"creation science" in Indiana

[TomS]

'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
corporation may require the teaching of various theories
concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
within the school corporation."'

<http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>

"Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[Mike Dworetsky]

TomS wrote:
> 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
> has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
> corporation may require the teaching of various theories
> concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
> within the school corporation."'
>
> <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>
>
> "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
> Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.

The US Supreme Court has already banned this. Shouldn't this legislator be
impeached for commissioning an illegal act by state officials? If this gets
passed (it won't--the Senator is merely grandstanding for the Fundie vote)
the lesson plans should be interesting.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Frank J]

On Dec 29, 5:14 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
> has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
> corporation may require the teaching of various theories
> concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
> within the school corporation."'
>
> <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>
>
> "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
> Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I would have at least paid attention to
the last 25 years of scam artists, if not to what 99+% of scientists
have to say.

Then again, I blame the public, who keeps voting for *salesmen* to do
the job of a *serviceman.*

[TomS]

"On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:26:39 -0000, in article
<p4SdnSznSqG7dGHT...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."

This legislator is the chair of the senate committee on education and
career development. See also

<http://ncse.com/news/2011/12/creationist-legislation-indiana-007001>

[Ron O]

Santorum came up with the same tactic last month. He has dumped the
ID scam and gone back to calling creationism what it is. I commented
that it was likely going to be the wave of the future. The cretins
are finally realizing that if they lie about what they want to teach
they get stuck with the lie. If they want to change their situation
they have to confront it head on. It is likely a better way to go for
them. They have been claiming the moral high ground, but have had to
live with the fact that they are lying to get what they want done. It
is possible to reverse court decisions, and the tactic likely isn't
any more likely to fail as what they have been doing. All they need
is a supreme court willing to lean in their direction.

Ron Okimoto

[TomS]

"On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:44:42 -0800 (PST), in article
<4554c9dc-6ced-44d6...@24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."

>
>On Dec 29, 4:14 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
>> has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
>> corporation may require the teaching of various theories
>> concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
>> within the school corporation."'
>>
>> <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>
>>
>> "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
>> Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.

>

>Santorum came up with the same tactic last month. He has dumped the
>ID scam and gone back to calling creationism what it is. I commented
>that it was likely going to be the wave of the future. The cretins
>are finally realizing that if they lie about what they want to teach
>they get stuck with the lie. If they want to change their situation
>they have to confront it head on. It is likely a better way to go for
>them. They have been claiming the moral high ground, but have had to
>live with the fact that they are lying to get what they want done. It
>is possible to reverse court decisions, and the tactic likely isn't
>any more likely to fail as what they have been doing. All they need
>is a supreme court willing to lean in their direction.

What will the advocates of ID have to say about this? Will the
legislators in committee hearings have access to advisors who warn
them against overt support of sectarianism? Is there anybody left
who would testify in favor of "creation science"?

ISTM that "creation science" was only a temporary measure on the
way from YEC to ID. It couldn't last, as being neither straightforward
creationism with Noah's Ark and the rest, but also not as sophisticated
as ID.

[Paul J Gans]

TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>"On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:44:42 -0800 (PST), in article
><4554c9dc-6ced-44d6...@24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
>stated..."
>>

I assume that if such legislation passes, we will in the
end have another Supreme Court case. I do NOT assume
that the result will be the same a second time.

We are entering a dark age in the US. Anti-science, anti-evidence,
and anti-rational.


--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Jeffrey Turner]

On 12/29/2011 9:53 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:

> TomS<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>
>> ISTM that "creation science" was only a temporary measure on the
>> way from YEC to ID. It couldn't last, as being neither straightforward
>> creationism with Noah's Ark and the rest, but also not as sophisticated
>> as ID.
>
> I assume that if such legislation passes, we will in the
> end have another Supreme Court case. I do NOT assume
> that the result will be the same a second time.
>
> We are entering a dark age in the US. Anti-science, anti-evidence,
> and anti-rational.

You have the right to the answer you want as long as someone can make
money on it.

--Jeff

[Harry K]

On Dec 29, 2:26 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"

He should be required to append at least a couple lesson plans to the
bill - that would stop it dead in its tracks.

Harry K

[deadrat]

TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
> has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
> corporation may require the teaching of various theories
> concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
> within the school corporation."'
>
> <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>
>
> "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
> Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.

I trust SB89 will be sent to the Indiana House Committee on Education.
This is the committee that in 1897 reported out favorably HB #246, the
infamous Indiana Pi Bill.

