It's a Sad Day For the Future Of American Children.

This seems to me why there may need to be a legal recognition of the DIFFERENCE between Bibilical Creationism and Scientific Creationism. First there must be a show of how all science (regardless of what in the power of any state it has a right to prohibit) is benefited and not merely impacted. Wise's use of Remine's terms provides the BIBILICAL creationist the motivation but unless this set theory logic is used to show how strictly evolutionary vicariance vs dispersal hypothesis testing if less error prone by use of a version of Scientific Creationism getting LEGAL REGUALTION of an INTEREPRETATION of the constitution IS likely difficult to doubtful. So I see Dan's point.The problem is that a politician is not expected to think he/she will find the SCIENCE of getting TO this point an issue and I take it that was what the Supreme Court judges thought no matter their words. But THAT is the problem we are at as is witnessed day in and out on this board. We have a hard time getting scienists to even see that the DIFFERNCE of BIBLICAL CREATIONISM from Scientific Creationism vs Creation Science not only benefits the understanding of nature but also does more than simply imply changes to the way science(evolution) teaching has been done.With a more organized secular response to the BIBLICAL end it is obvious that Creationists may need to use the SEPERATION merely to survivie but that would be wrong. I suspect my own reading that DOES involve our constitution however would be the case in this case. Just how the LAW will work as the science is developed I dont know but it would be something other than an issue about taxes.Since however "
project steve" and attempts to DO SCIENCE anti-creationism THIS however is likely what will come to the political action before simply providing the funds to do the kinds of things I have been suggsting for years materializes as it takes advances in both creation and evolution populations to bring in the change as the change already is without tokenizing the reissue.

The difficulties ARE NOT taught out on the "advanced" level after all. Will Provine uses Phil Johnson's work as he used Jehova's Witness work in my day in an advanced undergraduate course - as a joke or to show why NOT to use it letting the student not come to any conclusion or come to Provine's. The thinking IS VERY ELEMENTARY and can be done on the most obvious level but becuase differntial equations have not been suplanted by the newer or different kinds of thinking that are available it is not until the advanced level that these issues today appear and then it is only over a small beer for every one else is off becoming lawyers, doctors and Bill Clinton. Leon Croizat sequestered himself in Venezula but continuted the same stuff he was doing at Harvard. He knew a generation before me that the world was not ready to get beyond "darwin" and it is really only creationists who are prepared. I only ask for the carrer which I paid for. If that in my generation casues me to become Socrates to the youth then that is what it will have to be becuase the alternative is a rack of rock and irate rats rating isotopes by the end of the day, today which already was another generation's unresovled problem. The children should not suffer no matter the politics.I am saying that there is something IN THE CONTINUUM OF BIOLOGICAL CHANGE that I am only being able to abduct so far from creationism. The slowing down of the models on the time differential will only if monopolarly benefit an evolutionary presumption so there should be NO fear to have the science be a law. Perhaps it will first occur outside the US. Instead because only those with the differential equation tuaght understanding etc instead of "fear" what comes across is their insistence that traditional science remain in place which IS NOT FEAR and tears of not knowing God flow for the absecne of what WAS there. The elite simply default to a Lewontin position that the equations are too hard to solve. Wolfram suggeted otherwise and so had I. And now I expressed the secular side.How droll.

That's right. And that is why I am doumbfounded as to how this particular website can fail to try to develop this line of understanding. Ned for one refuses. That's his perogative I guess.

Ok peace then. You are off my to call list. Thanks for the actual position. I will want to ask you about catatrophe theory later though. I did notice that you said the "kids" did not have the time in class even to have the teachers if they WERE advanced teach some of the things you may not have given up on understanding here but really this is the same problem of why we do not have as of yet a culutral resolution for at Cornell for instance it is not possible (not becuase the subjects are too difficult but beacuse of how they topics are taught) for one to get a best advanced knowledge as the same undergraduate in chemsistry, biology and physics to do the stuff I am trying to nowadays write, even if one negeles all other arts and sciences. My guess and you can correct me if I am wrong is that the high school curricula spends lot of time on SEPERATE topics without the topics being unified by a single univocal method or priciple. The problem at the lower levels (which should not be one at the higher) is that if one as a teacher PICKS a particular unity then just like their being many religons one is stuck trying to introduce MORE TOPICS metadatawise than was the case with all the particular topics. Biology is particularly egregious in this regard because of diversity.If that is what you found out was the case the high school and lower than I can see what you are saying indeed. I have been trying to show how in general there can be a univocal focus of c/e enhanceing admittedly only ONE of those "topics" but it is toolable enough to resolve or reduce C/E legal differences in my opinion to simply the search for an nonzero Jacobian determinant but that is the advanced issue I will raise later. Thanks And Really- I will not be inclined to beg for your goat next. Thanks. Brad. I try however to keep my opinion out of it.

Now your getting it. One has to read thru the 13 ammendemnts lower to get to the 14th but the first one was????still a taco stand? C/E and webC/E are not the same kettle calling itself black and white so while you may insist on a state by state basis for web c/e Dan's standing is still outstanding! This seemed to be GW's view but not mine. I would think "intent" does have something to do with it. I would like ICR to explain to me why they used editorial control to ask me what my "intention" of posting there was? I did not have an intent I merely wanted -cough- free speech- and I meant that literally-- free- so that Percy pays and not me. It would be a reading of the US consitution and not a writing of it as Dan seemed correctly to peg the most current with that dominates this little loop however.