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.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Establishment clause requires balance in evolution education

I assert that the religious implications of Darwinism have become so strong that teaching it dogmatically in public schools, without balancing or tempering it with criticisms or at least evolution disclaimer statements, is a violation of the Constitution's establishment clause. Examples of these religious implications are contained in the National Center for Science Education's "Faith Project," the "Clergy Letter Project," and several books on the subject. The Darwinists are of course going to hocus-pocus that Darwinism really does not have religious implications or that it ought not to have religious implications, but what Darwinists think or pretend to think does not change reality. Unfortunately, in the last three major monkey trials, Kitzmiller v. Dover, Selman v. Cobb County, and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, the courts ruled against mere evolution-disclaimer statements, though Freiler and Selman came close to be overturned on appeal and Kitzmiller was not appealed so it is unknown how Kitzmiller would have fared in appellate courts.

Section V(C) of the opinion of McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (Eastern Dlst. Ark. 1982), says,
.
The defendants argue in their brief that evolution is, in effect, a religion, and that by teaching a religion which is contrary to some students' religious views, the State is infringing upon the student's free exercise rights under the First Amendment . . . . .

. . . . The defendants argue that the teaching of evolution alone presents both a free exercise problem and an establishment problem which can only be redressed by giving balanced treatment to creation science, which is admittedly consistent with some religious beliefs. . . .

. . . . If creation science is, in fact, science and not religion, as the defendants claim, it is difficult to see how the teaching of such a science could "neutralize" the religious nature of evolution.

Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it.

Judge Overton is wrong here -- even if the courts rule that evolution is a kind of religion or has strong religious implications, the establishment clause can still be satisfied by continuing to teach evolution but requiring that it be balanced or tempered by teaching criticisms or by making evolution-disclaimer statements. Unfortunately, for some time now there have been no active cases that could be used for testing different legal theories about evolution education -- Kitzmiller ended when the decision was released in Dec. 1995 and Selman ended when the school board took a dive by settling out of court in Dec. 1996, and the last US Supreme Court decision on the issue, Edwards v. Aguillard, was in 1987. The supercilious Darwinists, who think that they are the world's biggest experts about law as well as the world's biggest experts about science, think that the Kitzmiller decision is airtight, but they have been wrong about the law before -- for example, they thought that Yoko Ono's "Imagine" copyright infringement suit against the "Expelled" producers and Chris Comer's wrongful termination suit against the Texas Education Agency were strong cases, but both suits were thrown out by the courts and were so weak that they were not appealed.

More discussion about the constitutionality of teaching Darwinism in the public schools is here.
.

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you don't understand the establishment clause. Why should we be surprised? You seem to have a problem with legal concepts. Perhaps that is why you have always lost in court.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 2:55:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> So you don't understand the establishment clause. Why should we be surprised? You seem to have a problem with legal concepts. Perhaps that is why you have always lost in court. <<<<<<

It is not a matter of "understanding" the establishment clause, bozo, it is a matter of interpreting the establishment clause.

So your interpretation of the establishment clause is that if the courts determine that evolution has religious implications, then the courts should completely ban evolution from classrooms instead of requiring balanced teaching of evolution if evolution is taught. That is a pretty bad interpretation of the establishment clause. In Lynch v. Donnelly, the Supreme Court ruled that the government is only required to show neutrality towards religion and is not required to have complete "separation of church and state."

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> So your interpretation of the establishment clause is ... <

Where did you get that? Perhaps from the voices in your head? I gave no interpretation.

The teaching of evolution in classrooms is currently balanced. There is nothing that blocks scientific criticisms. ID, of course, is not scientific.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:13:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> I gave no interpretation. <<<<<

Duh. When did you figure that out, bozo? Your original comment contains nothing but scoffing and so according to my commenting rules should not have been published in the first place.

>>>>> The teaching of evolution in classrooms is currently balanced. <<<<<<

Balanced with what, doofus?

>>>>>> There is nothing that blocks scientific criticisms. <<<<<<

Wrong. The conclusion section of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion says, inter alia, "we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants . . . . from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution . . ." There is nothing there about whether the criticisms of evolution are scientific or not.

>>>>> ID, of course, is not scientific. <<<<<<<

I didn't say anything about ID, bozo. There are lots of other criticisms of ID. And what about evolution disclaimers? Those are not allowed either.

Furthermore, it does not matter whether the criticisms of evolution are scientific or not, because there is no constitutional principle of separation of bad science and state.

Anonymous, your comments here are not needed or wanted. We already know what you think and you contribute nothing to the discussions. You just clutter up this blog with garbage. Contrary to what you want to believe, you do not favorably impress people -- you only worsen the image of people who think the same way you do.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Theobald said...

