Herr Fuhrer Esley Welsberry's Big Lie
The Darwinists want people to believe that the current taboo against even mentioning criticism of evolution in public schools is just payback for past prohibitions of the teaching of evolution in public schools. Herr Fuhrer Wesley Elsberry, head honcho over at Panda's Thumb, wrote,
Saying that over twenty other states actually "passed" legislation similar to Tennessee's Butler Act appears to be a gross exaggeration. Here is what the Wikipedia article on the Scopes Trial says:
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 101-102 (1968), notes that bills to ban the teaching of evolution were introduced in twenty states in the period 1921-1929, but lists only four states as actually having had such laws on the books -- Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. In addition, Epperson notes that during that period the Florida and Texas legislatures adopted resolutions against teaching the "doctrine of evolution" (that is what the Epperson opinion called it -- we haven't yet figured out if evolution is a theory or a fact, and here the Supreme Court called it a "doctrine"). The Oklahoma law was repealed in 1926, the Tennessee law in 1967, and the Arkansas and Mississippi laws were struck down by Epperson in 1968. This list might not be complete, as it is partially based on an ACLU report of 1937. Here is what Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 101-102 (1968), actually says --
In addition to the above laws that banned the teaching of evolution outright, Arkansas and Louisiana had laws requiring balanced teaching of evolution and creation science. These laws were struck down by the courts in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) and McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education , 529 F. Supp. 1255 (1982)
All of the states mentioned by name above are part of what is generally known as the Bible Belt, and all the states mentioned above that actually had anti-evolution laws or legislative resolutions are -- with the exception of Florida -- in a contiguous group of states in the Southwestern and South-and-mid-central parts of that belt.
Ironically, the term "Bible Belt" was coined by H.L. Mencken in a newspaper report about the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. He described the region as "this bright, shining, buckle of the Bible belt." H.L. Mencken was represented by the fictional newspaper reporter E.K. Hornbeck in the play and movies titled "Inherit the Wind".
The name "Herr Fuhrer Esley Welsberry" (pronounced "Velsberry") was coined by Elsberry critic John A. Davison. According to my own experience with Elsberry, it is an accurate description.
A related article on this blog is "Anti-Darwinism strengthens outside Bible Belt".
Following the Scopes trial in 1925, popular belief held that the antievolutionists had suffered a defeat and were in retrenchment. This was not so. In the next few years, over twenty other states passed legislation similar to Tennessee’s Butler Act, with the effect of banning the teaching of evolutionary biology in public schools in those states.(emphasis added)
Saying that over twenty other states actually "passed" legislation similar to Tennessee's Butler Act appears to be a gross exaggeration. Here is what the Wikipedia article on the Scopes Trial says:
The trial did not stop the anti-evolution movement. Before Dayton only the South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Kentucky legislatures had dealt with anti-evolution laws or riders to educational appropriations bills. In 1927 there were thirteen states, both North and South, that considered some form of anti-evolution law. At least forty one bills, riders, or resolutions were introduced into the state legislatures, with some states facing the issue repeatedly. While most of these efforts were rejected, both Mississippi and Arkansas put anti-evolution laws on the books after the Scopes trial.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 101-102 (1968), notes that bills to ban the teaching of evolution were introduced in twenty states in the period 1921-1929, but lists only four states as actually having had such laws on the books -- Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. In addition, Epperson notes that during that period the Florida and Texas legislatures adopted resolutions against teaching the "doctrine of evolution" (that is what the Epperson opinion called it -- we haven't yet figured out if evolution is a theory or a fact, and here the Supreme Court called it a "doctrine"). The Oklahoma law was repealed in 1926, the Tennessee law in 1967, and the Arkansas and Mississippi laws were struck down by Epperson in 1968. This list might not be complete, as it is partially based on an ACLU report of 1937. Here is what Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 101-102 (1968), actually says --
Only Arkansas and Mississippi have such "anti-evolution" or "monkey" laws on their books [see footnote 8]. There is no record of any prosecutions in Arkansas under its statute. It is possible that the statute is presently more of a curiosity than a vital fact of life in these States.
