Support for Louisiana repeal effort

It does by example. The example of lies, deception, and demogoguery. Fine Christian witness, that. Or to quote from memory a past governor of Mississippi who was explaining why he was pushing for education reform:

quote:

---

We know that ignorance doesn't work, because we've already tried it.

---

Creationists are pushing for ignorance, which actually works against their own cause. Especially creationists and everyone who wants to oppose evolution need to learn as much as they can about evolution so that they can actually oppose it instead of taking ineffective potshots at the strawman that creationism tells them is evolution.Plus, if creationists were to change their approach and actually address evolution itself -- OK, and also do so truthfully and honestly (may as well pile on the pipe dreams) -- , then they just might slow down the rate at which they are driving people away in disgust at their religion.

What public money? Please be specific. What public money?Let's take a look at "both sides". The creationist side is very clearly religiously and ideologically motivated. They are trying to impose their view despite it being contrary-to-fact.Now the other side, the one that's opposing them. There's a history that I started to present, only to lose it when IE crapped out on me. Basically, circa 1968 when the anti-evolution movement lost its "monkey laws" that had kept evolution out of the public schools for four decades for purely religious reasons, they reinvented themselves into "creation science" as a deliberate deception to circumvent the court system. Part of their program for carrying their deception to the general public was a travelling snake-oil "debate" show in which they would challenge a local scientist or teacher to a "debate", a contrived sham that only they could win -- or if by some impossible chance the oppenent did win, their national newsletters would still claim victory; the rubes in the next town would never know the truth of the outcome. Those opponents entered into that evolution (proper naval terminology; live with it!) thinking that they were going to actually debate rather than be thoroughly deceived. Over time, those victims came in contact with other victims and they exchanged notes, and they started to read up on "creation science" and to research its claims and to discover what wretched lies it was telling. And they formed state-wide "Committees of Correspondence" exchanging information and experiences. And those CCs then formed a national headquarters, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) as a central point to exchange information between the various state CCs. And by 1979, the creationists were losing those "debates" of theirs, even though they continued to lie in their own publications that they were winning.Those opponents of "creation science" are educators and scientists who are vitally interested in science education. "Creation science" is diametrically opposed to science education. They are opposing this threat to science education on their own. Yet again, what public money? The general public. The general public that knows almost nothing about science?Tell me, who decides what is science and what isn't? Somebody who knows something about science, who has studied and practiced science for many decades, who knows what he's talking about? Or somebody who knows nothing about science and is advocating a contrary position for purely religious reasons? Is science to be decided by lawyers, by legislators, by clergymen, by religious special interests? Or by scientists? The answer is blatantly obvious, yet completely against your position. Do you choose the truth? Or your lie?Science is not decided by "debates", nor by the general public, nor by lawyers, nor by legislatures, but rather by scientists. If something wants to be recognized as science, then it must do science. It must produce a model, gather evidence, test that evidence, publish the research it's doing, etc. That is what science does. That is what creationism in all its myriad forms (including Dawn Bertolt's ID) refuses to do.Let's take a look at "both sides". The creationist side is very clearly religiously and ideologically motivated. They are trying to impose their view despite it being contrary-to-fact. Bullshit! Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School District. A teacher cannot teach that religious beliefs are wrong unless a valid educational reason can be found. "Genesis is wrong" cannot be the topic. Now, if a religion teaches things about the physical universe that are wrong, then teaching the truth about the world cannot help but to contradict those false religious teachings. So what is the science class supposed to do? Teach the truth? Or lie in order to cover up the lies taught by certain religions? Yet again, the choice is blatantly clear, but it again goes against your position. Two points:
1) Every single anti-evolution law so far has been about religion. The very claim of having "purely scientific reasons for opposing evolution" is the fundamental deception of "creation science." And all of "creation science's" attempts to present such "evidences" have proven to be false and deceptive. All anti-evolution laws so far have been religious, despite attempts to hide that fact.
2) what frackin' "religion of atheism" for frak's sake? Those anti-evolution laws oppose the teaching of science. What is that supposed to have to do with atheism? And the teaching of evolution, just what is that supposed to have to do with atheism? The belief that evolution is equivalent to atheism is a purely and blatantly religious belief! Your very act of equating evolution with atheism exposes your religious intent! No, the reason why religion must be kept out of science class is because it has absolutely nothing to do with science. If the subject being taught is science, why should you have to be required to teach something that has absolutely nothing to do with science? What sense could that possibly make?Please, do this for me. Tell me how religion could possibly be integrated into science. Seriously, tell me how. Tell me how science is possibly to work if it were to incorporate supernaturalistic hypotheses. Seriously, explain it to me, in detail. A hypothesis needs to be testable, so how are we supposed to test a supernaturalistic hypothesis? I am damned serious here, brother! Because incorporating religion into science requires us to work with supernaturalistic hypotheses, so if we cannot possibly deal with (ie, test) supernaturalistic hypotheses, then how could we possibly ever incorporate religion into science? Serious question. Absolutely demands an answer. Nobody has yet offered one. Can you?Also, we know from experience that evolution does not lead to atheism, but rather creationism does. Eg, Ray Baird's creationism classes in Livermore, Calif, 1980, wherein the students were all required by the creationist materials (though never ever by the regular science materials) to decide, then and there (oh, how many of us haven't been cornered by fundamentalists proselytizers with the exact same fervent religious demand) between the conveniently unnamed Creator and "godless evolution". The smart students ended up choosing atheism because they found creationism so ridiculous, and hence also relgion for requiring them to believe such ridiculous things. Did I neglect to mention that these were 5th and 6th grade students? And that the officially established educational standards is that the students are required to understand the concepts, but are not compelled to belief in them. Of course, the purpose of creationist materials are to compel belief, quite contrary to established educational standards.In the meantime, we have learned that about 80% of the children raised on creationism leave the faith. In droves. Nothing fails like failure, eh? So who is it who has the political clout? Creationists, because they keep getting their dang fool state laws passed. So what does that have to do with the truth? Obviously nothing.