Larry posted:

> So your interpretation of the establishment clause is ... <

To which Anonymous rightly observed:

>>>>> I gave no interpretation. <<<<<

To which Larry barfed:

> Duh. When did you figure that out, bozo? <

What is your point? You first try to put words in Anonymous' mouth then you have a problem when he pointed out that he did not make that, or any, interpretation.

> Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion says, inter alia, "we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants . . . . from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution . . ." There is nothing there about whether the criticisms of evolution are scientific or not. <

Nor would it matter. Prohibition is against requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage evolution. It does not say anything about whether the teachers can present scientific criticisms of evolution. In fact, the defendants only wanted to force the teaching of unscientific criticisms of evolution.

> there is no constitutional principle of separation of bad science and state. <

Try to get this through your head and perhaps you may finally understand. We are not talking about prohibiting bad science. Those who want to teach the theory that the world sits on the back of four elephants who in turn stand on the back of a giant tortoise are free to do so in a history or mythology class. There is little enough time for science in a science class. It should not have to compete with bullshit.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 2:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> Contrary to what you want to believe, you do not favorably impress people -- you only worsen the image of people who think the same way you do. <

You really believe that the creationists approve of your rantings? They know that supporters like you are much worse than opponents. Did you ever figure out why those on the same side of your "smog fee" case were trying to get rid of you? You were as welcome as a bull in a China shop.

It appears that you haven't run out of beer yet. I would hate to think that you put out this sort of crap while you are sober.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 2:54:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Theobald moaned,
>>>>>> What is your point? <<<<<

My point is that anon's comment should not have been published in the first place because it contains nothing but scoffing.

>>>>> It does not say anything about whether the teachers can present scientific criticisms of evolution. <<<<<<

You stupid idiot, the ruling against "denigrating" or "disparaging" evolution makes no exceptions for scientific criticisms.

>>>>> Try to get this through your head and perhaps you may finally understand. <<<<<<

Your head is too thick and dense to get anything through.

>>>>>> We are not talking about prohibiting bad science. <<<<<<<

You stupid fathead, Judge Jones said that he ruled against ID because he thought it was bad science. The whole idea of hearing several weeks of expert scientific testimony was to determine whether ID was good science.

>>>>>> There is little enough time for science in a science class. <<<<<<<

Bozo, the Dover ID statement took up only about one minute of class time, and the Of Pandas and People book was not required reading.

I am fed up about this blog being cluttered up by stupid commenters who don't even have their facts straight.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:33:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anon driveled,
>>>>> You really believe that the creationists approve of your rantings? <<<<<<<

Some do, some don't. Some creationists are opposed to any scientific (or pseudoscientific) criticism of evolution theory because they think that such criticism is blasphemous because it implies that god's word needs or could benefit from scientific support -- Harun Yahya (Adrian Oktar) is an example of this kind of creationist.


>>>>>> Did you ever figure out why those on the same side of your "smog fee" case were trying to get rid of you? <<<<<<<

Why do you think they were trying to "get rid" of me? And how could they "get rid" of me? You are so full of living crap it is coming out your ears, you lousy dunghill.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Mike said...

I am stunned at the rancor you direct at you commentors, Mr, Fafarman. It is not very polite or conducive to discussion.

In any case, I do have a question. If you advocate evolution disclaimers (I infer that you do, but I could be wrong and apologize if I am), on what grounds do you do so?

Wednesday, July 08, 2009 12:54:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Mike said,
>>>>>> I am stunned at the rancor you direct at you commentors, Mr, Fafarman. <<<<<<<

Some of these commenters deliberately provoked me. Do you prefer the responses used by so many other bloggers -- censorship of comments and banning of commenters?

>>>>>> If you advocate evolution disclaimers (I infer that you do, but I could be wrong and apologize if I am), on what grounds do you do so? <<<<<<<

I thought I made that clear in my original post -- the religious implications of evolution theory are so strong that teaching it in public schools without balancing or tempering it is unconstitutional.

Also, though Selman v. Cobb County ruled against the evolution disclaimer stickers, the Selman opinion said,

Therefore, after considering the additional arguments and evidence presented by the parties and evaluating the evidence in light of the applicable law, the Court remains convinced that the Sticker at issue serves at last two secular purposes. First, the Sticker fosters critical thinking by encouraging students to learn about evolution and to make their own assessment regarding its merit. Second, by presenting evolution in a manner that is not unnecessarily hostile, the sticker reduces offense to students and parents whose beliefs may conflict with the teaching of evolution. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the Sticker satisfies the first prong of the Lemon analysis.

As I noted, Selman v. Cobb County and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish both came close to being overturned on appeal. Selman was vacated and remanded because of missing evidence and the school board then took a dive by settling out of court. Also, Kitzmiller v. Dover is badly tainted because Judge Jones probably showed a lack of restraint because he knew that an appeal was unlikely because of the changeover in the school board membership.

Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:11:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home