[deadrat]

"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

> TomS wrote:
>> 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
>> has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
>> corporation may require the teaching of various theories
>> concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
>> within the school corporation."'
>>
>> <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>
>>
>> "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
>> Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.
>
> The US Supreme Court has already banned this. Shouldn't this legislator be

> impeached for commissioning an illegal act by state officials? <snip/>

In Indiana, impeachment by the house followed by trial in the senate is the
method to remove state officers, i.e., members of the executive branch and
county officials. Each house can expel one of its members by a 2/3 vote.

Good luck with that.

[Mike Dworetsky]

This is just a guess, mind, but I suspect that none of the 1897 members are
still in office.

[deadrat]

This is just a guess, mind, but I suspect that this is a very clever comment,
which cleverness just passed me by. My fault, I'm sure. It's idiomatic to
speak of legislative bodies as having a continuing existence even as their
membership changes. The House Committee on Ways and Means was established in
1795, and I suspect that none of its original members are alive.

[Ernest Major]

In message <F794EBE8-3352-4672-9992-7F764C6B2658%a...@b.com>, deadrat
<a...@b.com> writes

>"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> deadrat wrote:
>>> TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
>>>> has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
>>>> corporation may require the teaching of various theories
>>>> concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
>>>> within the school corporation."'
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>
>>>>
>>>> "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
>>>> Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.
>>>
>>> I trust SB89 will be sent to the Indiana House Committee on Education.
>>> This is the committee that in 1897 reported out favorably HB #246, the
>>> infamous Indiana Pi Bill.
>>
>> This is just a guess, mind, but I suspect that none of the 1897 members are
>> still in office.
>
>This is just a guess, mind, but I suspect that this is a very clever comment,
>which cleverness just passed me by.

The Republican party was once of the party of Lincoln. It has morphed
into being the party of Jefferson Davis.

>My fault, I'm sure. It's idiomatic to
>speak of legislative bodies as having a continuing existence even as their
>membership changes. The House Committee on Ways and Means was established in
>1795, and I suspect that none of its original members are alive.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Steven L.]

"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:p4SdnSznSqG7dGHT...@bt.com:

> TomS wrote:
> > 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
> > has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
> > corporation may require the teaching of various theories
> > concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
> > within the school corporation."'
> >
> > <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>
> >
> > "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
> > Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.
>
> The US Supreme Court has already banned this. Shouldn't this legislator be
> impeached for commissioning an illegal act by state officials

Are you an American? If so, didn't you study the Constitution in
school?

In 1987, the Court declared one attempt to pass a creation science law
unconstitutional,
but that doesn't stop legislators from filing a new law with slightly
amended wording to try to get around the Court's ruling.

It happens all the time with many Supreme Court rulings.



-- Steven L.

[Ron O]

On Dec 29, 7:24 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:44:42 -0800 (PST), in article

> <4554c9dc-6ced-44d6-8733-ca24327ba...@24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Ron O

The ID perps can't do much about the trend because the plain and
simple fact is that these legislators know that they were lied to
about the intelligent design scam. They wouldn't be giving up on it
if they didn't understand that the ID perps lied to them and even made
them look like fools by running the bogus bait and switch on them.
The ID perps did not run the bait and switch scam on the science
side. They ran the bait and switch on their own creationist support
base. The ID perps sold the rubes the science of intelligent design,
but all any rube has ever gotten from them is a stupid obfuscation
switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. No one
that had that done to them such as Santorum is going to forget that.
They may blow smoke and cover their foibles with lies and
prevarication, but they know when they have been lied to.

Anyone that is still an IDiot follower of the ID perps is either
ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest, so what do you expect from
them? They might start claiming that you have to stay with the bogus
ID scam because teaching creationism is illegal, but the guys that
want creationism taught are starting to say "So what?" ID is
creationism. So what is the difference? Just the level of lies that
you want to surround it with.

ID was never more than creation science. Who did the ID perps hire to
staff their Biologic institute? What did that Biologic institute
board member claim? Didn't he say that they were doing creation
science research at the institute? Most of the Biologic Institute
"researchers" were creation scientists before they joined the
institute by what the claims about them are.

The only thing that the IDiots and the ID perps can claim is that
several levels of lying are dropped from the program if they just stop
pretending about intelligent design. What type of person would defend
continuing to go with more lies? These are the guys that are claiming
the moral high ground and they are the ones that have to keep lying
about what they are doing whenever they run the ID scam.

>
> ISTM that "creation science" was only a temporary measure on the
> way from YEC to ID. It couldn't last, as being neither straightforward
> creationism with Noah's Ark and the rest, but also not as sophisticated
> as ID.

