MUST come from either science or religion, and that's just not true.Why can't we have both morality AND evolution without violating the religious rights of the kids? Which is of course why virtually every biologist in the entire world agrees that evolution is an extremely accurate model.(that was sarcasm)

Well, he did just say "evidence schmevidence."I don't think that basing beliefs on evidence is a strong concern for Tram.

If you're not going to debate, then feel free to stop posting, Tram.This place is specifically set up for people to argue. That means we wont generally agree. When you say "evidence schmevidence," you're going to see some responses. When you say that evolution is science fiction, people are going to tell you that you're very, very wrong.And in this particular debate, we've been talking about rights and what those rights mean for schools and kids and states and general citizens. You've been presenting your side based on very, very loosely defined ideas of rights, while I've been relying on the actual rights granted by the Constitution. I've been responding to just about everything you say, and you ignore virtually entire posts of mine.It;s okay to be wrong, Tram. The point of a debate is to find out who is wrong and who is right, or if both are right or both are wrong, so that everyone can learn and adopt stronger beliefs. If you prove me wrong, I'll be glad, Tram, because I'll come out of the debate with a more accurate view of the world. Why should you be afraid of being told you don;t understand? Wouldn't a better course of action be to say something that proves you DO understand, or to ask for help in understanding?

Have I been pissed off and rude to you in this thread? What about the "quick questions/answers" thread?Tram, people don't generally get angry at people for being wrong. What heightens frustrations is when a person continues to insist that they're right, even when they've been proven wrong. That means the person isn't learning, isn't even debating, they're just repeating themselves.But really, this is without a doubt the calmest debate forum I've seen by far. People here get a little snippy, sure...but we don't do flamewars here. At EvCforum, you'll never get called a brainless puddle of syphilitic vaginal discharge, for example (and that's a mild version of what happens elsewhere).There's going to be some condescension and some occasional rudeness. We're talking over the internet, no tin person, so we lose out on all the other communication cues like voice inflection that let us know when someone is kidding vs being an ass. There's just going to be lots of "you're wrong, you don;t understand the material, and here's why." It's the nature of the beast.But this place is also an excellent opportunity to learn. We have some very smart people here on various sides of the debates. We have actual scientists, biology teachers, physics professors, theologians, and a bunch of laymen all eager to discuss just about any topic you can dream up. How awesome is it to have actual physicists like cavediver and Son Goku around to help us understand in layman's terms complex cosmology like the Big Bang?! It has to be okay to be wrong, Tram. If you can't admit when you're wrong, you can never improve. However accurate your beliefs are right now, that's how accurate they'll be forever. You can never ever improve yourself, you can never ever learn something new, unless you allow yourself to be wrong when convinced by a preponderance of evidence and well-reasoned argument. That's not true - I've been proven wrong multiple times around here, and generally people only call me a jerk when I'm telling them that they're wrong.A person who's wrong isn't an idiot, they're just wrong. Nobody knows everything.A person who continues to stubbornly insist that his wrong ideas are right after being told he's wrong and why is an idiot. See ICANT. Welcome to human interaction. If you can't take occasional rudeness or hostility, then perhaps a debate board, a place set up specifically for people to argue, might not be for you. Then why not use it as such? Sure - but I also understand that there are real people on the other side of the board, and that not everyone is going to be prim and proper all the time. So I relax. If I feel like I've been attacked unjustly, I either attack right back or take an hour or a day before I respond to let myself calm down. Nobody holds a gun to our heads and forces us to be here - this is a hobby, something we do for fun and education. So have some fun and learn something!