Footnote 8. Miss.Code Ann. 6798, 6799 (1942). Ark.Stat.Ann. 80-1627, 80-1628 (1960 Repl. Vol.). The Tennessee law was repealed in 1967. Oklahoma enacted an anti-evolution law, but it was repealed in 1926. The Florida and Texas Legislatures, in the period between 1921 and 1929, adopted resolutions against teaching the doctrine of evolution. In all, during that period, bills to this effect were introduced in 20 States. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), The Gag on Teaching 8 (2d ed., 1937). (emphasis added)
In addition to the above laws that banned the teaching of evolution outright, Arkansas and Louisiana had laws requiring balanced teaching of evolution and creation science. These laws were struck down by the courts in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) and McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education , 529 F. Supp. 1255 (1982)
All of the states mentioned by name above are part of what is generally known as the Bible Belt, and all the states mentioned above that actually had anti-evolution laws or legislative resolutions are -- with the exception of Florida -- in a contiguous group of states in the Southwestern and South-and-mid-central parts of that belt.
Ironically, the term "Bible Belt" was coined by H.L. Mencken in a newspaper report about the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. He described the region as "this bright, shining, buckle of the Bible belt." H.L. Mencken was represented by the fictional newspaper reporter E.K. Hornbeck in the play and movies titled "Inherit the Wind".
The name "Herr Fuhrer Esley Welsberry" (pronounced "Velsberry") was coined by Elsberry critic John A. Davison. According to my own experience with Elsberry, it is an accurate description.
A related article on this blog is "Anti-Darwinism strengthens outside Bible Belt".
Labels: Evolution controversy (4 of 4)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/22/2006 06:14:00 AM
28 Comments:
You title your new thread with an ad hominem and you still don't know what the term means. Impressive!
Not only that, but he violates Godwin's Law twice in the title.
BTW, "doctrine of evolution" was in the Florida and Texas legislation - it didn't originate with the SC.
>>> The Darwinists want people to believe that the current taboo against even mentioning criticism of evolution in public schools is just payback for past prohibitions of the teaching of evolution in public schools.<<<
Whoever these mythical "Darwinists" may be, proponents of good science education that includes a basic understanding of biology and its major theory of evolution are not about "paybacks". We're about keeping religion out of science and keeping good science in the educational system. Part of good science is pointing out and correcting mistakes, so I'll bring this to Wesley's attention. The point being made in the article is that while we have won the current "battle", the "war" has historically waged on, and is likely to continue because the other side is committed to a total takeover of society. And weren't you claiming recently that we were claiming total victory, Larry? Seems that a whole lot of pro-science people have been cautioning since the Dover decision that the fight will continue.
Of course, the whole Bible Belt thing is irrelevant. Just about every state has it's own Bible Belt whence anti-evolution challenges arise and historically have arisen.
We need to get more publicity for Larry's blog. This guy is a scream!
I think that the poor soul actually takes himself seriously!
W. Kevin Vicklund said --
>>>>>>Part of good science is pointing out and correcting mistakes, so I'll bring this to Wesley's attention<<<<<
Don't bother. Using an anonymous proxy and a false name, I already posted on Panda's Thumb a link to this article, and Wesley promptly deleted it. I think that Wesley was not just offended by the article's title, but he also wants to prevent people from finding out about this blog.
>>>>>BTW, "doctrine of evolution" was in the Florida and Texas legislation - it didn't originate with the SC.<<<<<<
How do you know? The SC did not put quote marks around "doctrine of evolution." And since there are no quote marks, it appears that the SC adopted the term, even if the same term was used in the Florida and Texas resolutions.
>>>>>> And weren't you claiming recently that we were claiming total victory, Larry?<<<<<
Some -- but not all -- Darwinists have been claiming total victory. A good example is Lenny Flank.
>>>>>Of course, the whole Bible Belt thing is irrelevant. Just about every state has it's own Bible Belt whence anti-evolution challenges arise and historically have arisen. <<<<<
I think that this article and my article "Anti-Darwinism strengthens outside Bible Belt" show that historically anti-Darwinism has been strongest in the Bible Belt. Until recently, all of the state anti-evolution laws, state anti-evolution legislative resolutions, and major pro-evolution lawsuits have been in the Bible Belt -- without exception.
>>>>>>The point being made in the article is that while we have won the current "battle", the "war" has historically waged on, and is likely to continue because the other side is committed to a total takeover of society.<<<<<<
That's just a conspiracy theory and an urban legend.
> Don't bother. Using an anonymous proxy and a false name <
You certainly can't complain about people using false names on this blog then.