Creation science lasted longer than ID. The ID perps started running
the bait and switch back in 2002 and even if you place the modern ID
scam back to Pandas and People (1989), there is no comparison.
Really, the ID scam essentially ended when the ID perps gave up on it
and started selling the rubes a replacement scam that doesn't even
mention that ID ever existed. I am sure that guys like Santorum and
this boob will keep referring to the "science" that supports their
case, but that is all the ID perps have been using ID for, for the
last decade. ID has only been the bait to run in their bogus
obfuscation ploy. They never intended to put forward any ID science
to teach since Ohio in 2002. Name a single IDiot rube legislator or
school board that ever gotten the promised intelligent design science
to teach in the public schools.

Creation science started in the 1960's and wasn't replaced by ID until
the Supreme court decision in 1987. The CRS, ICR and AIG still
exist. By 2002 the creationists that were selling the ID scam had a
new scam that didn't even mention that ID had ever existed. It was
the ID perps that pulled the plug on the ID scam years before ID lost
in court. ID would have never been challenged in the courts if the ID
perps had, had their way. The ID perps are the major force keeping ID
out of the public schools. They tried to run the bait and switch on
the Dover rubes, but Kitzmiller happened because the rubes would not
take the switch scam. The ID perps are currently only using ID to
make their ploys sound sciency. That is all the Santorum and other
boobs like the one under discussion are going to use ID for.

That is the reality that the IDiot boneheads are having to deal with.
Just ask Nyikos and get the view point of someone that has really been
reamed by trying to support the bogus ID perps. All you are going to
see is back pedaling, denial and going with the next scam.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Dec 29, 8:53 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >"On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:44:42 -0800 (PST), in article

> ><4554c9dc-6ced-44d6-8733-ca24327ba...@24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Ron O

Court rulings can go with public whims. That is the only tactic that
the creationists have left. They are out of rational arguments, so
their only hope is that they can get the courts to shelter them for as
long as possible.

Laws are screwy at times. As far as I know it is still the case where
chickens are not defined as animals under federal law so that they can
be processed differently than other animals. The university animal
welfare guidelines had to include chickens as vertebrate animals even
though federal law did not recognize them as animals. The
creationists are finally realizing that laws are not meant to reflect
reality, but to cater to societal needs. It was legal to have
slaves. It was found to be legal to incarcerate tens of thousands of
people of Japanese ancestry without due process. We have the Iraqi
prisoners in Cuba. We could have creationism taught in the science
class even though it isn't science.

Ron Okimoto

[Mike Dworetsky]

I do wonder if you have been paying attention, or if you are engaging in
wishful thinking.

Many attempts have been made in many guises ("amended wording" or just
attempts by local schools or teachers to inject creationism) and few have
made it into law and actual classrooms. Those that did have been struck
down by lower courts who relied on Supreme Court case law. Very few of
these get to the US Supreme Court. For summaries of all the failed attempts
please review the Talk Origins web site for cases.

It doesn't stop legislators from trying to introduce creationism, I agree,
but it does stop them, eventually, from succeeding. In one case it resulted
in a milllion-dollar settlement in favour of the plaintiffs. (2005, Dover
PA).

They still say "Nosirreebob, this has nothing to do with religion, praise
the Lord 'cuz it's in the Bible." And they lose every time. They just
can't help themselves.

[TomS]

"On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:40:38 -0000, in article
<TpqdneooNNrwUGDT...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."

On the one hand, I agree with you that they just can't help themselves,
which eventually forces the courts to decide against them. If they were
really clever about it, they could formulate something which would have
a chance of passing judicial review. But the Dover case shows what
happens: they have to testify for the Lord. (Not that they have to be
honest when testifying.)

On the other hand, that assumes that you have a disinterested
judiciary. Judges are capable of making distinctions which have no
basis in reality in order to come to the conclusion that they want.
If they can declare that professional baseball is not a business so
that it is not subject to anti-trust laws (not to mention some more
outrageous examples), they can decide that creationism, no matter
how overtly sectarian, is not a religion.

If creationism weren't such a really stupid thing, then we would
have cause to be worried. But, then, "the law is a ass".

[Steven L.]

"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:TpqdneooNNrwUGDT...@bt.com:

I was paying attention--to your wish (see above) that the legislator "be
impeached for commissioning an illegal act".

It's NEVER an illegal act to file legislation that attempts to find
loopholes in court rulings or find other ways to get around such
rulings.

Had you said that the legislator's proposed legislation would never
stand up in court, I would have agreed with you.

But there's nothing that can stop him from trying. Even if it's only to
score political points with his constituents.
It's part of the checks and balances of our political system.



-- Steven L.

[TomS]

"On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:59:16 +0000, in article
<M_edne86CYhAQmDT...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."

I'm not disagreeing with you on the question of impeachment.

But in this case, it's difficult to make the argument that this
legislator is trying slightly amended wording to get around the Court's
ruling.

Here is the complete text of the law:

<http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/IN/IN0089.1.html>

"Sec. 18. The governing body of a school corporation may require the

teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including
creation science, within the school corporation."