I agree in principle. Practice is a lot hairier.To start with, the anti-evolution movement's only real goal is to prevent the teaching of evolution. Certainly, mileage will vary (considering the various other missions that creationists have assigned themselves), but the emphasis has always been on blocking the teaching of evolution rather then the impostion of teaching creationism. The 1980's laws (Arkansas and Louisiana) explicitly only required the teaching of creationism when evolution was being taught, but not when evolution was not. The creationist cause is not to establish the teaching of creationism, but rather to kill evolution (as offered by Paul Ellwanger, the author of the model bill that those Arkansas and Louisiana laws were based and presented as evidence in court: "... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already.").I do agree that a school board is free to determine what needs to be taught. The problem is in the decisions to not teach something. If there were some secular reason for not teaching evolution, then they might have something. But instead, their reasons for not teaching evolution have all been religious, which is a definite problem. And, yes, "creation science" was a deliberate deception intended to pretend that they had "scientific" reasons for not teaching evolution, but the courts have found that that's a lie. So they tried to use "intelligent design" as a further lie to sneak it by, but the courts now know that that is a lie as well.The fundamental problem is that the only reasons that any state has for not teaching evolution are purely religious. And Epperson vs Arkansas (1968) established that religious reasons for not teaching evolution simply will not fly. That is why we have "creation science", a deliberate deception that attempted to circumvent Epperson vs Arkansas. No, you won't, and case law is against the idea (Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School District). However, one thing that came out in testimony for the 1981 Arkansas law was the quandry that the teachers were being placed in. In testimony, one teacher was reduced to tears at the very thought that the law would require him to deliberately lie to his students. Another teacher charged with developing a creationist curriculum had to admit that she could not find anything suitable -- the so-called "public school" materials from the ICR were far too blatantly religious to eve be considered; the only possible source she found was a Reader's Digest article by Robert Genty about radio-genic halos, which has since been soundly refuted as creationist nonsense.So here's the dilemma. A teacher cannot simply state that a religious belief is sheer nonsense. But if creationist claims are forced on that teacher to be presented, shouldn't that teacher at least examine those claims before the class? With all due respect (fully intended in the Woody Allen manner). If a teacher is forced by law to present complete nonsense, shouldn't that same teacher examine that complete nonsense?It's been done, by Thwaites and Awbrey in their two-model classes at San Diego State University, before the campus Christian clubs protested to have them shut down. Direct examination of creationist nonsense is conclusive and irrefutable.Small wonder that creationists raised on creationist nonsense flee their childhood religion in droves once they learn the truth. To all creationists present: thank you oh so much for your over-generous contributions to the growth and spread of atheism. Nobody contributes even remotely as much as you do!

The 1980 Louisiana law has nothing to do with my question, so that "rabbit trail" (AKA "red herring") you just tossed out will have to be picked up later (don't worry; In 1981 I virtually cut my teeth on its sister Arkansas law, both of them having been based on a model bill written by respiratory therapist Paul Ellwanger whose stated purpose, admitted as evidence in court, was "... the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already."; the court decisions on both the Arkansas and Louisiana laws exposed them for being based on narrowly sectarian religious beliefs, which further exposes the hypocrisy of your Wikipedia quote)There's no need for any new thread, because there's an existing thread in which I asked the same question. After more than 200 replies, no creationist has ever provided an answer. Now you claim to have that answer that nobody else ever had. Good. Present it.That existing thread is So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY); I will bump it to the top just especially for you personally. Be sure to read its OP, its Message 1, which explains briefly how the scientific method works and why trying to incorporate supernaturalistic hypotheses cannot possibly work.You have taken the affirmative, that they can work. OK, Lucy! 'Splain!