> I already posted on Panda's Thumb a link to this article, and Wesley promptly deleted it. <
You have been banned from PT. Don't you understand this, Moron? It is easy to spot your attempts to impersonate others. They all have the same smell.
> but he also wants to prevent people from finding out about this blog. <
Then why did he announce that you had opened your own blog? He thinks that it is hilarious, as I do.
>>>Don't bother. Using an anonymous proxy and a false name, I already posted on Panda's Thumb a link to this article, and Wesley promptly deleted it. I think that Wesley was not just offended by the article's title, but he also wants to prevent people from finding out about this blog.<<<
Well, I went ahead and posted before you could tell me otherwise. Not only has Wesley let my post stand, which both mentions your blog AND points out that you offered relevant data, he has responded directly to me. Oh yeah, and he posted corrections, while showing via strikeouts) where he was wrong.
Too bad you still haven't realized how obvious your posts are.
Question. Do you consider Indiana to be part of the Bible Belt?
Voice In the Wilderness said on another thread --
>>>>>>You don't even know how to set up a Recent Posts menu despite being told step by step on this blog. I have my own blog. Naming it would blow the contest.<<<<<<
VIW, this is some of the real crap that I am talking about. You say that you know how to list a blogger.com blog's most recent comments, but won't say how. You say that you have your own blog, but won't name it. You are just a bag of hot air.
VIW said on this thread --
>>>>>> I already posted on Panda's Thumb a link to this article, and Wesley promptly deleted it. <
You have been banned from PT. Don't you understand this, Moron?<<<<<<
That comment that I placed on Panda's Thumb was the first comment I had placed there in many weeks, and I did so only to correct a glaring error in the opening post. Otherwise, after establishing my own blog where I am able to post my own thoughts unhindered, I have stopped trying to post on Panda's Thumb -- even though I could continue to do so (using anonymous proxies and false names) -- because I know that my ideas are not welcome there. Well, you and your ideas are not welcome here. Blaming me for placing that single unwelcome post on PT while you continue to clutter up this blog with tons of your unwelcome crap is the height of hypocrisy. You say that you have your own blog -- why in hell don't you go use it and stop posting here? I'll tell you what -- if you give me the name of your blog, I will even add your blog to my link list if you will just go away. Honest.
W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 6/22/2006 12:44:53 PM ) --
>>>>>>>Don't bother. Using an anonymous proxy and a false name, I already posted on Panda's Thumb a link to this article, and Wesley promptly deleted it. I think that Wesley was not just offended by the article's title, but he also wants to prevent people from finding out about this blog.<
Well, I went ahead and posted before you could tell me otherwise. Not only has Wesley let my post stand, which both mentions your blog AND points out that you offered relevant data, he has responded directly to me.<<<<<<
I presume that you mean this post, quoted below:
Larry Fafarman pointed out that according to the Epperson decision, around twenty states had introduced anti-evolution bills, but that most were never passed. Wikipedia also supports this, citing 41 bills introduced, often multiple bills in a single state.
Contrary to your claim, your post on PT only mentioned me and did not mention my blog. Sufficiently curious people could find this blog by Googling my name, but that is only because my name is unique (so far as I know).
>>>>>Too bad you still haven't realized how obvious your posts are.<<<<<<
My post on PT wasn't obvious. All it had was just the name of this blog, the URL link to this article, and a statement that this article disputed his figure of over 20 states passing laws similar to Tennessee's law. I posted under a name that I had used on PT before and which had not been banned.
Wesley still does not have it exactly right, but he has it close enough now. Wesley says that over twenty states considered such legislation "in the next few years" after the 1925 Scopes trial, whereas footnote 8 of Epperson --quoted in my opening post -- says that twenty states considered such legislation in the period 1921-1929. The Wikipedia article said that in 1927 alone, thirteen states considered some form of anti-evolution law. "Anti-Evolution Legislation" on the AntiEvolution website names four states -- Kentucky, Florida, Oklahoma, and of course Tennessee -- that considered or passed anti-evolution legislation before the 1925 Scopes trial.
>>>>>Question. Do you consider Indiana to be part of the Bible Belt? <<<<<<
No, but Indiana was not mentioned in any of my sources. Why do you ask?
I guess I overwote the part that said "in his blog" - I edited the comment several times. Anyway, everyone there knows I hang out at your blog and that you don't post much anywhere else. I'll make sure to be more explicit next time I make mention of you on PT.