There's no subtlety or cleverness about it. He's either ignorant of
the Court's ruling, or doesn't care. Neither of which is an impeachable
offense.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <335263754.000...@drn.newsguy.com>,

TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>But in this case, it's difficult to make the argument that this
>legislator is trying slightly amended wording to get around the Court's
>ruling.

Do they have to amend anything? Could someone try to re-pass and old
law and say, "That was a different supreme court. We're gonna try
again now that we have some people we like on the supreme court."?

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

[deadrat]

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <F794EBE8-3352-4672-9992-7F764C6B2658%a...@b.com>, deadrat
> <a...@b.com> writes
>>"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> deadrat wrote:
>>>> TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
>>>>> has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
>>>>> corporation may require the teaching of various theories
>>>>> concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
>>>>> within the school corporation."'
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
>>>>> Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.
>>>>
>>>> I trust SB89 will be sent to the Indiana House Committee on Education.
>>>> This is the committee that in 1897 reported out favorably HB #246, the
>>>> infamous Indiana Pi Bill.
>>>
>>> This is just a guess, mind, but I suspect that none of the 1897 members are
>>> still in office.
>>
>>This is just a guess, mind, but I suspect that this is a very clever comment,
>>which cleverness just passed me by.
>
> The Republican party was once of the party of Lincoln. It has morphed
> into being the party of Jefferson Davis.

Particularly ironic for Indiana. During the Civil War, the Republican governor
feuded with the Democratic General Assembly. The Governor was worried that the
Democrats might side with the Confederacy. But by the 1920s, the Klan ran the
Republican Party and with it the General Assembly.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <8CC9F104-40B1-4193-A094-4819E5256017%a...@b.com>,

The infamous Indina Pi Bill was never actually passed. And it was
never as simple as Pi=3, either. It was sufficiently obscure and
complicated (not to mention internally inconcisistant) that I suppose
you could excuse a non-mathematician for not realizing how bogus it
was. Petr Beckman has a bit about it in a book called _A History of
Pi_.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

I think it's "Intelligent Design" that doesn't have any lesson plans.
"Creation science" has plenty of material. It's falsehood in the
service of particular religion, but it exists.

Can we get pictures of the man-walking-with-dinosaurs foot tracks with
the tool marks showing? Or just a reconstruction of how it was
probąbly done, on video.

[Paul J Gans]

Yeah. Can anyone make money on reality? Or does it all have to
get filtered through the Ad industry?

[Paul J Gans]

Of course they aren't still in office. They got purged in the last
midterm elections for not understanding the original intent of
the founding fathers.

[Paul J Gans]

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Jefferson Davis was, in spite of his support of slavery, was
a well-educated man with a university degree (as well as graduation
from West Point.) His biography is interesting. Check

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis

I'm not at all sure he would have endorsed the religious right or
their ideas.

[Paul J Gans]

Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <335263754.000...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>But in this case, it's difficult to make the argument that this
>>legislator is trying slightly amended wording to get around the Court's
>>ruling.

>Do they have to amend anything? Could someone try to re-pass and old
>law and say, "That was a different supreme court. We're gonna try
>again now that we have some people we like on the supreme court."?

Yes. Back in the good old days when super liberal justices
ran the court the mantra was basically to deny a hearing on
cases involved "decided law".

In more recent times, some of our most famous decisions, ran
contrary to previous decisions.

The court swings with the times. I'd not bet my life on
how it will decide anything.

[AGWFacts]

On 29 Dec 2011 14:14:59 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>

wrote:

> 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
> has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
> corporation may require the teaching of various theories
> concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
> within the school corporation."'
>
> <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>

Creation science (i.e., Big Bang Cosmology) most certainly should
be taught in schools.

> "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
> Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.

--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jdl98t$1q4$8...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

AS LONG AS YOU LIVE IN THE US OR AS A US CITIZEN YOU ARE. (By direction)

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Jeffrey Turner]

On 12/30/2011 12:40 PM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc

>
> Can we get pictures of the man-walking-with-dinosaurs foot tracks with
> the tool marks showing? Or just a reconstruction of how it was
> probąbly done, on video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PPf3aaZmUw

--Jeff

[chris thompson]

On Dec 30, 3:57 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In message <F794EBE8-3352-4672-9992-7F764C6B265...@b.com>, deadrat
> ><a...@b.com> writes
> >>"Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >>> deadrat wrote:

Well, Paul, given that he was the Head of State of a nation (however
short-lived) that endorsed the religious basis of slavery, I have
little doubt he'd be on the side of the religious right in today's
times.