Yes. Funding for scientific research and training going to those doing scientific research and training. And, not explicitly stated, not to purveyors of pseudo-science and religious shams.What is your problem with that? If you want scientific funding to go to creationists and IDists, then they need to become accepted as doing scientific research and training. And the only way they are going to be able to accomplish that is if they were to actually do scientific research and training. Spending all their efforts deceiving the general public and pushing to get laws passed that magically turn them into scientists and get their nonsense taught in schools is not the way. They need to actually do the work and develop a positive reputation within the scientific community. Which is something that they have consistently refused to even try to do in over 3 decades. What political battles? You mean where creationists keep trying to destroy science education? By getting politicians who are religiously motivated themselves and ignorant of science to pass antievolution and other laws that inversely impact science education and the conducting of scientific research? Who's on the attack there? The creationists and other religious ideologues.And who's opposing them? The big scientific institutions? No, not really. Most scientists are only marginally aware of creationists and for the most part think that they're just caricatures, that no real person could actually believe such total nonsense nor could be so completely oblivious to the blatantly obvious facts of science. No, it is just a small number of scientists and educators and non-scientists who have had encounters with creationists and recognize them for the threat that they are to science education. And the vast majority of these people are volunteers, which makes their funding about as private as you can get. Some, as in the NCSE, are able to work on this full time; their funding is through private donations, memberships, and grants from, I'm sure, private endowments and trusts. And since the lawyers involved with them are for the plaintiffs in the court cases, I'm sure that most of them are working pro bono.Again, the question to you is what public money?And just what makes you think that religious organizations should receive public funds to support their religious activities? Of course separation prohibits that, as well it should and must! Dude! What kind of a paranoid rant is that? And public funds are being used to oppose religious special interest attacks? And what does atheism have to do with any of it? This isn't a case of atheism vs religion. Rather, it's a case of freedom loving Americans representing a broad spectrum of beliefs, including Christians and Jews, trying to protect those freedoms and society from attacks by a narrowly-sectarian Christian extremists. And you can bet that those Christians and Jews and people of other faiths put money down for their cause of preserving the American Way, very little of that money is "anti-religious". The origin of elements does get covered, though more likely in more advanced classes, such as nuclear physics and astrophysics. And as for the English student, if he progresses far enough, he will undoubtedly study some linguistics.Yes, I know, you are advocating that religious indoctrination be injected into their subjects. Nonsensical idea. In what possible way could religion augment the study of science? If anything, it would hamper it, since teaching scientific "answers" out of religion would be nothing more than goddiddit which answers nothing at all and, by offerring the mere appearance of being an answer, would stifle the curiosity to delve deeper to find the real answer. No, religion has nothing to offer the study of science.Even in the humanities, religious indoctrination would smother the students' minds. In the humanities, one learns to view issues from different perspectives and to consider other ways of thinking; that runs completely counter to religious indoctrination -- it has even been argued that the humanities pose a far greater threat to Christian fundamentalism than science does. The English student will benefit greatly from learning about the stories of the Bible, along with the stories from other systems of mythology, but would gain nothing from learning linguistics from a literalistic "Tower of Babel" story -- it does not even begin to account for actual linguistical data.And please don't forget to enlighten us with your answer to how the scientific method can successfully encorporate supernaturalistic explanations. I've already bumped that topic to the top for you, though it inevitable must sink the longer you wait.

OK, so you found 15 atheist or potentially atheist books. So what? If you were to delve further, you'd probably be able to dig up another 15 or 30 books. Again, so what? How does that compare with hundreds or even thousands of fundamentalist Christian books? A handful of atheist books showing that there's another way to think, one based on reason and reality, vs a flood of fundamentalist books full of misinformation and even outright lies (since that flood includes creationist and historical revisionist books). Yes, that does indeed say something about what's gong on in today's society. Hopefully, we can rectify it.But just what is your point? Do you even have one? By pointing out these few points of light against the hoards of Darkness, are you trying to say that atheists do exist and that some of them even write books? Or are you trying to say that atheism is growing and spreading?Well if it's the latter, then you're probably right, though you are completely clueless as to the leading cause. Do you think that those books are the cause? No, they're not. Most of the people reading them will be those who have already begun the process of becoming atheists, in which case those books can help to provide guidance through that process, even if they do nothing more than to inform the reader that they are not alone; Dan Barker had to go through that process alone and isolated in Southern California and didn't meet like-minded people until he arrived in Michigan -- when speaking to an atheist group in Los Angeles, he asked, "Where were you when I needed you?". Part of atheist groups' outreach programs is to make their presence known so that those who need them are able to find them.No, atheist groups and atheist books are not a major cause of the growth and spread of atheism; they serve mainly those who are already becoming atheists. Rather, a major cause of the growth and spread of atheism is creationism. Contrary to the goal of education, which is understanding the material without compelling belief in the material, "creation science" materials try to compel the student to believe in creationism, which is documented to have caused those students who found creationism so ridiculous, and hence any religion that would require believing it, to decide to become atheists (eg, 5th and 6th grade students in Ray Baird's class, Livermore, Calif, 1981). Even worse are the cases of children who were raised on creationism only to grow up and learn how outrageously they had been lied to. I've seen the figures to be about 80% of those children growing up to leave the faith; Kent Hovind would quote from a home-schooling source that the figure of home-schoolers leaving the faith after transfering to public school as being 75%. What role does science play in this? Nothing more than to teach the truth about how the physical universe works, which is more than enough to expose the lies that creationism tells; eg, after having been lied to all their lives about what evolution is and teaches, then they study science and they learn what evolution really is and teaches. Another example was one of the extremely few honest creationists I ever met on CompuServe; within a year he switched sides and also became an atheist. A major turning point for him was doing research to support his claim that there are no transitional fossils (see http://webspace.webring.com/people/xq/questioner/Evolve2.htm):

quote:

---

An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould's Ten Little Piggies . I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children's book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought I was so funny). I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals' ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, "Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38." That's it. That's all it said. But it was soon to have a huge impact on me. You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to the University of Pennsylvania library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn't believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously, but, before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.

​

On my next trip to the university, I found my way to the biomedical library and located the journal archives. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.

​

. . .

​

This is only the briefest of overviews of these strange creatures. In reality, there are thousands of species that span many millions of years, with many intermediate stages of many different features.

​

. . .

​

The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn't know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free. I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation--diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution. And I was surprised at the answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. And I was surprised to see all the clear, logical arguments for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much more.

​

. . .

​

Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and speak less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the origin of life issue. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a Creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.