>>>My post on PT wasn't obvious. All it had was just the name of this blog, the URL link to this article, and a statement that this article disputed his figure of over 20 states passing laws similar to Tennessee's law. I posted under a name that I had used on PT before and which had not been banned.<<<
Using a previous name? Of course you got caught - just because nobody deleted it doesn't mean that it wasn't noted. Oh, and your use of an anonymous proxy is a bit of a marker, too. Although probably the statement itself was a tip-off. Since the name has already been compromised, which one did you use?
Hendren v. Campbell, Superior Court No. 5, Marion County, Indiana, 14. April 1977
"The ACLU, on behalf of Jon Hendren, sued the West Clark school board for solely adopting a creationist textbook. The trial court found for the plaintiff, finding the textbook to be sectarian in content and entangling the state with religion."
Seems there's an exception to your claim that no pro-evolutionist lawsuit (i.e. a lawsuit in which a proponent of evolution is the plaintiff) has ever originated outside the Bible Belt until recently.
This is what history really tells us. When a new strategy for inserting creation back into the classroom or discrediting evolution arises, people all over the US start adopting the strategy. However, when the strategy is first struck down by the courts, the less religious areas fairly quickly abandon the strategy, leaving the Bible Belt to carry the torch until all hope for that strategy has been extinguished. It is the fact that the strategies start up quicker and take longer to die out in the Bible Belt that make it more susceptible to being the origin of a pro-evolution lawsuit. There is another factor involved, though. In order for there to be a pro-evolution lawsuit, a parent of a child in one of the affected schools has to have the courage to come forth and file a lawsuit. In the Bible Belt, there are fewer parents that are pro-evolution, and the pressure to conform to the religious majority is substantially higher. This tends to inhibit or delay filings of lawsuits in those areas.
Given that the forces of anti-evolution are not likely to give up any time soon, it is inevitable that some lawsuits will originate outside of the Bible Belt proper. Given the limited number of lawsuits over the years, such a small sampling of events is not truly indicative of any growth of anti-evolution sentiment. Also, the numbers don't take into consideration the number of times a board of education backed away from legislation due to threats of lawsuit.
> Voice In the Wilderness said on another thread <
Then why didn't you respond on another thread?
> You say that you know how to list a blogger.com blog's most recent comments, but won't say how. <
Rob has already said how to do this step by step on this blog. Since you claim to have a no deletions policy, you will still find it here.
If you don't read posts before responding to them, you will continue to miss these gems.
>>>>>> You have been banned from PT. Don't you understand this, Moron?<<<<<<
> That comment that I placed on Panda's Thumb was the first comment I had placed there in many weeks <
Did you believe that there was an expiration date on your banning?
> Blaming me for placing that single unwelcome post <
You just don't get it do you? Your claim was that PT does not allow posts that disagree with their position (this is obviously false as can be seen by a quick look at PT). I was pointing out what really happened. Your posts are very easily identifiable regardless of your amateurish efforts to disguise them. Your post was rejected because you have been banned. You can change your name or use anonymous proxies all you want. Your posts all have the same smell.
> you continue to clutter up this blog with tons of your unwelcome crap <
You are the only one who seems to be complaining. I gave you several sincere suggestion as to how you could improve this blog and stop looking like a lying delusional paranoid hypocrite. You chose not to take them.
> if you give me the name of your blog, I will even add your blog to my link list if you will just go away. <
If Dave, or Bill, or you win the contest, I will reveal the name of my blog. Otherwise revealing it would blow the contest.
> Honest. <
I don't think you know the meaning of that word.
I have always admired you. It was great to follow your brillance in the smog impact fee cases and your proof that meteors come from inside the earth's admosphere. It is great that you now have your own blog where your brilliance can be displayed.
You did a great service to humanity with your smog impact work and only a few seem to appreciate it.
Voice In the Wilderness said --
>>>>>You are the only one who seems to be complaining. I gave you several sincere suggestion as to how you could improve this blog<<<<<<
Listen, damn you. I don't want your goddam advice. I just want you off this blog.
After I started this blog, I stopped bothering PT, except for that one post where I corrected a glaring error in the opening article. You have your own blog, so you say. So why don't you go use it and stop bothering me?
You are the fly in the ointment here -- my no-deletions policy would be working OK if it were not for you. You are worse than a spoiled brat.