Well-educated, as much as we like to think otherwise, is not the same
as good. John Roberts, for example, is a legal genius- but I think he
is a bad man. Antonin ("mad dog" (tm)) Scalia was a classmate of my
older brother in a fine Jesuit high school not more than 2 miles north
of your former work place- and I would not hesitate to call him evil.

Chris

[Jeffrey Turner]

Under the category "You had to have been there. Not."

[Mike Dworetsky]

AGWFacts wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2011 14:14:59 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
>> has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
>> corporation may require the teaching of various theories
>> concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
>> within the school corporation."'
>>
>> <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>
>
> Creation science (i.e., Big Bang Cosmology) most certainly should
> be taught in schools.

Lemme guess; I seriously doubt that this is what Sen Kruse had in mind.
Remember, he specifically mentions biology, not cosmology.

>
>> "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
>> Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.

--

[Frank J]

On Dec 29, 6:44 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Dec 29, 4:14 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
> > has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
> > corporation may require the teaching of various theories
> > concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
> > within the school corporation."'
>
> > <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>
>

> > "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
> > Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.
>
> > --

> > ---Tom S.
> > "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
> > Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
> > (1999)
>

> Santorum came up with the same tactic last month.  He has dumped the
> ID scam and gone back to calling creationism what it is.

I guess you mean this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html

Another case in point that we don't ask these scam artists nearly
enough questions, an excerpt from the article:

"Though Santorum is a social conservative Catholic and well-documented
opponent of evolution, when pressed repeatedly by MSNBC host Chris
Matthews earlier this year on whether he believed in evolution,
Santorum said he did -- in a 'micro sense'."

My comment:

Using the asinine "believe in" is bad enough, but what really drives
me nuts is that no one asks the follow-up questions that screams to be
asked, e.g. to determine exactly what he means by "micro sense." Since
Santorum raved about Behe & Co. for 10+ years, does he accept the fact
that humans share common ancestors with other species? And does he
know that, while Behe does not think that humans and broccoli evolved
from their common ancestors by "evolution", he doesn't rule it out in
the case of humans and chimps. Does he agree? If not does he think he
understands the science better than Behe? And what makes him think
that Behe understands the science better than the 99+% of scientists
who do the actual work while he takes pot-shots from the sidelines?

Santorum is a slick salesman. He knows how to pander to the
Fundamentalists, while not alienating the *majority* that is not in
hopeless denial. They say things like "I guess something like
evolution is true" but have virtually no interest in the subject. I
can hear them thinking "maybe it's just in a 'micro sense', whatever
that means."

>  I commented
> that it was likely going to be the wave of the future.  The cretins
> are finally realizing that if they lie about what they want to teach
> they get stuck with the lie.  If they want to change their situation
> they have to confront it head on.  It is likely a better way to go for
> them.  They have been claiming the moral high ground, but have had to
> live with the fact that they are lying to get what they want done.

I know I'm preaching to a very small choir, even among critics of the
anti-evolution movement, but why are we *letting* them claim the moral
high ground, when everything they do shows that they take the lowest
possible road???

>  It
> is possible to reverse court decisions, and the tactic likely isn't
> any more likely to fail as what they have been doing.  All they need
> is a supreme court willing to lean in their direction.
>

> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Frank J]

On Dec 29, 8:24 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:44:42 -0800 (PST), in article
> <4554c9dc-6ced-44d6-8733-ca24327ba...@24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
> stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >On Dec 29, 4:14 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
> >> has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
> >> corporation may require the teaching of various theories
> >> concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
> >> within the school corporation."'
>
> >> <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>
>
> >> "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
> >> Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.
>

> >Santorum came up with the same tactic last month.  He has dumped the

> >ID scam and gone back to calling creationism what it is.  I commented

> >that it was likely going to be the wave of the future.  The cretins
> >are finally realizing that if they lie about what they want to teach
> >they get stuck with the lie.  If they want to change their situation
> >they have to confront it head on.  It is likely a better way to go for
> >them.  They have been claiming the moral high ground, but have had to

> >live with the fact that they are lying to get what they want done.  It

> >is possible to reverse court decisions, and the tactic likely isn't
> >any more likely to fail as what they have been doing.  All they need
> >is a supreme court willing to lean in their direction.
>

> What will the advocates of ID have to say about this? Will the
> legislators in committee hearings have access to advisors who warn
> them against overt support of sectarianism? Is there anybody left
> who would testify in favor of "creation science"?
>

> ISTM that "creation science" was only a temporary measure on the
> way from YEC to ID. It couldn't last, as being neither straightforward
> creationism with Noah's Ark and the rest, but also not as sophisticated
> as ID.