---

And that is one strong reason for creationists to continually attack science education. The only way to protect their children from the truth is to keep them from being exposed to it. The only way to keep them for learning that you've been lying to them all this time is to keep them from ever learning the truth. That is why you hate science so much, because it will inevitably expose your lies. Instead, you need to accept the truth and own up to your lying. Sure, you'll probably take a big hit, lose a lot of the kids, but you're going to lose them anyway. Why continue to live that lie?Or are you instead advocating censorship that would prevent those books from ever being published? Sadly, I suspect that to be the case.BTW, I would recommend that you read that last book by Dan Barker (not co-authored by Richard Dawkins, who only wrote the foreword; can't you get any facts straight?). Especially, the first part, which is autobiographical. Dan Barker was born and raised a fundamentalist and became a fundamentalist preacher. In that first part, he chronicles his journey from fundamentalism to atheism. God of the Gaps. Really? You're embracing that pip-squeek of an impotent god instead of the Christian God who is Sovereign over Nature? You're embracing that false theology that naturalistic explanations exclude God, so God must hide fearfully within the gaps of our knowledge, terrified by every advance in our knowledge that close those gaps down ever tighter? You're embracing that pip-squeek of an impotent god instead of the Christian God who is Sovereign over Nature? Really?

Which makes your red herring EVEN MORE OFF TOPIC (see? We can shout too. But there are far better alternatives to shouting. You should try them sometime.) This thread is about the 2008 Louisiana law, not the 1980 law that was struck down as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard. I was following the flow of discussion, whereas you just plopped that red herring down out of the blue. No, I asked that question directly from the flow of discussion. You were insisting that religion be integrated into science and in other subjects as well, something which you now decry as being off-topic as long as you think you can point our finger at others. Your hypocrisy is showing.Imagine that you have a process operating that did non-trivial work with extreme success, that success depending very largely, if not entirely, on the methodology of that process. Now imagine that someone wants you to make a drastic change to the process, one which, as far as you can see, does not belong in that process and which would prevent the process from functioning. Isn't the most natural question for you to ask, "Just how is that supposed to work?"?Well, you proposed such a change to science, so I quite naturally asked you just how that is supposed to work. You, in reply, claimed to have that answer, so I quite naturally asked for you to present it. Since both of us knew that that discussion would most likely be off-topic, you proposed a new topic for it, whereupon I pointed out that there already exists a topic for that question and I even pointed you right to it as well as bumped it to the top for you. In fact, I'll bump it again for you right now. Bullshit! As already discussed, neither of us was trying to keep that question in this topic, but rather immediately moved to move it elsewhere.Nor was I trying to claim that the antievolution laws that have creationism taught were attempting to integrate religion into science. Rather, that is what you personally were calling for and to which I was responding directly. And it is also one of the goals of the ID movement, to completely change the nature of science into something emasculated and worthless, into a mere theology. And perhaps a minor goal of the earlier strains of creationism as well (ie, its forms before it assimilated ID), though they were far more concerned with killing evolution, even though their "creation science" ended up being at odds with all branches of science. I did not flee. I'm still here calling for an answer, the answer that you claimed to have. And I'm still calling for it, even though you present yourself as not actually having that answer and so are trying desparately to backpedal out of it. I work for a living, with long hours. And I have several pressing matters that I need to take care of. I do not have the time for a one-on-one, especially not with someone who so far has displayed no ability nor inclination for any kind of honest discussion. Again, bullshit! We've seen creationist "public school" materials. We've seen what happens when creationism is taught in public schools. They're teaching religion. That's so obvious that the teacher who was given the job of developing the creationist curriculum as the 1980 Arkansas law was being implemented soon discovered to her dismay that all the ICR's "public school" materials (they were the leading source and their head of education, Bliss, came to Arkansas to work with her directly) were so blatantly religious that none were suitable. The only suitable thing she could find to support creationism was a single article in Reader's Digest, I think about Gentry's polonium halo claims, which have since been soundly refuted. Makes me wonder what that 7-member panel for the 1980 Louisiana law were going to find to be taught; those blatantly religious ICR "public school" materials, I'm sure. For that matter, it was Ray Baird's use of ICR materials that blew it for him and that alerted the parents of his students of what he was teaching them. Not a straw man, but rather a sad and solid fact.Nor will it never see the light of day in the US. States and local school boards keep voting it in and the courts have to keep reminding them that they can't. Which brings us to the 2008 Louisiana law.And please, what atheism do you think is present in today's science education? And please, not more of your delusional paranoid bullshit! Bullshit upon bullshit upon bullshit!In the 1970's, ICR lawyer Wendell Bird (who also argued for the Louisiana law before the US Supreme Court in 1987) composed a proposed local school board policy. Creationist and geocentrist activist Paul Ellwanger got a copy and modified it into a model state bill, which he then distributed to several legislators and creationist groups in several states. It was that model bill that then became both the Arkansas and Louisiana laws in 1980. So then not a "far removed thing"; you need to keep up on your history. The primary purpose of both bills was to remove evolution from the classroom; having creationism inserted into the schools may have been a minor purpose, but was apparently intended only as leverage to force evolution out -- as one teacher testified in tears, he couldn't bear the thought of having to lie to his students by teaching creationism. One of the differences between the two bills was that the Arkansas bill made the mistake of defining what it meant by "creation science", while the Louisiana bill left that part out.And one reason why evolution is not criticized for being old is because it has been tested repeatedly all the time and has stood up under that constant testing. Unlike creationism which falls apart just by looking at it too closely. Bullshit! No direct ties to the Louisiana law, neither of them, were implied, which is why we both moved to have it taken to another more appropriate topic. And the fact that it's now four years old and 16 pages long also has no bearing, unless we consider that in four years and after 16 pages, no creationist has ever been able to provide any meaningful response to that extremely fundamental question. You claimed to have the answer, but now you're trying to avoid presenting it. Everybody here can see your actions for what they are. Now you're doing funny bullshit! Pretty pathetic!No, the blatantly obvious facts of all the sciences like physics, geology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, astronomy, biology, and others. "Creation science" doesn't care what it lies about. Plus, all the sciences are inter-linked as science builds an integrated base of knowledge. Not quite the case of an attack on one being an attack on all, but if you pull on one thread, many other things are attached to it and many others to those. So as "creation science" attempts its ad-hoc disorganized jabs at one aspect of science (eg, the constancy of nuclear decay rates or of the speed of light), that opens up a huge number of problems for those creationist claims.