> Listen, damn you. I don't want your goddam advice. I just want you off this blog. <
Don't get excited. If you don't want my advice just ignore it. You promised that you would stop reading my posts anyway.
> After I started this blog, I stopped bothering PT <
What does that have to do with me? I have no connection with PT.
> You are the fly in the ointment here <
But others are also continuing to make you look like one of the lesser primates. Why single me out?
> my no-deletions policy would be working OK if it were not for you. <
As I have predicted. You will give up the no-deletions sooner or later and your hypocracy will be obvious to all. You have no integrity.
You are worse than a spoiled brat. You have failed in everything that you have ever done and now you want to pick out a little piece of your parallel universe and play King of the Mountain.
I thought that Rob and Kevin were doing well in shooting down your silly pronouncements but apparently I am the champion. You are very threatened by my arguments and rarely answer them directly. When you do, your replies are limited to personal attacks.
You still don't know what ad hominem is, you pathetic Bozo.
>>>After I started this blog, I stopped bothering PT, except for that one post where I corrected a glaring error in the opening article. You have your own blog, so you say. So why don't you go use it and stop bothering me?<<<
That would be a false claim. You tried to comment on PT quite a few times after starting this blog. You even admitted it at least once, when you used the Scooby-Doo excuse ("I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those rotten kids") a month or so ago. Heck, I even caught you posting with your original username late one night after I had asked you what message you had received when you first erroneously thought you were banned. Turns out that username hadn't actually been banned, eh?
W. Kevin Vicklund said 6/23/2006 10:34:26 AM
>>>>>That would be a false claim. You tried to comment on PT quite a few times after starting this blog.<<<<<<
I may have posted a few times on PT right after I started up this blog -- force of habit. But for the most part I have stayed away from PT for the last several weeks. Compare that to Voice In the Wilderness, who posts his garbage here several times a day.
As I said, I should not have pledged a no-deletions policy when I started this blog. I did not have to do that. It was an overreaction to the gross arbitrary censorship that I encountered elsewhere on the Internet.
"Herr Fuhrer Esley Welsberry" (pronounced "Velsberry")
Emperor Fafarman (pronounced "dumbshit")
Good grief! I leave you alone for a few days and you have dug a deeper hole for yourself.
I read Voice's suggestions and even though he doesn't seem to have your best interests at heart, they all look good. I am sure that he did not believe that you would follow them but you might double cross him by turning this into a legitimate blog rather than a rant session.
There is a strange dichotomy in your recent posts. Some seem to be much better thought out than your past attempts but there are still sorted in the rants of someone who is beating even more frantically on the bars of his cage. Why don't you leave out the latter and you will do much better.
I would like to announce the winning entries in the "Lunatic of the Month" contest.
3rd Runner up:
'That "credulous idiot" was me.'
Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:56:19 PM
2nd Runner up:
"My interpretations are always the only correct interpretations unless I admit that other interpretations are possible."
Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:35:04 PM
1st Runner up:
'"Scary Larry" is an old nickname that other commenters gave me on the AOL evolution message boards in recognition of my superior debating ability'
Monday, June 12, 2006 9:24:59 PM
The winner:
"You are very naive, You just don't know how the courts operate. In my lawsuits, I saw obvious collusion between the government attorneys and the courts -- and no, it was not just paranoia. Part of their strategy is to intimidate pro se litigants by making the collusion glaringly obvious....The attorney and the judge had it all planned in advance."
Friday, June 23, 2006 2:09:31 AM
The fake Dave Fafarman wrote --
>>>>>Bill said:
< I read Voice's suggestions and even though he doesn't seem to have your best interests at heart, they all look good. I am sure that he did not believe that you would follow them but you might double cross him by turning this into a legitimate blog rather than a rant session. >
Not to mention, you have the inside track at this point at blowing Voice's cover. You always did have the best opportunity, plus Bill and I have eliminated a bunch of possibilities, plus you have a lot of unused ammo.<<<<<<<
If you guys just want to yak and play games, do you have to do it here?
My first post on this blog was set up for testing comments. Why don't you do your off-topic chatting over there? The name of the post is "Test post -- this post is reserved for testing comments (URL links, html tags, etc.)"
Also, I do not need or want advice on how to run this blog. The only exception is information on how to list the most recent comments.
And I am fed up with breathtakingly inane responses like, "the answer to your comment is over your head."
