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, January 01, 2008

An establishment clause lawsuit against dogmatic teaching of Darwinism?

It's possible. As has often been said, often the best defense is an offense. Instead of just waiting like sitting ducks to be attacked by the Darwinists, the Darwin Doubters should do the attacking. I know of two cases where suit was initiated by Darwin Doubters instead of Darwinists -- Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F. 2d 1004 (1990) and Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F. 3rd 517 (1994).

In a letter addressed to the Florida Board of Science Education (should be "Florida Board of Education" -- there is no separate board of education for science), attorney David C. Gibbs III wrote (pages 4-5 of letter, pages 5-6 of pdf file),

The final category of the Proposed Science Standards that we suggest should be reconsidered is the opening paragraph in the Grades 9-12 Standards entitled

Evolution and Diversity: A. Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence. B. Organisms are classified based on their evolutionary history. C. Natural selection is the primary mechanism leading to evolutionary change.


. . . . . Making evolution the fundamental concept by which all life-science is interpreted or understood limits the scope of scientific inquiry and demands that all biological inquiry be predicated on the evolutionary hypothesis. Making this gigantic jump moves the evolutionary hypothesis from the realm of science into a philosophical faith-based belief system. It has fallen into the same trap of which science has accused religion. It posits its entire interpretive rationale on something which is unobservable and untested. In fact, it could easily be argued that the science curriculum has now moved away from objective and neutral inquiry and has moved into the realm of promoting one particular religious (or more specifically, non religious) viewpoint or belief system. Since the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not permit public schools to inculcate students with any particular belief system or religion (or non religion), if this standard is employed in Florida schools, as is now being proposed, it could face legal challenges for violating the separation of church and state . . .

. . . we want to emphasize that we are not objecting to the study of evolution in these grade levels. We are merely pointing out that the study of science in public schools must be a study of hypotheses, theories and evidence, and possible limitations and alternatives. We cannot morph science education into a form of unconstitutional religious (or non religious) indoctrination.


Darwinists are fond of likening criticisms of Darwinism to the flat-earth theory and denial of gravity. But gravity and the sphericity of the earth are not in question because they have actually been observed. Darwinism, on the other hand, is based on events the likes of which have never been observed. So Darwinism is just a "faith-based belief system" -- as attorney Gibbs called it -- and as such should not be taught dogmatically in the public schools.

The Darwinists are not satisfied with the status quo on state evolution education science standards but are trying to make those standards more pro-Darwinist. For example, the Fordham Institute (no connection to Fordham U.) report on state science standards gives F grades to the evolution education standards of states that do not teach Darwinism dogmatically -- and in the case of Ohio, threatened to drop that state's overall science grade from a B to an F just because the Ohio evolution lesson plan included the weaknesses of Darwinism. Paul R. Gross, the lead author of the Fordham Institute report, is also a co-author -- with Barbara Forrest -- of "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design."
.

7 Comments:

Anonymous A Santa Clause Lawsuit said...

"Ding" Fafarman still obsessed with "Darwinism" ...

Tuesday, January 01, 2008 9:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry wrote: >>Darwinists are fond of likening criticisms of Darwinism to the flat-earth theory and denial of gravity. But gravity and the sphericity of the earth are not in question because they have actually been observed. Darwinism, on the other hand, is based on events the likes of which have never been observed.

Actually, evolution has been observed -- as has been pointed out on the blogs where Larry has been banned.

Also, if I remember correctly the theory of gravitation is actually quite shaky in its current formulation and as somewhat problematic -- not because it hasn't been observed (as Larry amazingly accepts, it is) but because the theory fails to account for something (proper formation of solar systems, galaxies, ?? anyone? Bueller?).

Manuel

Tuesday, January 01, 2008 10:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know what HASN'T been observed???

Your fairytale creationism/ intelligent design bullshit!

Has anyone actually SEEN creationism, or the so-called mysterious intelligent designer (Face it, the fundies imply that it is God) of ID in action?

Funny(or stupid) choice of words you have there, Larry...

I suppose you'd want to attack the definition of "observe" next...

Wednesday, January 02, 2008 9:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>>>For example, the Fordham Institute (no connection to Fordham U.) report on state science standards gives F grades to the evolution education standards of states that do not teach Darwinism dogmatically
<<<<<

Again with the "dogmatically." I don't think the fundies have an inkling as to what is and is not dogmatic, but they sure do like to throw the term around. In the more than likely case that Larry reading skills glossed over the actual text of the Fordham report (assuming he actually tried to read it), the science standards were given an "F" due to the inclusion of creationism as a "valid scientific criticism" of evolution.

Problem is, there is nothing validly scientific about criticizing a scientific theory using scriptures from the bible that are only taken at word-for-word face value by zealots and the willfully ignorant. There's no science behind declaring a theory to be wrong because some religious texts say so. Now, if there was a new ground-breaking theory that contradicts evolution, and was formulated through reproducible, previously unavailable experimental techniques, the Fordham report authors have stated that they would not have a problem with it. In fact, the authors of the report outlined very clearly what is and is not valid scientific criticism quite clearly, even with examples on theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics.

Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Alt-Anonymous said...

Larry has made it pretty clear that there are no observations that could possibly satisfy him, even going so far recently as to suggest we take evidence and, quote, "shove it", unquote. (The True Spirit of Scientific Inquiry!)

< the Fordham report authors have stated >

Do you have a link?

Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure thing. I can't find the original on the Fordham Institute site, but it was linked and quoted on

http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/

or alternatively, Larry previously commented about it at,

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/12/fordham-reports-lead-author-is-co.html

I bet Larry will (again) throw a fit because it was written by Paul Goss and the conflict of interest BS

Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Alt-Anonymous said...

Thanks.

< Here is one that shocked me out of my wits >

Hmm. Not difficult, evidently.

Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:30:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home