What a big, hot, steamy pile of bullshit! You must have been backed up for weeks to produce all that bullshit in a single dump! It would probably be more healthy for you to try to clear your mind more regularly, try to digest what you take in, and -- now this will hit you as so obvious! -- stop feeding on so much bullshit.I'll try to help you, but I'll have to just respond to individual point instead of the integral whole. Oh wow! Did I just describe that abortion as an "integral whole"? What a laugh!

---

Not being on-topic doesn't seem to stop you from spewing irrelevent bullshit. There is absolutely no public establishment of atheism in science education. You're just repeating the bullshit that you've been feeding on. Change your diet!And try to think for once. If you raise your kids teaching them contrary-to-fact falsehoods about the physical world and teaching them that if those falsehoods turn out to be false, then God doesn't exist and their only choice is to become atheists, then why pretend to be surprised when they do exactly as you had taught them?C'mon! It's not rocket science. You're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy! Go ahead and put 2 and 2 together. Complete and utter bullshit!Emphasis added for the wilfully myoptic:

quote:

---

Support for the effort to repeal Louisiana's antievolution law is mounting. The American Institute for Biological Sciences, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, the American Society for Cell Biology, the Louisiana Association of Biology Educators, the Louisiana Science Teachers Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the Society for the Study of Evolution together with the Society of Systematic Biologists and the American Society of Naturalists have all endorsed Louisiana's Senate Bill 70, which if enacted would repeal Louisiana Revised Statutes 17.285.1, which implemented the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. All of these statements are posted at the Louisiana Coalition for Science's website.

---

Besides, since the 1981 law had been struck down by the Supreme Court of the US in 1987, why would anyone be trying to repeal it?Stop and think instead of making knee-jerk bullshit spewings. Besides your totally bullshit "conclusion" (starting at "and a few years later"), there are two big problems there. OK, three! First:
You are trying to describe what happened between Bill Keith and his own son which motivated him to present the bill for the 1981 Louisiana law. That is not what happened as per the Wikipedia article you "read" (http://en.wikipedia.org/...Bill_Keith_(Louisiana_politician); don't you ever bother to actually read something before "quoting" it?):

quote:

---

Keith recalled that his interest in the matter developed in 1978, when his then 13-year-old son came home from school to report that a teacher had ridiculed the youngster's belief in God as the creator of human life.

---

Not the least bit as you just presented it. Why did you lie about that?Now, here's the story as it really plays out. These well-meaning parents think that they're doing the right thing by raising their children on creationist lies; they either are so scientifically illiterate that they don't know any different or they are so deep in denial that they can't admit it to themselves. So, one day that day comes that every one of those parents fear will come. Their child comes home and tells them: "Today, we learned what evolution really is. And you lied to us! Why did you lie to us? What else did you lie about? About sin and forgiving? About the Resurrection and Redemption? Was it all just lies? Why should I ever believe you again?"But it's not that simple. You see, those parents don't just lie about science. They also lie about the consequences of evolution and science being true; they teach that if evolution is true, then God does not exist. That if the earth is more than 10,000 years old, then Scripture has no meaning (actually said by John Morris of the ICR). They tell the same lie to their children that you've been told, that the only alternative to their creationist lies is atheism. And then to make matters infinitely worse, they also lie about what atheism is! (apparently, that same lies you've swallowed, again)Do you know what a self-fulfilling prophesy is? From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy):

quote:

---

The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error.