AIUI, "creation science" *salvaged* YEC - the compromised heliocentric
version - from an increasingly progressive (old life as well as Earth/
universe) OEC that was becoming the norm among the more educated
evolution-deniers. To do that the "deal with the Devil" was to
transform creationism from "honest, mistaken belief" to full-blown
pseudoscience. From there it was inevitable, even if they won the
court cases, that the pseudoscience would eventually "evolve" into
something like ID, with a "don't ask, don't tell what the Creator/
designer did when, where or how" policy. Many (most?) people who did
fall for the "weaknesses" of evolution did not buy the YE (Flood
"geology" etc.) arguments, and OEC peddlers were still competing with
"scientific" YEC peddlers. That's above and beyond the very
inconvenient fact that all their "positive" claims were both easily
falsified, and mutually contradictory to boot.

Mark my words: While scam artists will peddle "weaknesses" of
evolution arguments wherever they can get away with it (which is
almost everywhere given the public disinterest in science) the future
of the anti-evolution movement is what I call "Klinghofferism." That's
the claim that accepting evolution leads to all sorts of evil, and
that scientists are involved in a conspiracy to replace God with
Hitler. Yeah, I know that that was the message in "Expelled" and that
it did poorly at the box office. But it's the scam artists' best shot
to fool the public, and I never underestimate their rhetorical skills.

>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
> Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"

> (1999)- Hide quoted text -

[Ron O]

On Dec 31, 7:06 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 6:44 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 4:14 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
> > > has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
> > > corporation may require the teaching of various theories
> > > concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
> > > within the school corporation."'
>
> > > <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>
>
> > > "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
> > > Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.
>
> > > --
> > > ---Tom S.
> > > "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
> > > Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
> > > (1999)
>
> > Santorum came up with the same tactic last month.  He has dumped the
> > ID scam and gone back to calling creationism what it is.
>
> I guess you mean this:
>

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_...

These were my thoughts:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d6998c1eb1cc3066?hl=en

>
> Another case in point that we don't ask these scam artists nearly
> enough questions, an excerpt from the article:
>
> "Though Santorum is a social conservative Catholic and well-documented
> opponent of evolution, when pressed repeatedly by MSNBC host Chris
> Matthews earlier this year on whether he believed in evolution,
> Santorum said he did -- in a 'micro sense'."
>
> My comment:
>
> Using the asinine "believe in" is bad enough, but what really drives
> me nuts is that no one asks the follow-up questions that screams to be
> asked, e.g. to determine exactly what he means by "micro sense." Since
> Santorum raved about Behe & Co. for 10+ years, does he accept the fact
> that humans share common ancestors with other species? And does he
> know that, while Behe does not think that humans and broccoli evolved
> from their common ancestors by "evolution", he doesn't rule it out in
> the case of humans and chimps. Does he agree? If not does he think he
> understands the science better than Behe? And what makes him think
> that Behe understands the science better than the 99+% of scientists
> who do the actual work while he takes pot-shots from the sidelines?
>
> Santorum is a slick salesman. He knows how to pander to the
> Fundamentalists, while not alienating the *majority* that is not in
> hopeless denial. They say things like "I guess something like
> evolution is true" but have virtually no interest in the subject. I
> can hear them thinking "maybe it's just in a 'micro sense', whatever
> that means."

Santorum is planning to run for the presidency even after he couldn't
get reelected in his home state. His antics this year are likely only
to keep him in the spot light. Bad publicity is as good as anything
when all you are trying to do is get your name out there.

He is a politician, so no one knows what he really thinks about
anything. Sad but true.

This is only a minor side issue that he has to deal with. How he is
dealing with it should count for something, but likely won't matter
much at all in the long run. Just one more thing to be dishonest
about and something that a portion of society is willing to cut him
some slack on.

>
> >  I commented
> > that it was likely going to be the wave of the future.  The cretins
> > are finally realizing that if they lie about what they want to teach
> > they get stuck with the lie.  If they want to change their situation
> > they have to confront it head on.  It is likely a better way to go for
> > them.  They have been claiming the moral high ground, but have had to
> > live with the fact that they are lying to get what they want done.
>
> I know I'm preaching to a very small choir, even among critics of the
> anti-evolution movement, but why are we *letting* them claim the moral
> high ground, when everything they do shows that they take the lowest
> possible road???

My take is that there is a reluctance to appear to stoop to their
level. No matter whether it is true or not the facts take second
place to how people are perceived. The liars and pretenders take
advantage of this consistently. It seems to be part of human nature.