Also, a wisecrack once in a while is OK. Several wisecracks a day are not OK.
I have no problem about putting up with your crap myself -- it is just that I don't want your crap to turn off visitors. I spend a lot of hours working on this blog and you think that you have the right to come here and screw it up. You people are just jealous because you don't have the brains to set up your own blogs. Grow up already.
W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 6/22/2006 07:01:15 PM ) --
>>>>>I guess I overwote the part that said "in his blog" - I edited the comment several times. Anyway, everyone there knows I hang out at your blog and that you don't post much anywhere else. I'll make sure to be more explicit next time I make mention of you on PT.<<<<<<
You hang out here? Really? Why is that? Should I feel flattered?
Anyway, the next time you refer to me on PT or Dispatches from the Culture Wars, please remember to give a link to this blog (I'm almost tempted to post on those blogs under your name, since they obviously do not delete your stuff).
>>>>> Oh, and your use of an anonymous proxy is a bit of a marker, too.<<<<<<
Wrong. They never detected an anonymous proxy.
>>>>> Although probably the statement itself was a tip-off. Since the name has already been compromised, which one did you use?<<<<<<
I already told you what name I used -- and it was not compromised just because I used it before. And my post itself had nothing offensive or controversial.
Anyway, back to the topic.
>>>>>>Hendren v. Campbell, Superior Court No. 5, Marion County, Indiana, 14. April 1977
"The ACLU, on behalf of Jon Hendren, sued the West Clark school board for solely adopting a creationist textbook. The trial court found for the plaintiff, finding the textbook to be sectarian in content and entangling the state with religion."
Seems there's an exception to your claim that no pro-evolutionist lawsuit (i.e. a lawsuit in which a proponent of evolution is the plaintiff) has ever originated outside the Bible Belt until recently.<<<<<<
Well, usually I used the term "major" or "significant" when I referred to court cases. A "Superior Court" is presumably just a local state or municipal court of first instance. I don't know why the above suit was not filed in a federal court, which is usually supposed to hear cases involving constitutional questions (also, under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, passed just a year before the above case, a winning plaintiff in an establishment clause case can be awarded attorney fees). Anyway, the 1925 Scopes trial was also held in a state or local court, even though constitutional questions were involved.
>>>>>This is what history really tells us. When a new strategy for inserting creation back into the classroom or discrediting evolution arises, people all over the US start adopting the strategy. However, when the strategy is first struck down by the courts, the less religious areas fairly quickly abandon the strategy, leaving the Bible Belt to carry the torch until all hope for that strategy has been extinguished.<<<<<<
No, that is not what history tells us. Tennessee's monkey law was not struck down in the 1925 Scopes monkey trial, and apparently there were no major monkey cases between the Scopes trial and Epperson, where the Supreme Court in 1968 struck down laws that completely prohibited the teaching of evolution in the public schools. But only two other states -- the Bible Belt core states of Arkansas and Mississippi -- passed monkey laws soon after the 1925 Scopes trial. Your claim that court rulings intimidated other states from adopting monkey laws soon after the Scopes trial does not hold water.
>>>>>In order for there to be a pro-evolution lawsuit, a parent of a child in one of the affected schools has to have the courage to come forth and file a lawsuit. In the Bible Belt, there are fewer parents that are pro-evolution, and the pressure to conform to the religious majority is substantially higher. This tends to inhibit or delay filings of lawsuits in those areas.<<<<<
And yet until the Kitzmiller v. Dover case of 2004-2005 in Pennsylvania, all of the major pro-evolution cases originated in the Bible Belt. But the reason for that is that the Bible Belt was where all or most of the anti-evolution governmental laws and policies were -- it was like the reason why robbers rob banks. But today, those laws and policies are no longer mainly a Bible Belt phenomenon. This stuff is going on all over the country -- Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas (sort of Bible beltish), California -- you name it. And I think that the reason why monkey laws and policies are spreading outside the Bible Belt is that anti-Darwinism is no longer just for bible-thumping fundies -- intelligent design and other criticisms of Darwinism have much greater intellectual appeal than biblical creationism.
I am assuming that ViW will do his usual weekend disappearing act so I will fill in here.
> The fake Dave Fafarman wrote ---<
I haven't seen a post by the fake Dave Fafarman for many days, perhaps a week. It seems you have stopped making them.
