I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Darwinism Doubters are not asking for the moon

Albert Alschuler, a law professor emeritus at Northwestern University Law School, wrote of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case,

The court offers convincing evidence that some members the Dover school board would have been delighted to promote their old time religion in the classroom. These board members apparently accepted intelligent design as a compromise, the nearest they could come to their objective within the law. Does that make any mention of intelligent design unconstitutional? It seems odd to characterize the desire to go far as the law allows as an unlawful motive. People who try to stay within the law although they would prefer something else are good citizens. The Dover opinion appears to say that the forbidden preference taints whatever the board may do, and if the public can discern the board’s improper desire, any action it takes also has an unconstitutional effect. If board members would like to teach Genesis as the literal truth, the board may not direct teachers even to mention the anamolies in the theory of natural selection that the court itself recognizes. The court seems to declare, "Because we find that you would like something you can't have, we hold that you can't have anything."

Well said. And Jones shafted those who doubt Darwinism because of nonreligious reasons as well as those who doubt Darwinism because of religious reasons.

While only Darwinism is actually taught in public-school science classes, the courts have refused to begrudge a single crumb to those who question Darwinism. The courts have rejected evolution disclaimer statements in the Kitzmiller v. Dover, Selman v. Cobb County, and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish cases (though the Selman ruling looks like it may be reversed).

Also, attorney Larry Sisson wrote a good analysis of evolution-disclaimer cases.

Labels: ,

4 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

Larry(?) provides the usual repetition of something false in hopes that in doing so enough times will make it true.

1. Renaming creationism does not make it scientific. ID is creationism.

2. Substituting a smaller lie for a bigger one is not a compromise.

3. Nobody is trying to censor creationists. Their ideas can be covered in classes on mythology where they properly belong.

4. There may be alternative scientific theories to evolution. Whether or not they would be allowed is a moot point. Nobody involved in this controversy seems to have found any. This blog has been going for many months and not a single scientific alternative to evolution has been presented. Perhaps Larry(?) has one but he is too busy to post it?

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:48:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW said,
>>>>>Nobody is trying to censor creationists. Their ideas can be covered in classes on mythology where they properly belong. <<<<<

-- along with Darwinism.

>>>>> There may be alternative scientific theories to evolution. Whether or not they would be allowed is a moot point. <<<<<<

You've got it backwards. If alternative scientific theories to evolution are not allowed, then whether or not they exist is a moot point.

>>>>> This blog has been going for many months and not a single scientific alternative to evolution has been presented. <<<<<<

What I have presented here are criticisms of evolution and not alternatives to evolution.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> along with Darwinism <

Evolution may not be without criticism but it is a scientific theory, not mythology. So far the only alternatives presented are mythology.

> You've got it backwards. If alternative scientific theories to evolution are not allowed, then whether or not they exist is a moot point. <

I just wanted to repeat this as proof that you don't read posts before attempting to respond to them.

> What I have presented here are criticisms of evolution and not alternatives to evolution. <

Since you know of no scientific alternatives.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:40:00 AM  
Blogger JanieBelle said...

"Darwinism Doubters are not asking for the moon"

"Darwinists" are not asking for the moon, Larry.

It's not too much to ask for ID to do science in order to be considered scientific, is it?

"nuh-uh" hardly qualifies as science, yet that's exactly what ID boils down to.

"nuh-uh, God dun it."

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:20:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home