Another new poster

1 view
Skip to first unread message

LoRezMe

unread,
May 12, 2001, 11:08:04 PM5/12/01
to
Hello all,

I've been reading and using the talkorigins.org site for a couple of years now
and have found it extremely useful. I've not had time to post to this
newsgroup until now but I've been lurking for a week or so. Feel like I "know"
some of you already <g>

As for my background, I'm a former earth sciences major who attained a lowly AS
before leaving school and work to stay home with a passle of young kids since
spouse was earning more and I was lazier (ha!). Now that the kids are growing
I'm going back to finish up my (institutional) education and maybe see about
ways that I can spread the Good News that Science Rules. I'd like a chance to
counteract some of the bad science to which I've seen school kids exposed.

I've also had a close brush with fundie-ism and all that's negative and
destructive in it. I've got an ax to grind with creationists and their so
called scientific creationism. I've become addicted to reading this newsgroup.
I may not post often but I'll be here reading and cheering you on.

Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes, believe
it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies. It appears
that this policy may be on the way ou, but I'm aghast that this can even happen
in this day.

I'm extremely grateful for all the work that's gone into the set up and
maintenance of the website and this newsgroup!

Lorez

Adam Marczyk

unread,
May 13, 2001, 1:43:15 AM5/13/01
to
LoRezMe <lor...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010512230726...@ng-mq1.aol.com...

> Hello all,
>
> I've been reading and using the talkorigins.org site for a couple of years
now
> and have found it extremely useful. I've not had time to post to this
> newsgroup until now but I've been lurking for a week or so. Feel like I
"know"
> some of you already <g>

Good to have you. Welcome to the monkey house. ;)

> As for my background, I'm a former earth sciences major who attained a
lowly AS
> before leaving school and work to stay home with a passle of young kids
since
> spouse was earning more and I was lazier (ha!). Now that the kids are
growing
> I'm going back to finish up my (institutional) education and maybe see
about
> ways that I can spread the Good News that Science Rules. I'd like a chance
to
> counteract some of the bad science to which I've seen school kids exposed.
>
> I've also had a close brush with fundie-ism and all that's negative and
> destructive in it. I've got an ax to grind with creationists and their so
> called scientific creationism. I've become addicted to reading this
newsgroup.
> I may not post often but I'll be here reading and cheering you on.
>
> Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes,
believe
> it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
> campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies. It
appears
> that this policy may be on the way ou, but I'm aghast that this can even
happen
> in this day.

I agree. Is that even legal? I guess if it's a private religious school they
can teach what they want.

> I'm extremely grateful for all the work that's gone into the set up and
> maintenance of the website and this newsgroup!

We all are. The T.O. site is invaluable, and if things go well we may be
working on a book this summer. :)

--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"

To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"

PhilWoch

unread,
May 13, 2001, 2:21:44 AM5/13/01
to
Welcome. Enjoy the flames.

Michael Brass

unread,
May 13, 2001, 3:59:58 AM5/13/01
to

"LoRezMe" <lor...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010512230726...@ng-mq1.aol.com...
Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes,
believe
it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies.

A state school? Then you do realise what they have done is against the law
of the country and they can have their asses sued ?

Mike Brass.


newbie

unread,
May 13, 2001, 4:18:39 AM5/13/01
to
In article <9dleto$7bp$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, Michael Brass says...
Why?

Michael Brass

unread,
May 13, 2001, 4:23:56 AM5/13/01
to
"LoRezMe" <lor...@aol.com>

>
> Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes,
believe
> it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
> campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies.

You do know doing that in a state school is illegal? Somebody should take
them to court.

Regards,
Mike Brass.


John Harshman

unread,
May 13, 2001, 8:15:29 AM5/13/01
to
In article <20010512230726...@ng-mq1.aol.com>, lor...@aol.com
(LoRezMe) wrote:

If you don't mind the question, where is this exactly? If it's in the bay
area, I'm particularly interested. And if so, the National Center for
Science Education (NCSE) has its headquarters right there. If you want to
do anything about this, a good first step would be contacting them -- even
if you aren't in the bay area.

> I'm extremely grateful for all the work that's gone into the set up and
> maintenance of the website and this newsgroup!
>
> Lorez

--

*Note the obvious spam-defeating modification
to my address if you reply by email.

Stanley Friesen

unread,
May 13, 2001, 10:02:37 AM5/13/01
to
newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

Our constitution has this little thing in it about the government not
establishing religion. Using government money to establish religion by
denying a valid part of science on purely religious grounds could be
construed as a violation of the US Constitution.

[And, yes, courts have officially ruled that Creationism is religion].

The peace of God be with you.

