Kitzmiller vs. Dover, PA

[jcrawford]

An intelligently designed legal attack is exposing the soft underbelly of neo-Darwinist facism in public education.

Fascinating details emerging from the court transcripts of the historic Evo/ID legal battle in PA.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/k ... dover.html

[AmerSdlbrd]

Whether neo-Darwinists on the Dover School Board

I'm pretty sure it wasn't the "neo-Darwinists on the Dover School Board" who wanted the new curriculum taught. It is parents who are upset over junk science and religion that the school board is proposing be taught who are the plaintiffs. If you want to discuss Intelligent Design Creationism in a philosophy, religious studies, or comparative mythology class, that is fine. If you want to offer The Bible as Literature as an elective course at your public high school, thats fine too. If you discuss intelligent design creationism in the context of other sciences similar to it (such as phrenology and astrology) that is a good forum for it as well.

Are the neo-darwinists facist? Not when compared to the most Christian nation on the face of the planet, South Africa. Not when compared to those churches that have youth pastors following the kids around and showing up all over to see what they're doing. Those guys come across as peeping toms or pedophiles to me, a far cry from a positive influence and a lot closer to facism than teaching science (thats science, not religion) in science classes.

Science isn't something that everyone gets together and has a vote on. If we have an animal and we want to determine the sex of that animal, if we all vote female or all vote male it doesn't matter, and it doesn't change the sex of the animal. Science is done by submitting your research to peer-reviewed scientific journals. It formulates testable scientific theories that can be repeated. The Theory of Evolution has passed these tests, The umm.."theory" of intelligent design creationism, seeks every way in which it can circumvent these tests. When someone's research isn't up to par, or just isn't science at all science takes notice, many many scientists take notice. For anyone that isn't familiar with the DI list of scientists who reject or question "darwinism" found here: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/P ... istsAd.pdf
Most of these scientists are in fields that have nothing to do with evolutionary biology and obtained their Ph.D in a field non-related to the evolutionary sciences.

In response to this the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) Has created Project Steve. It is a list of scientists who reject intelligent design and creationism as pseudoscience. It can be found here, and it is already larger and growing exponentially faster than any list of scientists who reject "darwinism" and it only consists of scientists with the name Steve, Stephanie, Stefan, or some other form of Stephen. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articl ... 6_2003.asp

Is a paradigm shift anywhere in sight? I think not. Is it possible? Anythings possible. A step in the right direction would be if any of the Intelligent Design Creationism proponents did any science, whatsoever.

[jcrawford]

Whether neo-Darwinists on the Dover School Board

I'm pretty sure it wasn't the "neo-Darwinists on the Dover School Board" who wanted the new curriculum taught.

How sure is "pretty sure?"

It is parents who are upset over junk science and religion that the school board is proposing be taught who are the plaintiffs.

How would the parents know that the school board is proposing to teach junk science and religion, if the neo-Darwinist facists on the board didn't tell them? What makes the parents assume that neo-Darwinism isn't a form of junk science and religion?

If you want to discuss religion in a philosophy or comparative mythology class, that is fine. If you want to offer The Bible as Literature as an elective course at your public high school, thats fine too. If you discuss intelligent design creationism in the context of other sciences similar to it (such as phrenology and astrology) that is a good forum for it as well.

Scientific imperialism and facistic theories of state education seem to have trickeled down to the man on the street these days.

Not when compared to the most Christian nation on the face of the planet, South Africa.

And I thought the US of America was the most Christian nation on the face of the planet. I hope they don't teach Darwinist racism to all school children in South Africa these days the way they are forced to do in US public schools.

[AmerSdlbrd]

How sure is "pretty sure?"

It means I am sure. The school board voted the "science" standards into the curriculum. One of the plaintiffs was a former member of the school board. But NO sitting members are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, only fact witnesses. I have been following this case closely, and it had been anxiously awaited for in scientific circles.

How would the parents know that the school board is proposing to teach junk science and religion, if the neo-Darwinist facists on the board didn't tell them? What makes the parents assume that neo-Darwinism isn't a form of junk science and religion?

It is empirically proven. IDC has lost every time it has gone to the court systems to prove that it is science and not religion. I don't think you understand how our government works, jcrawford. We all belong to a club (The United States) to be members of that club, we all pay dues (taxes). That club has a rulebook (The US Constitution) and that rulebook says that we steer clear of religion. As long as we pay taxes, no religion in public school. If Intelligent Design is no more than Creationism in a cheap suit, it is illegal to teach in the public education system. That is the only point the plaintiffs must prove. If Intelligent Design is no more than religious apologetics, then it is illegal to teach in public schools. Creationism and Creation Science have been ruled to be religion not science (see the rulings in 1982 and 1987) and are therefore unconstitutional to teach in the United States of America.

