Creationism Bill Passes Oklahoma House

Whoops. Time here for the foolhardy to step up and mediate between two valued contributors. Looking over the post in question, it does not seem emotional at all. In fact, it is a model of how to engage firmly but unemotionally. No insults, no rants.Harlequin is suggesting you read his comments more carefully. That is a good suggestion. It indicates some level of frustration, but that will happen when someone is misinterpreted. There was no insult given, and in fact, you do need to read more carefully.You did get a lot of cold water on the Board of Information idea; which is discouraging even if it is a joke. The background concerns remain valid.In any case, let me reprise:

• Holmes proposed the "BoI" in post 5, fairly off hand.
• Harlequin responding in post 6 to other aspects of that post, but not on the BoI since he presumed it was a joke.
• Holmes in post 7 conceded it was a joke, but with a grain of truth; and sought the grain.
• Harlequin in post 8 summarised some problems with the notion.
• Holmes in post 9 agreed it was wishful thinking, and asked this question (my italics):
  holmes writes:

  ​

  I am curious though what you feel would be so problematic in making sure the information used in policy formulation has been accurately fact-checked... like say religious theorists do not get to tell congress what scientists think, say, and have discovered.
• Harlequin in post 10 responded in two parts. With respect to the first phrase (in italics) he pointed out (correctly) that he this is not what he considers problematic. His post 8 clearly indicates that what is problematic is the notion of a independent organization free of partisan policy; a point with which holmes actually agreed.
  ​
  With respect to the second phrase (after the italics), he points out (correctly) that it would be unconstitutional to constrain people based on religion from making submission to congress concerned what is being said and discovered in science. Basically, what holmes needs is not to prevent certain groups from speaking to congress, but for congress to have some structures or procedures which help them listen to the most useful inputs. That is; what is problematic is the constraint on the religious as a way of making sure information used in policy is good information.
• Holmes in post 11 loses the plot somewhat; compounding earlier confusions with a really drastic misunderstanding of Harlequin's post.

Bear in mind the following distinct issues:

• It is unconstitutional to constrain religious theorists from speaking to congress on what science is about.
• It is problematic to have "an independent organization free of partisan policy demands" in charge of informing congress of the issues.
• It is not (necessarily?) problematic to "make sure the information used in policy formulation has been accurately fact-checked".

Your comments above above about being contradictory and about reversals or inconsistencies actually mix up these issues. I don't see any reversals at all in Harlequin's comments; and the extracts you quoted from Harlequin are insufficient to show what it is that Harlequin identifies as unconstitutional, and what he implies is problematic.Cheers -- Sylas