Stanley Friesen

David Jensen

unread,
May 13, 2001, 10:59:20 AM5/13/01
to
On 13 May 2001 04:23:56 -0400, in talk.origins
"Michael Brass" <Mikey_La...@btinternet.com> wrote in
<9dlgao$8nr$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>:

I'm not sure they can get nailed for removing evolution from the
curriculum.

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
May 13, 2001, 2:20:12 PM5/13/01
to
David Jensen wrote:

> "Michael Brass" <Mikey_La...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >You do know doing that in a state school is illegal? Somebody should take
> >them to court.
> >

> I'm not sure they can get nailed for removing evolution from the
> curriculum.

It would presumably depend on whether you could convince the court that it had
been removed for specifically religious reasons.

Which, of course, is the whole underpinning of the creation "science"
movement, whereby fundamentalists use a bad parody of science to "prove" that
the world is only 6000 years old, and say that religion isn't among their
motivations for making the claim.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas


Michael Brass

unread,
May 13, 2001, 3:59:04 PM5/13/01
to

> >A state school? Then you do realise what they have done is against the
law
> >of the country and they can have their asses sued ?
> >
> Why?

Because the US Supreme court has ruled against teaching religion as science.
--
Best wishes,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Michael Brass
Archaeology BSocSc(Hons), University of Cape Town
History BA, U.C.T.
AE & World Prehistory <http://www.users.directonline.net/~archaeology>
Certified computer technician
ICQ 44563988
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------


Michael Brass

unread,
May 13, 2001, 4:00:40 PM5/13/01
to
> I'm not sure they can get nailed for removing evolution from the
> curriculum.

It's virtually guaranteed they'd have replaced it with some religious
teachings disguished as "science"...

Carl Wilson

unread,
May 13, 2001, 4:16:17 PM5/13/01
to
On 13 May 2001 10:59:20 -0400, David Jensen
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

Probably true. So long as they don't replace it with "creation
science" there is probably little anyone can do.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

LoRezMe

unread,
May 13, 2001, 4:56:46 PM5/13/01
to
>Subject: Re: Another new poster
>From: phil...@aol.com (PhilWoch)
>Date: 5/12/2001 11:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010513022109...@ng-ct1.aol.com>
>
>Welcome. Enjoy the flames.

Why thank you. And, yes, I do.

lorez

LoRezMe

unread,
May 13, 2001, 4:55:53 PM5/13/01
to
>> Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes,
>believe
>> it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
>> campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies. It
>appears
>> that this policy may be on the way ou, but I'm aghast that this can even
>happen
>> in this day.
>
>I agree. Is that even legal? I guess if it's a private religious school they
>can teach what they want.

Ah but it's not. If it were a private religious school that might be par for
the course, but it's a public school. CA has a class of schools called
"charter schools" that are rather like magnet schools in other states. *Anyone*
with the time and ambition can set one up. This one was set up by a group of
fundie parents with the backing of their church. In their charter they've set
this rule. It's hard to believe, but true. Our district has basically had a
public school funded by public monies running with a religious agenda, at least
as far as teaching science goes.

Recently the state has clamped down on regulations for charter schools and we
think that their little "no teaching of evolution" clause will be gone. For six
years they've gotten away with it.

lorez

LoRezMe

unread,
May 13, 2001, 5:00:53 PM5/13/01
to
>A state school? Then you do realise what they have done is against the law
>of the country and they can have their asses sued ?
>
>Mike Brass.
>

They slipped through a loophole in CA state law concerning charter schools. I
sat in on some of their beginning meetings nearly ten years ago and listened to
how they were going to do this. Last year they the principal announced that
they weren't renewing their charter in the year 2001-2002 so all of this may
change. They are now becoming a CA School of Choice. The principal assured the
parents that "nothing would change" but I think he was BS-ing them into keeping
their kids signed up for the school. It's interesting...we'll see next fall.

lorez

LoRezMe

unread,
May 13, 2001, 5:07:49 PM5/13/01
to
>You do know doing that in a state school is illegal? Somebody should take
>them to court.

I thought it was illegal too but the way that the charter school code was
worded when they were founded allowed them to do this. Their board is very
wiley and stays aware of just how far they can go. Three years ago they wanted
to introduce full on fundie textbooks (anyone ever hear of ABeka texts?) for
their history courses and some of the nonfundie parents objected so they had to
leave off with that idea.

The charter schools were initially promoted as being there for "educational
freedom" and look what else got in the door! The original idea for them was to
get some educational alternatives (arts schools, science and technical schools,
schools with special emphasis that the regular schools weren't able to give)
going in the communities. There are some pretty okay charters out there but
this kind of thing was able to be established too.

lorez

LoRezMe

unread,
May 13, 2001, 5:11:49 PM5/13/01
to
>I'm not sure they can get nailed for removing evolution from the
>curriculum.