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote over and over:

How would the parents know that the school board is proposing to teach junk science and religion, if the neo-Darwinist facists on the board didn't tell them? What makes the parents assume that neo-Darwinism isn't a form of junk science and religion?

And I thought the US of America was the most Christian nation on the face of the planet. I hope they don't teach Darwinist racism to all school children in South Africa these days the way they are forced to do in US public schools.

I sure hope he doesn't favor neo-Darwinist facism in public schools.

(I add bold italics)
This was an unsupported charge of yours. Every time you say that you are calling any one who belives in evolution Christian or not a racist and a fascist. This would be like me just calling every person who is a bible believer an idiot. I may think it but they does not make it true. It maybe true of some but not all. Your accusation is unsubtantiated in any manner.
I think ID should be taught in Philosophy or History classes or even both but not science.

[AmerSdlbrd]

And I thought the US of America was the most Christian nation on the face of the planet. I hope they don't teach Darwinist racism to all school children in South Africa these days the way they are forced to do in US public schools.

The US Department of State's report on South Africa: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/23753.htm

According to the latest available figures on religious demography from the 1996 census, approximately 84 percent of the population belong to the Christian faith

You thought wrong, this is from wikipedia's Demographics of the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... ted_States

Total Christian 1990: 88.3% 2001 79.8%

If the US had a consistent rate of decline in the belief of Christianity, (88.3%-79.8%=8.5%) (8.5%/11 years=.72727272) 1991=87.58 1992=86.86 1993=86.14 1994=85.42 1995=84.7 1996=83.98 And I only used a negative figure of -.72% per year, it would be even lower if I had used .7272. Any more "facts" you wish to assert?

[jcrawford]

How would the parents know that the school board is proposing to teach junk science and religion, if the neo-Darwinist facists on the board didn't tell them? What makes the parents assume that neo-Darwinism isn't a form of junk science and religion?

It is empirically proven.

Where's the empirical evidence?

I don't think you understand how our government works, jcrawford. We all belong to a club (The United States) to be members of that club, we all pay dues (taxes). That club has a rulebook (The US Constitution) and that rulebook says that we steer clear of religion.

Why don't neo-Darwinsts abide by their own interpretation of their "rulebook" then, and steer clear of religion, since the more they talk about religion, the more religious they appear.

As long as we pay taxes, no religion in public school.

What about schoolchildren who don't pay taxes? Do they have to follow the scientific interpretations of the facist rulebook also? How do neo-Darwinist facists in government education prove that neo-Darwinism is anything other than a scientific form of philosophy, religion or popular mythology? Invent a new species?

If Intelligent Design is no more than Creationism in a cheap suit, it is illegal to teach in the public education system. That is the only point the plaintiffs must prove.

What if ID scientists can prove that evolutionist theories are intelligently designed and evolutionists can't?

If Intelligent Design is no more than religious apologetics, then it is illegal to teach in public schools.

Good point. Notice how ID scientists on public school boards and in public office are being subjected to neo-Darwinist religious tests?

Creationism and Creation Science have been ruled to be religion not science (see the rulings in 1982 and 1987) and are therefore unconstitutional to teach in the United States of America.

Good thing too. Now all we have to do is get facist neo-Darwinist racial theories banned from public ed also, and we can all go about our public business happily ever after.

[jcrawford]

jcrawford wrote over and over:

How would the parents know that the school board is proposing to teach junk science and religion, if the neo-Darwinist facists on the board didn't tell them? What makes the parents assume that neo-Darwinism isn't a form of junk science and religion?

And I thought the US of America was the most Christian nation on the face of the planet. I hope they don't teach Darwinist racism to all school children in South Africa these days the way they are forced to do in US public schools.

I sure hope he doesn't favor neo-Darwinist facism in public schools.

(I add bold italics)
This was an unsupported charge of yours. Every time you say that you are calling any one who belives in evolution Christian or not a racist and a fascist.

While your conclusion may be logically implied or inferred, Lubenowist legal strategy is limited to charging leading exponents of neo-Darwinist theories and pro-neo-Darwinst public educrats along with their political henchmen, with teaching racial theories of human origins and imposing facist ideologies on the American public.