Ron Okimoto

[Frank J]

On Dec 31, 11:32 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 7:06 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 6:44 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 29, 4:14 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 'Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Senate education committee,
> > > > has filed SB 89, providing that "the governing body of a school
> > > > corporation may require the teaching of various theories
> > > > concerning the origin of life, including creation science,
> > > > within the school corporation."'
>
> > > > <http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111229/BLOGS13/111229458>
>
> > > > "Creation science" - not "Intelligent Design", or "Teach the
> > > > Controversy" or whatever the latest euphemism.
>
> > > > --
> > > > ---Tom S.
> > > > "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
> > > > Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
> > > > (1999)
>
> > > Santorum came up with the same tactic last month.  He has dumped the
> > > ID scam and gone back to calling creationism what it is.
>
> > I guess you mean this:
>
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_...
>
> These were my thoughts:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d6998c1eb1cc3066?hl=en
>
>

You and most other critics seem to be saying that former ID peddlers
have been giving up the ID scam and admitting that they want students
to learn "creationism." But the way I see it is that they are holding
on to the *main part* of the scam, one that predates "cdesign
proponentsists". Which is to avoid making any *positive* claims of
"what happened when" that the scam artists know can't survive critical
analysis - real or phony - even by high school students. Only
evolution - or more correctly a "Darwinism" caricature gets to be
"critically analyzed" and only in the phony way that's designed
specifically to promote unreasonable doubt.

(snip)

>
> Santorum is planning to run for the presidency even after he couldn't
> get reelected in his home state.  His antics this year are likely only
> to keep him in the spot light.  Bad publicity is as good as anything
> when all you are trying to do is get your name out there.
>
> He is a politician, so no one knows what he really thinks about
> anything.  Sad but true.

No one knows, because no one *asks.* Mostly they just ass-u-me. I'll
bet the ranch and the dog that he accepts common descent, and probably
even all of evolution, i.e. "macro" however he defines it. But of
course he'll never admit it, because his fear that it will create
another Hitler or Columbine is probably real.

>
> This is only a minor side issue that he has to deal with.  How he is
> dealing with it should count for something, but likely won't matter
> much at all in the long run.  Just one more thing to be dishonest
> about and something that a portion of society is willing to cut him
> some slack on.

If you mean that evolution is a "minor side issue", here's what I
wrote about that on the Curmudgeon's blog:

I know there are lots of issues, and that Fundamentalists will
continue to be elected for the foreseeable future. But not all radical
Fundamentalists deny evolution, and even many who do will not risk
pursuing anti-evolution legislation. The least we can do is influence
which Fundamentalists get elected. Most Fundamentalist voters care
much more about abortion and gay marriage than they do about evolution
or creationism. I too used to think that evolution education was a
“minor issue.” But it gets right to the heart of “how we think.” As
the Curmudgeon says, this country was founded on Enlightenment
principles. Radical authoritarians lately like to downplay that and
play up that it was founded on Biblical principles. The fact is that
they’re both right, and the common principle is “thou shalt not bear
false witness.” Anti-evolution activism violates that. It’s that
simple.

>
>
>
> > >  I commented
> > > that it was likely going to be the wave of the future.  The cretins
> > > are finally realizing that if they lie about what they want to teach
> > > they get stuck with the lie.  If they want to change their situation
> > > they have to confront it head on.  It is likely a better way to go for
> > > them.  They have been claiming the moral high ground, but have had to
> > > live with the fact that they are lying to get what they want done.
>
> > I know I'm preaching to a very small choir, even among critics of the
> > anti-evolution movement, but why are we *letting* them claim the moral
> > high ground, when everything they do shows that they take the lowest
> > possible road???
>
> My take is that there is a reluctance to appear to stoop to their
> level.  No matter whether it is true or not the facts take second
> place to how people are perceived.  The liars and pretenders take
> advantage of this consistently.  It seems to be part of human nature.

But it's anything *but* "stooping to their level. As I note in above
about "thou shalt not bear false witness", *we* have the moral high
ground, yet we're letting a *majority* think that the scam artists do.
How crazy is that?

[Paul J Gans]

All true, but I'm not sure he would have at all been in sympathy
with the religious right. Folks in his generation were still
aware of the damage done by Christians fighting Christians in
wars of religion and worse, communities torn apart by religious
differences.

We should not forget that many of the original colonies were founded
by particular christian religious groups and didn't tolerate other
christian groups willingly.

>Well-educated, as much as we like to think otherwise, is not the same
>as good. John Roberts, for example, is a legal genius- but I think he
>is a bad man. Antonin ("mad dog" (tm)) Scalia was a classmate of my
>older brother in a fine Jesuit high school not more than 2 miles north
>of your former work place- and I would not hesitate to call him evil.

Hey, don't rush me. I've got a semester to go before retirement.

[Paul J Gans]

While I agree with you, I'd stress that there are TWO things
under discussion. The first, and most often neglected, is
the FACT of evolution. The second is the theory that attempts
to explain the facts.

