Did Congress require Darwin-bashing in the public schools?
As I previously reported, the House-Senate conference report accompanying the No Child Left Behind Act says,
I previously assumed that the above report does not have the effect of requiring the withholding of federal funds from states and school districts that do not teach criticisms of Darwinism, but I am now having second thoughts. A court ruling that this conference report has such an effect would be a far less generous application of that report than the Supreme Court's application of a Senate report in Blum v. Stenson! In Blum v. Stenson, that Senate report was the sole basis of the Supreme Court's ruling that plaintiffs' attorney fee awards in civil rights cases should not be reduced on the grounds that the legal representation is from a non-profit organization (and the ruling probably also applies to legal representation that is initially pro bono). But that ruling in Blum was not even based on anything that the Senate report itself expressly said but was based only on what was said in court cases cited by the report! (see Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 892-895; the green numbers are the page numbers) LOL. That Senate report only expressly stated that the fee award should not be reduced on the grounds that a suit is non-pecuniary. In contrast to the Supreme Court's non-literal interpretation of the Senate report in Blum, the House-Senate conference report quotation above explicitly states that scientific criticisms of evolution should be taught in the public schools. Of course, it is now going to be argued that there are no scientific criticisms of evolution, but the report says that the schools have to find them. The two-faced Darwinists want it both ways -- they are of course happy with the very generous application of the Senate report in Blum because it increases their rip-offs of school boards in monkey trials, but they want non-application of the House-Senate conference report of the NCLBA.
I don't think I am being immodest when I say that I am a great unrecognized legal genius. My legal genius was also evident in my lawsuits against California's "smog impact fee," where I alone found solid grounds for suing in federal courts despite general rules against state-tax suits in federal courts. And I have not had a single day of formal legal training -- I am a self-taught legal genius. Judges, attorneys and other legal "experts" (e.g., Fatheaded Ed Brayton) are just jealous of me.
Maybe if I didn't get so much ridicule of my legal analyses, I would not be tooting my own horn.
.
The conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.
I previously assumed that the above report does not have the effect of requiring the withholding of federal funds from states and school districts that do not teach criticisms of Darwinism, but I am now having second thoughts. A court ruling that this conference report has such an effect would be a far less generous application of that report than the Supreme Court's application of a Senate report in Blum v. Stenson! In Blum v. Stenson, that Senate report was the sole basis of the Supreme Court's ruling that plaintiffs' attorney fee awards in civil rights cases should not be reduced on the grounds that the legal representation is from a non-profit organization (and the ruling probably also applies to legal representation that is initially pro bono). But that ruling in Blum was not even based on anything that the Senate report itself expressly said but was based only on what was said in court cases cited by the report! (see Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 892-895; the green numbers are the page numbers) LOL. That Senate report only expressly stated that the fee award should not be reduced on the grounds that a suit is non-pecuniary. In contrast to the Supreme Court's non-literal interpretation of the Senate report in Blum, the House-Senate conference report quotation above explicitly states that scientific criticisms of evolution should be taught in the public schools. Of course, it is now going to be argued that there are no scientific criticisms of evolution, but the report says that the schools have to find them. The two-faced Darwinists want it both ways -- they are of course happy with the very generous application of the Senate report in Blum because it increases their rip-offs of school boards in monkey trials, but they want non-application of the House-Senate conference report of the NCLBA.
I don't think I am being immodest when I say that I am a great unrecognized legal genius. My legal genius was also evident in my lawsuits against California's "smog impact fee," where I alone found solid grounds for suing in federal courts despite general rules against state-tax suits in federal courts. And I have not had a single day of formal legal training -- I am a self-taught legal genius. Judges, attorneys and other legal "experts" (e.g., Fatheaded Ed Brayton) are just jealous of me.
Maybe if I didn't get so much ridicule of my legal analyses, I would not be tooting my own horn.
.
Labels: Cheri Yecke #1, Establishment clause
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/10/2007 06:28:00 PM
4 Comments:
> I don't think I am being immodest when I say that I am a great unrecognized legal genius. <
You are not being immodest in the least. You are being insane.
> My legal genius was also evident in my lawsuits against California's "smog impact fee," where I alone ... <
...Lost every case you filed (an unmatched record).
> And I have not had a single day of formal legal training <
That is obvious. No one could doubt it.
> I am a self-taught legal genius. <
Let's bring back the "Lunatic of the Month" award. This one will win hands down!
> Judges, attorneys and other legal "experts" (e.g., Fatheaded Ed Brayton) are just jealous of me. <
Why would they be jealous of a good source of comedy to lighten up their day?
There may have been a few deluded souls who thought that you were not clinically insane. You have cured them of that.
Omigosh. Is this site satire? The blogger needs to write for The Onion, Landover Baptist or The Daily Show.
"I'm from Missouri. You'll have to show me the insanity."
Do the people that we generally identify as geniuses (Einstein, Hawking, etc.) tend to identify themselves as such?
The "I'm a genius and you're just jealous." argument seems more associated with the attitudes of the cranks of the world.
Of course, it is now going to be argued that there are no scientific criticisms of evolution, but the report says that the schools have to find them.
Um, no. I do appreciate that you're a legal genius, but I think that your frothing hatred for all things Darwin might be skewing your interpretation of the law.
Let's try moving this into another field. Think about, say, racism. Some people believe that humans can be divided into "races", and that some races can be scientifically proven to be inferior to others. They're obviously wrong, but there are enough of them that the issue counts as a legitimate controversy.
But that doesn't mean that the schools have to waste time teaching bogus racist arguments. And it certainly doesn't mean they have to somehow come up with valid racist arguments, given that no such arguments exist. (Unless you think that the purpose of the law was to create paradoxical goals, in order to cut off federal funding entirely!)
Post a Comment
<< Home