This would be like me just calling every person who is a bible believer an idiot. I may think it but they does not make it true. It maybe true of some but not all. Your accusation is unsubtantiated in any manner.

You just substantiated it to the degree that it may be true of some. That's why I limit my Lubenowist charges of racism and facism to only those political neo-Darwinists in public education or other public offices.

I think ID should be taught in Philosophy or History classes or even both but not science.

That's what leading neo-Darwinist educational theorists and other professional scientific facists wish to impose on the Amercan public, despite their opposition to academic censorship and the denial of free speech in state education.

[jcrawford]

If the US had a consistent rate of decline in the belief of Christianity, (88.3%-79.8%=8.5%) (8.5%/11 years=.72727272) 1991=87.58 1992=86.86 1993=86.14 1994=85.42 1995=84.7 1996=83.98 And I only used a negative figure of -.72% per year, it would be even lower if I had used .7272. Any more "facts" you wish to assert?

My, but religious observances are becoming so scientific these days.

[AmerSdlbrd]

Where's the empirical evidence?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Why don't neo-Darwinsts abide by their own interpretation of their "rulebook" then, and steer clear of religion, since the more they talk about religion, the more religious they appear.

Thats what they're trying to do. Its the Christian fundies who want a theocracy like South Africas.

What about schoolchildren who don't pay taxes?

There are such places where you can scientifically handicap your children such as homeschooling and private school.

Do they have to follow the scientific interpretations of the facist rulebook also?

You're calling the Constitution of the United States of America a facist rulebook...alrighty then, you said it not me.

How do neo-Darwinist facists in government education prove that neo-Darwinism is anything other than a scientific form of philosophy, religion or popular mythology? Invent a new species?

They already have...over and over, its people like you and Unicorn who just cover their ears and jump up and down screaming "God created kinds..evolution only occurs within created kinds."

What if ID scientists can prove that evolutionist theories are intelligently designed and evolutionists can't?

You just proved why intelligent design creationism isn't science. All it is us some old and rebutted to death arguments against evolution, they need to do science and produce repeatable experiments that prove they are science, not argue against something else. That would be like the Republicans or Democrats just arguing against other bills but writing up none of their own. It gains you nothing in politics and it gains you no footing in science. As long as Intelligent Design Creationists are giving their scientific explanations at Mega-churches to audiences of laymen, it is obvious they aren't doing science, they're getting rich off religious apologetics.

Notice how ID scientists on public school boards and in public office are being subjected to neo-Darwinist religious tests?

Do you not understand the American legal system in context of the "facist rulebook" (as you called our Constitution.) If they can prove that the schoolboard members had purely religious motivation for the new science standards, it means they're trying to infiltrate religion into our secular public education system. If they prove that Intelligent Design and Creation Science are no more than religious apologetics (which they obviously are), they win that is what lawyers want to do you know...win.

Good thing too. Now all we have to do is get facist neo-Darwinist racial theories banned from public ed also, and we can all go about our public business happily ever after.

You just contradicted your entire premise, you're saying if we can't teach both as science we can't teach either as science. I'd hate to play a game with your kids, I'm sure they take their ball and go home as soon as they start losing.

[jcrawford]

Where's the empirical evidence?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Talkorigins weblinks aren't empirical evidence of anything but neo-Darwinist religious beliefs.

You're calling the Constitution of the United States of America a facist rulebook...alrighty then, you said it not me.

Nah, you said it, not me. I just call neo-Darwinist interpretations of the Constitution a facist rulebook.

They already have...over and over ..

Have what? Invented human species?

Do you not understand the American legal system in context of the "facist rulebook" (as you called our Constitution.)

I was referring to the neo-Darwinist interpretation of the Constitution as the facist rulebook.

If they can prove that the schoolboard members had purely religious motivation for the new science standards, it means they're trying to infiltrate religion into our secular public education system. If they prove that Intelligent Design and Creation Science are no more than religious apologetics (which they obviously are), they win that is what lawyers want to do you know...win.

Yes, of course. That's why they are in court. To win. How are they going to prove that ID scientists are practicing a form of religion though, when neo-Darwinists themselves use the original biblical idea of common ancestral origins and descent on which to premise their own theories?

I'd hate to play a game with your kids, I'm sure they take their ball and go home as soon as they start losing.

No, they just don't allow neo-Darwinist facists to make all the rules at which point you refuse to allow your children to play.