---

Do you now see the double-whammie you're hitting those kids with? First, you trick them into becoming atheists and then you trick them into self-destructive behavior. Oh, yes, when your kids become atheists, you will very likely see the kind of behavior you describe. Why? Because that is what you had taught them to do! You've created a self-fulfilling prophecy.And to protect them even further from the truth, you also want to block the publication of books by atheists that might teach them the truth about atheism. Because the truth is your worst enemy and ignorance is your only friend. Sad that. Second:
Did that father, Bill Keith, follow due process? When a conflict exists, you need to try to resolve at the lowest level possible. What really happened? Did Keith's son become a foul-mouthed model Christian "atheist"? Or did he complain that the teacher had ridiculed his beliefs? He complained that his beliefs had been ridiculed. What is the first course of action for Keith to have taken? To seek to destroy science education? Uh, no, that would be like a minor official in a foreign country having looked at us kind of funny, so we decide to nuke that country. Resolve the problem at the lowest level possible, remember? Basically, as we're given the story, Bill Keith's first choice was to nuke science education.1. Get all the information you can from the child. Try to figure out exactly what had happened, because you will need that information in the next steps.2. Talk with the teacher. It could just have been a simple misunderstanding. Just look at Tram Law's temper tantrums here as he misunderstands and overreacts to what he's told. There's a beginning dancer on a dance forum who's been even worse, overreacting and getting upset at every response he got, blowing everything way out of proportion. It's just that you need to determine whether your son's version is accurate as to just exactly what had happened.
Did the teacher bring up the subject or was it your son? Was the teacher trying to find the right way to respond (even though he had failed), or did he actually become confrontational? Did the teacher think that he had handled it right and is this the first indication he has that he had completely blown it? Or does he just not care?
Those are the things that you need to learn when talking with the teacher, and that you could not possibly know until you have talked with him (barring repeated offenses as in the case of Discovery Institute's poster child, Roger DeHart).
What you want to seek when talking with the teacher is that he be made aware of the problem and that you arrive at a solution. It is only when you cannot resolve the problem at that level that you take it up to the next level, the principal. If you are able to resolve it at this level, then there is no need to continue taking it up the chain.3. Talk with the principal. Here, the emphasis will be on school, district, and state educational policies. Are there policies in place? Are they being enforced? Why aren't they being enforced? Are the teachers made aware of the policies and how to conform to them? Well then why not?4. District, state educational levels. If no policy exists, then work to have a policy implemented that will cover this kind of situation. I very much doubt that there's any state where there is no policy already in place. It may well be a case where the policy does exist, but the teacher was not abiding by it. As another extreme case to illustrate Bill Keith's overreaction, assume that you have either witnessed or experienced a police officer overstepping his authority in violation of existing policy. Do you take action based on his having violated existing policy? Or do you have a state law enacted that cripples every single police officer's ability to perform his duties without endangering lives?Again, if the policy is lacking or non-existent, then the goal needs to be to establish a working policy rather than to pass a state law.There's also the route of filing a lawsuit over the issue. That is what was done by a fundamentalist kid's parents in Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School District; they did win that lawsuit, BTW.And finally, if there is no other way, then and only then push for a change in the law. But, be sure that the law will serve the intended purpose for everybody. For example, having been through the school, I am very much against how PE classes are conducted. The "teachers" never teach anything, but rather just make the team assignments and then leave the bullies to run everything. If anyone's performance is deemed deficient, then the false solution that's applied is to bully them with increasing intensity, which in reality does absolutely nothing to enhance their performance. Now, if I were in a position to have a law passed to reform PE, I would. But would I pass a law that would destroy PE? No, I would pass a law that would implement the military model, which would actually improve PE immensely. The military model requires that every member be trained to perform the tasks that he's tasked with; if you have not yet been trained in a task, then you are forbidden to attempt to perform it, even if it's nothing more than a hand salute. The downside to my reformed PE classes? The "teachers" would be required to actually teach something.Third:
The effect of the 1981 law was not about allowing alternatives. In spite of being deceptively billed as promoting academic freedom, its actual intended effect was to prevent alternatives. Bullshit! Message 77: I responded to your nonsense in Message 82 thus: And you have never responded. One of the problems is that we are talking about more than 30 years of reading, the vast majority of which either is not on-line or else I don't know where it is.The McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project is at http://www.antievolution.org/...ts/mclean/new_site/index.htm. In its Transcripts of Testimony, we have the courtroom transcripts of the trial. The educator who was tasked with developing a curriculum for teaching "creation science" was Marianne Wilson, so follow the link which is her name in order to read the court transcript of her testimony. At this point, do you really want me to pull parts of her testimony out and post them here? You should be able to read them for yourself.As for the teacher who broke into tears at the thought of being forced to deliberately lie to his students, I would need to find that in my book in order to get his name and then point us to his testimony. No free time until Monday or possibly Thursday. Be patient. Which brings us right back to the conflict resolution exercise above. Does a policy exist? Is the teacher following the policy? If the teacher is not following the policy, then does that make all of science education culpable? Bullshit! Deal with that teacher who's out of line and not following policy!Just what is educational policy? 50 states. That's a lot to wade through, though you are presenting "atheistic evolutionistic educational conspiracy" as being universal, so one state's policy should be representative enough. Here's California's Anti-Dogmatism Policy that's included in their Science Framework -- link is provided by the NCSE, but I have a hardcopy at home and have verified that the NCSE's presentation is accurate; hey, I'm not a creationist, so what possible reason could I have to lie? -- http://ncse.com/...a/voices/california-state-board-education:

quote:

---

The domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools observable facts and testable hypotheses.

​

Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history-social science and English-language arts curricula.

​

Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.

​

To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.

​

A scientific fact is an understanding based on confirmable observations and is subject to test and rejection. A scientific hypothesis is an attempt to frame a question as a testable proposition. A scientific theory is a logical construct based on facts and hypotheses that organizes and explains a range of natural phenomena. Scientific theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge. Because scientific theories have predictive capabilities, they essentially guide further investigations.

​

From time to time natural science teachers are asked to teach content that does not meet the criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory as these terms are used in natural science and as defined in this policy. As a matter of principle, science teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard.

​

Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation. Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board's position has been stated in the History-Social Science Framework (adopted by the Board).1 If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines is outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy.

​

Neither the California nor the United States Constitution requires that time be given in the curriculum to religious views in order to accommodate those who object to certain material presented or activities conducted in science classes. It may be unconstitutional to grant time for that reason.

​

Nothing in the California Education Code allows students (or their parents or guardians) to excuse their class attendance on the basis of disagreements with the curriculum, except as specified for (1) any class in which human reproductive organs and their functions and process are described, illustrated, or discussed; and (2) an education project involving the harmful or destructive use of animals. (See California Education Code Section 51550 and Chapter 2.3 of Part 19 commencing with Section 32255.) However, the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and local governing boards and school districts are encouraged to develop statements, such as this one on policy, that recognize and respect that freedom in the teaching of science. Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas.