> Also, I do not need or want advice on how to run this blog. <
You may not want it but you sure need it.
> The only exception is information on how to list the most recent comments. <
Rob has already given you this. Do you need help in finding it?
> I have no problem about putting up with your crap myself -- it is just that I don't want your crap to turn off visitors. <
You are repeating this almost verbatum from an earlier post. If any visitors are turned off, it is your crap that is doing it. Many are attracted to the give and take that occurs on this board. You would like one with no dissenting opinions like you falsely claim exists on PT.
Larry(?)'s answer to Kevin.
> You hang out here? Really? Why is that? Should I feel flattered? <
Are you flattered that ViW and I hang out here?
> I'm almost tempted to post on those blogs under your name, since they obviously do not delete your stuff. <
If you were to post with Kevin's name it would be immediately detected.
> Wrong. They never detected an anonymous proxy. <
Where did you get this misconception?
> And my post itself had nothing offensive or controversial. <
You seem to be a bad judge of these things.
Anyway, back to the topic.
> A "Superior Court" is presumably just a local state or municipal court of first instance. <
A "Superior Court" is not the same as a municipal court, as anyone who knew the slightest about law would know.
Let's get to another issue (I expect you to run away from this one.) Are you trying to say that there could be Intelligent Design without a designer? This seems to be your position to avoid embarrassing problems.
Bombast in the Bushes said ( 6/23/2006 06:57:06 PM ) --
<<<<<<> A "Superior Court" is presumably just a local state or municipal court of first instance. <
A "Superior Court" is not the same as a municipal court, as anyone who knew the slightest about law would know.<<<<<<
You stupid, fatheaded, birdbrained ignoramus, you mean you did not know that the Los Angeles superior and municipal courts merged several years ago? You no-good stupid moron.
Do you think that you know the status of every "superior" court in America? Did you know that in San Francisco, the city and county governments are one and the same?
I should have added "county" to the above list, but it was an oversight. Basically, I meant that a superior court was either a state court or a local court, as distinguished from a federal court.
You are just jealous of my superior knowledge of the law, that's all.
>>>>>>Let's get to another issue (I expect you to run away from this one.) Are you trying to say that there could be Intelligent Design without a designer? <<<<<<<
If you want me to answer your questions, you better be a more polite in your comments.
> you mean you did not know that the Los Angeles superior and municipal courts merged several years ago? <
In Homewood, Ca, the Police and Fire departments are the same. That does not make their functions the same.
> Did you know that in San Francisco, the city and county governments are one and the same? <
Yes. I learned that in the first grade. If you had advanced to the second grade you would not find this so notable.
> Basically, I meant that a superior court was either a state court or a local court, as distinguished from a federal court. <
If that was your intention, you stated it very poorly.
> You are just jealous of my superior knowledge of the law, that's all. <
Would I be jealous of your home if I lived in a mansion and you lived in a straw hut? You have know knowledge of the law. Kevin and Rob know a lot about the law. Maybe you could learn from them if you weren't so delusional.
>>>>>>Let's get to another issue (I expect you to run away from this one.) Are you trying to say that there could be Intelligent Design without a designer? <<<<<<<
> If you want me to answer your questions, you better be a more polite in your comments. <
I predicted that you would run away from that question. I was right.
ViU,
I am still here. You can take over tomorrow.
Larry(?)said ...
> You are just jealous of my superior knowledge of the law, that's all. <
It is too late. All winning entries for the Lunatic of the Month contest are already in. You swept the field so there is no purpose for further contributions at this time.
Save your next efforts for the July contest which will begin soon.
> My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer. <
Why not? So far it has always shown an inability to answer.
>>>>>>Let's get to another issue (I expect you to run away from this one.) Are you trying to say that there could be Intelligent Design without a designer? <<<<<<<
< If you want me to answer your questions, you better be a more polite in your comments. >
I also would like to hear your answer to this question, please.
Thanks Larry for giving me the credit for renaming Wesley Elsberry as Der Fuhrer Herr Doktor Professor Esley Welsberry. Don't overlook some of my other transformations, notably Dilliam Wembski, Spravid Dinger, Jillip Phonson, Dichard Rawkins, Richael Muse, Mernst Ayr, Gephen J. Stould, M.P. Zeyers, Pott L. Scage and Wonathan Jells just to mention a few, not a published scientist in the lot!
I love it so!
Post a Comment
<< Home