The point was the shock value, Tram. Obviously you don't hate free speech or the freedom of religion - very, very few people actually do. The intent was to make you think about whether your positions were actually in line with supporting those freedoms. I wasn't going to follow up with an insult - I was going to follow up to your predicted "of course I don;t hate free speech" by driving home that free speech means the ability to express one's opinion even if it's "not your business," and that donating money is a protected form of speech. We're all wrong, Tram. No person is omniscient. Science in particular and learning in general are about finding less wrong answers to our questions...and then someday, if new information comes, abandoning those answers for ones that are even less wrong. Admitting you were wrong and changing your mind is a big deal - it's hard for everyone. But you have to be able to do it, or you'll never learn, never improve.It's okay to be wrong. It's okay to say "I don't know." It's okay to ask questions.The only caveat is that, when you make a claim (as opposed to asking a question), you need to be able to back it up. Sometimes that takes the form of poking logical holes in an opponent's argument. Sometimes it means doing some research and finding some studies or other facts to back up the claim.If you just say things like "evolution is science fiction," you're going to get some pushback and mockery. Imagine what would happen if I went to a Christian forum and said "your silly god is nothing but a fairy tale." I imagine I'd get a few calm responses that try to convert me, and a bunch of others like "the fool hath said in his heart, 'there is no God';" or "you're going to burn in hell, moron," and so on. You don't need a better education to become better at debating, Tram - you can learn a lot right here. The key to getting better is to participate - learn through experience and reading other people's posts what works and what doesn't, what is convincing and what is not. You can learn about logic and fallacies, about evidence and writing. Like I said earlier, I don't have a Bachelor's degree. I was a college failure, in fact, because I was a lazy asshole and I maintain that I was an idiot until around 25. Education is great, and I certainly don't mean to say that nobody needs a college degree, but there are other places and ways to learn, and this is one of them.

It's the only way a statement can be logically valid, yes, unless there are additional conditions. A reason that the normal rule doesn't apply in a given case.To tie that back to our free speech discussion, in order to support free speech, you have to agree that speech should not be restricted regardless of content or who the speaker is...but you can add the condition "unless that speech is used to directly incite violence or cause a riot or otherwise pose a direct threat to public safety."Nobody's perfect, but the proper response to having an inconsistency pointed out is to address the inconsistency, not to say "hey, I'm not perfect," and then continue right on with an inconsistent belief. Sometimes it can feel like that, yes. Generally that's what we call a "straw man," where the other person is distorting your argument into something you didn't actually say, and then arguing against that "straw man" instead of your real argument.The proper response is to point out that your opponent is arguing against a position you don't actually hold and never expressed. Point out that perhaps he doesn't understand your argument in the first place, or perhaps his arguments are too weak to stand up to your real position. Then restate your real position as clearly as possible, preferably mentioning the specific differences between your actual position and the twisted, false "straw man" argument your opponent set up.One of the best things about a written format debate like this is that you can go back and quote yourself, then quote your opponent and point out exactly how you're being misrepresented. It's easier and more effective than a verbal debate, where you can be caught flatfooted and left saying "that's not what I meant!" while your opponent continues to direct the discussion on to the next point.Remember that your opponent doesn't have sole control of where the debate goes - you're a participant too, and if you want to focus in on a point that your opponent wants to leave behind, feel free to redirect right back to that point. Don;t let your words get twisted - when someone tries, don't just say "you're twisting my argument," show how and show the rest of us that your opponent is wrong. Most of us are the same way. Sometimes the cycle of sarcasm can escalate things until everybody's just all pissed off. The best thing to do? Relax. Maybe take a break. In your next response, say "alright, let's you and me cut the sarcastic bullshit. Here's my position. Here's your position. I think you're wrong because..."

So then, if science should be taught in schools, and the theory of evolution is science (as recognized by the overwhelming majority of scientists such that the few "dissenters" are known in the field of biology as kooks and cranks), then doesn't it follow that the theory of evolution is perfectly acceptable to be taught in schools?

He probably thinks the entire Democratic Party is an atheistic organization that pushes "big government," make Death Panels kill grandma, murder babies, outlaw Christmas, and all on the public dime, paid for by raising his taxes.You know. He just believes Fox News.