---

Thank you for demonstrating that the creationists' version of evolution is a distorted caricature, a strawman.If you are truly going to oppose evolution, then you must learn what evolution really is.Trying to prevent the next generation from learning what evolution is is counter-productive. How can they possibly grow up to oppose evolution if you never let them learn what it really is?And when, despite all your efforts, they do happen to learn what evolution and science really are, then how are you to keep them from becoming atheists, as you yourself have taught them to do.It would be so hilariously funny, if you weren't so pathetic!Edited by dwise1, : Deal with that teacher

Oh no, you got that all wrong. I wasn't referring to the first 7 lines, but rather to the entire message. Nor was I saying that you're a bull, only that you generate an inordinate amount of bullshit on a very regular basis.Coyote was quite correct in assessing your message as a Gish Gallop. You're trying to bury us in so much bullshit that we can't dig ourselves out. It works in a spoken debate, but is far less successful in a written exchange. It's thoroughly dishonest in either environment. Even more Bullshit! Absolutely nothing in what you posted even begins to support your claim of atheism being established in science education. If you are going to write something to support your claim, then do it! Posting bullshit instead does nothing to further your cause. Even more nonsensical bullshit! You're just trying to avoid facing the truth. Which they do learn in the other 5 hours of their 6-hour school day. OK, 4 of those 5 hours, since nothing is taught in PE, nor does it have anything to do with knowledge. The OP should have also quoted briefly from the article to give us the gist, something that a moderator would have required him to do if it had gone through the proposal process instead of the Coffee House. The link did get quoted from in subsequent messages, but that would have required you to have read through the topic.Still, it's best to gather your facts first. For one thing, you're talking about history that is well-known within this discussion community; it's not meant to serve as a shibboleth, but one should at least try to get up to speed on the history and subject matter. Also, creationists keep on hammering away at the legal system trying every trick they can think of, so it should come as no surprise that a given state would have had multiple anti-evolution bills over the years. But you were obviously basing your scenario on it and it did certainly look like you were recounting what had happened. Clearer communication would have helped. I have not been referring to any bulls, but rather to your constant bullshit. Which is also not referring to Indian cooking fuel.Also, those children in that situation, including your hypothetical one, were not indoctrinated in evolution nor in atheism -- educated in what evolution is and teaches and in real-world evidence, but not in atheism since that would be against educational policy; I've quoted California's policy to you, so ignorance is not an excuse. Rather, they had been indoctrinated in creationist contrary-to-reality claims for years and it was reality that woke them up to the fact that their parents had been lying to them for all those years. Where the hell did you get that from? It wasn't evolution that turned that kid; it was the reality that he had been lied to by the people he trusted most. So then, what you're really saying is that reality is atheistic. Which would make religion, what, fantasy? I'm sure that real Christians (as opposed to you God-of-the-Gap-ists) would take exception to that particular revelation.In another example, a creationist whose only knowledge of geology is what he learned from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR; the leading flood geologists led literally by the man who wrote the book on The Genesis Flood) goes to work as a field geologist for an oil company. He hires several of his fellow creationist graduates to work with him. Day after day they have to deal with rock-solid geological realities that the ICR had taught them did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning. They all suffered crises of faith and the lead creationist of this story, Glenn R. Morton, was driven to the verge of atheism. Not because of evolution; they weren't being taught any. Not because of "atheistic geology", because they weren't in any geology classroom. Rather, it was creationism that did it, the ship-load of lies that the ICR had taught them, and the simple fact that an unavoidable dose of reality woke them up to that fact. Or, as you would say, reality is atheistic.Absolutely true story. He tells it in two articles at The Transformation of a Young-earth Creationist and Why I left Young-earth Creationism. He has links to other people's experiences and brushes with "spiritual death" at Personal Stories of the Creation/Evolution Struggle. Switch what from paragraph to paragraph? I'm giving a consistent and truthful presentation. Please, quit your bullshitting!However, it is good that you brought up religious teenagers looking for way out of the 10 Commandments. A local creationist activist claims to have been an atheist, but it turns out he was only pretending to be one for the very reason you give. That was precisely his story, that by becoming an atheist he was freed from any moral restraints and could sin away happy and guilt-free.Again, was it science that made him into an atheist? Or was it instead his religious training and the lies that his religious teachers (which included his parents) told him about atheists and about morality? The latter, obviously (in case you don't know what that term means, I'm saying it's the lies he was taught about atheism and morality). It was the lies told by his religious teachers that created a legalistic loophole you could drive a camel through (and I don't mean the cigarette) and which they then dangled in front of him.The problem is not reality, but rather it's the lies that these kids' religious teachers are teaching them. It is about worldviews. And especially about one worldview, the creationist one, being steeped in lies that will be exposed as soon as that worldview comes in contact with a worldview based on reality. But why do the religious have to cleave themselves to a worldview of lies?As I was taught, one of the functions of apologetics is that of harmonization. There are perceived conflicts between religion and real life, whether real or imagined. Harmonization is the act of removing or minimizing those conflicts, thus allowing religion and real life to co-exist in harmony. Creationism is being used as a form of apologetics, but it is one that "harmonizes" by lying to the believer about reality. We keep seeing the fruit that that wicked tree bears. Instead, shouldn't believers seek harmonizations that are truthful?Glenn R. Morton has an article on this, The Effect of Scientific Error in Christian Apologetics: Casualties in the Creation-Evolution debate. And we're back with more bullshit.What makes you so sure that the Christian God couldn't have used naturalistic processes to create life? I know that your puny God of the Gaps couldn't have, but what about the omnipotent Christian God, Sovereign over Nature?What makes you think that science says there are only four dimensions? Please, we know that ignorance doesn't work because we've already tried it. Get with the program!As for eventually being able to understand all of reality, it is true that that is not humanly possible. But just because we can never learn everything does not mean that we must therefore restrict ourselves to learning nothing. That's just plain idiotic!And the window is closing again. Hasta maana!Edited by dwise1, : corrected minor typo: about -> able