If you want to take the war to the enemy let them state how the
facts of evolution are explained. They are stuck with continuous
creation or a trickster god. The next question is how they
square that with the Bible which states that creation was done
during the First Week and that God is not a trickster.

Where I think we go wrong is to even agree to discuss the theory
before the facts are established in the discussion.

[Frank J]

On Dec 31 2011, 4:00�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

True, but there's no reason to put a negative connotation on
"trickster." The audience has already reconciled that God has
mysterious reasons for allowing death and suffering, so He could just
have another one for giving us evidence that contradicts the "real"
history of life. Especially since that evidence helps us fight
disease.


> �The next question is how they

> square that with the Bible which states that creation was done
> during the First Week and that God is not a trickster.

And the even more inconvenient fact that some self-described Biblical
literalists do not take "week" literally.

>
> Where I think we go wrong is to even agree to discuss the theory
> before the facts are established in the discussion.

Absolutely. Just before I started closely following the "debate" (1997
- 30 years after accepting evolution) I found it odd how so much of
the discussion was about natural selection, and how little about
mutations (without which NS has nothing to do) or the chronology of
life. I soon found that the reasons for downplaying those 2 other
topics were essentially opposite. The science of "mutations," unlike
that of NS, had not matured to the point of being easily explained to
nonscientists. Whereas the basic chronology - all the geologic ages,
their flora and fauna, extinctions, etc. - was a "done deal," conceded
by even many (most?) evolution-deniers, thus not worth mentioning.

While I can now understand why that's the case, I nevertheless wish
that more people would step outside their comfort zone* and devote
more time to the other topics.

*Actually scientists are masochistic. Their "comfort zone" is where
they can get the most "challenges," warranted or not. And NS is where
they get it most - be it how it "can't create information" (never mind
that mutations do), or how it paints Nature as "red in tooth and
claw."

>
> --
> � �--- Paul J. Gans- Hide quoted text -

[TomS]

"On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 07:20:25 -0800 (PST), in article
<0a3e596c-ff88-4868...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."

[...snip...]

The Omphalos Hypothesis tells us that creation had to be done with the
appearances of a pre-creation history.

The Moon at the moment of its first existence in orbit around the
Earth looked like it had been in orbit.

Hair and fingernails on a human look like they have grown.

Adam had to have some apparently learned knowledge in order to
survive. We have to learn how to walk.

So while God had to make things with the deceptive appearances, He
made up for that by telling us about the real origins in the Bible.

Or was it that the Bible has the deceptive appearances, and God
warned us about taking the Bible literally by giving us the ability
for and interest in science?

[Ron O]

On Jan 2, 10:00 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 07:20:25 -0800 (PST), in article

> <0a3e596c-ff88-4868-8e36-c520e045f...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Frank J

Did trees need growth rings? Did Adam and Eve have navels? The moon
may have been in orbit, but did it need over 4 billion years worth of
impact craters? Do igneous rocks need radio isotopes and the proper
amount of radioactive decay products to make it look like they are
billions of years old?

What were the real origins of the Bible? Where does the Bible recite
the history of the written word?

Ron Okimoto

[TomS]

"On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 10:21:05 -0800 (PST), in article
<119018e1-24f6-448f...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Ron O

>Did trees need growth rings? Did Adam and Eve have navels? The moon
>may have been in orbit, but did it need over 4 billion years worth of
>impact craters? Do igneous rocks need radio isotopes and the proper
>amount of radioactive decay products to make it look like they are
>billions of years old?
>
>What were the real origins of the Bible? Where does the Bible recite
>the history of the written word?

I trust that you realize that I am not going to come to the
defense of omphalism. To be sure, the dating of the Earth is
dependent on multiple close correspondences, not just merely
that things have to have some appearance of history.

[Frank J]

On Jan 2, 11:00 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 07:20:25 -0800 (PST), in article

> <0a3e596c-ff88-4868-8e36-c520e045f...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Frank J

I would not consider either ("planted evidence, correct Genesis", or
"allegorical Genesis, correct evidence") necessarily "deceptive" in
the negative connotation that most people have in mind.

As to which of the 2 "deceptions" is the correct one, I find it
fascinating that the Bible itself says "the letter killeth but the
spirit giveth life." Whether that was written by God Himself, as a
subtle hint to those who know the value of an allegory, or by
forerunner of St. Augustine, it sure reads like "Read the Bible for
the moral guidance, not for details of 'what happened when'."

>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
> Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"

> (1999)- Hide quoted text -

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Jan 2, 7:48 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 10:21:05 -0800 (PST), in article

> <119018e1-24f6-448f-b0ab-2e3c19eb0...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Ron O

"Answers in Genesis" explicitly rejects omphalism. But that doesn't
make it good.

[AGWFacts]

I want to vote 12,562 times for this one, now.