In the case of an individual official (ie, a teacher) committing an offense by not following set policy, then the lowest level at which to address the problem is to talk with the teacher and then work your way up the chain from there. But when the offense is being done by a state law, then the lowest levels at which it can be addressed are to either repeal the law, have it superceded by another law, or have it tested in court. There is no double standard being applied.ID and creationism are clearly religious and they seek to have evolution removed from the curriculum for purely religious reasons. Their attempts to hide their nature and intent from the public and from the courts do nothing to change that fact. Laws and policies that seek to have ID or other forms of creationism taught in the public schools or to make changes to the curriculum for religious reasons have been determined to be in violation of the Establishment Clause. There is no inherent need to haul ID into court, except when it attempts to violate the law. There is no double standard being applied.BTW, that very first step I gave, Get all the information, is a good idea regardless of what level you're operating on. Ignorance does not work. First, let's look at what you left out: While you may have not explicitly stated the ID goal of integrating religion into science (theistic realism as per lawyer Phillip Johnson et al.), you are advocating the integration of religion into science education.And to remind you, the liberties I was taking with your name were in direct response to the liberties you were taking with mine. Just trying to stave off yet another stream of bullshit from you. If materials are religious, then they cannot be used in the public schools. Establishment Clause. If materials are atheistic, then they also cannot be used in the public schools. First Amendment, I think also by the Establishment Clause. If materials attack a religion or religious group, then they also cannot be used in the public schools. First Amendment, possibly the Free Exercise Clause (Dammit, Jim! I'm a programmer, not a lawyer!).Creationist materials are blatantly religious, right down to explicitly proselytizing the students (urging them to decide between "atheistic evolution" and their "unnamed" Creator; that is something that science materials never do and was one of the red flags that Marianne Wilson testified about). They had only been superficially scrubbed of explicit biblical references in order to sneak them into the schools. ID materials are little different, except that they have been getting a lot better at covering up their religious nature, though the greatest advantage they have over their brethren "creation science" materials is that they are not as beholding to young-earth and Noachian flood claims. They just keep trying new lies in the hope of eventually sneaking past the courts.At the same time, I know of no atheist special interest groups trying to get atheistic materials introduced into the classroom. And if you honestly and truly believe that atheism is being taught, then have somebody file a lawsuit about it -- it would have to be somebody with a child in the school. But wait, somebody did file a very similar lawsuit, Peloza v. Capistrano School District. His claims that evolution was a religion were found to be utterly groundless. Please! I explicitly requested that you not inflict us with more of your bullshit! What atheism? Just answer the question. And no more bullshit!Obviously, you believe many things that are complete and utter bullshit, so belief alone is not sufficient. And it's creationist teachers, such as the Discovery Institute's poster child Roger DeHart, who are better known for bullying their students and defying school policy.Again, does a policy exist? Is it being followed? Is it being enforced? That is where you start, not with your paranoid delusions.One solution would be to have the policy posted in the classroom, so that everybody can know what it is. Show us. Show us that it's being taught dogmatically. Admittedly, science education is not perfect and suffers from problems. One problem is that most primary and secondary school science textbooks are not written by scientists, but rather by professional textbook writers. The problems this causes came out in the mid-1980's when California was adopting new biology textbooks. Bill Bennetta, later of The Textbook League, got a board of scientists involved in reviewing the textbooks that the state was considering. They found that none of the textbooks were acceptable, with one or two only slightly less bad and for which they produced a long list of corrections that needed to be made. The publisher made a few corrections and then the state board of education approved the book without notifying the scientists that it was now going behind their backs.If there is a problem in a curriculum, the solution is to correct that problem, not to try to destroy the curriculum. If you have a legitimate beef, then present it. However, if the only reason for your beef is that you don't understand the material, or that your motives are purely religious and for the benefit of that puny impotent God of the Gaps, then you have no case. No, not that there is one and only one definition. Rather that we must apply the actual definition(s) and not false and misleading mis-definitions.Do you want to oppose and fight evolution? I mean really oppose and fight evolution? If so, then why do you stay well away from evolution and insist on only attacking strawmen of your own manufacture? How effective could that possibly be in your fight?To fight the real thing, you need to know what the real thing is. Remember, ignorance does not work, so why do you keep trying to use it?

Found it. A Philosopher's Day in Court by Michael Ruse, reporting on his participation in the 1981 Arkansas trial, in the anthology Science and Creationism, edited by Ashley Montagu, page 335:

quote:

---

and then when the science witnesses had done their job. Then came the most moving testimony of all, as ordinary schoolteachers from Arkansas explained how we simply could not teach the travesty of Creation-science. I shall never forget the man who cried out under cross-examination: "Look, sir! I'm not a martyr or anything! but I just can't teach that stuff. I'm not a scientist. I'm a science educator. I'm like a traffic cop, directing ideas down from scientists to schoolchildren. My pupils respect me. All teachers are like parents in a way. How can I go into my classroom, spreading ideas that I know to be wrong? My students will despise me, and I will not be able to live with myself."

---

I apologize for not having remembered it perfectly from over 25 years ago. Still exhibits the strong emotions raised by the teachers' dedication and loyalty to their students.Edited by dwise1, : final sentence