Right. It was placed in the original charter. I'm interested to see what
happens when they drop their charter status and become a "School of Choice." CA
ed code is very long and convoluted and I haven't looked through the section on
Schools of Choice.

This is a very conservative area and often parents look at me like I have two
heads when I object to this.

LoRezMe

unread,
May 13, 2001, 5:17:48 PM5/13/01
to
>Subject: Re: Another new poster
>From: "Michael Brass" mik...@iafrica.com
>Date: 5/13/2001 1:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9dmp59$7tm$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>

>
>> I'm not sure they can get nailed for removing evolution from the
>> curriculum.
>
>It's virtually guaranteed they'd have replaced it with some religious
>teachings disguished as "science"...
>--
>Best wishes,
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------------
>Michael Brass
>Archaeology BSocSc(Hons), University of Cape Town
>History BA, U.C.T.
>AE & World Prehistory <http://www.users.directonline.net/~archaeology>
>Certified computer technician
>ICQ 44563988

No they couldn't do it this way due to CA state law (as well as the federal
law). What they do is not teach anything at all about origins, even in 8th
grade biology! If the parents want to do the Morris/Gish thing they have to do
it at home.

lorez

LoRezMe

unread,
May 13, 2001, 5:22:52 PM5/13/01
to
>Subject: Re: Another new poster
>From: harshman....@sjm.infi.net (John Harshman)

Hi. And I appreciate the information. I've contacted the NCSE and am waiting
to get more information from them.

This isn't the bay area, it's in the Mojave Desert/San Gabriel Mountain area in
southern CA. It's nearly as conservative and fundamentalist an area as Orange
County was a decade or two ago.

lorez

newbie

unread,
May 13, 2001, 5:46:30 PM5/13/01
to
In article <2s4tftc9uvq3h92a3...@4ax.com>, Stanley Friesen says...

>
>newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <9dleto$7bp$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, Michael Brass says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"LoRezMe" <lor...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:20010512230726...@ng-mq1.aol.com...
>>>Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes,
>>>believe
>>>it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
>>>campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies.
>>>
>>>A state school? Then you do realise what they have done is against the law
>>>of the country and they can have their asses sued ?
>>>
>>Why?
>
Because someone writes that it is a fundie-organized school you read all this
into it? How about if it is a fundie-organized school that state monies would
not have been granted in the first place, and if they had, it would be the state
that should be sued, not the school. IF the school is up-front with their
"fundieism", as is apparent by the word "organized", that is.

>
>Our constitution has this little thing in it about the government not
>establishing religion.
>
Government, sir. Government religion. Like in the King's England at the time.

>
>Using government money to establish religion by
>denying a valid part of science on purely religious grounds could be
>construed as a violation of the US Constitution.
>
Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be "establishing"
religion by not teaching evolution or even for teaching religion. Teaching is
not establishing. Neither the teaching of a specific religious belief system nor
comparative religion class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and
is so far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not establish
a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>
>[And, yes, courts have officially ruled that Creationism is religion].
>
Yes, we all know that creationism can be defined as a religion. It is not a
separate branch of science. Yet there is no law that requires evolution to be
taught because it is "valid science", and if educators decide what to and not
what to teach based on their religious convictions, there is much room for
debate over whether this constitutes a violation of the amendment. I think the
bottom line here is that the school, in order to receive state monies, must meet
minimum educational requirements. With respect to this, it follows that as a
large majority of Americans adhere to belief in Christianity or Judaism, that
these religions should be a requirement. Our young people should be equipped
with knowledge and understanding of the prevailing belifs and mindsets of the
society in which they will be a part of.

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 13, 2001, 6:18:07 PM5/13/01
to
On 13 May 2001 03:59:58 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Michael Brass"
<Mikey_La...@btinternet.com>:

It's not illegal (at least not *Federally* so; the states
make their own rules as to requirements), nor should it be,
to remove a subject from the curriculum of *any* school. It
*is* illegal, as it should be, to teach the tenets of a
particular religion as fact, but no mention was made of
that.

--

(Note followups, if any)

Bob C.

Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)

"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 13, 2001, 6:18:58 PM5/13/01
to
On 12 May 2001 23:08:04 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by lor...@aol.com (LoRezMe):

Welcome aboard the good ship "Flame"... ;-)

--

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 13, 2001, 6:20:34 PM5/13/01
to
On 13 May 2001 04:23:56 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Michael Brass"
<Mikey_La...@btinternet.com>:

>"LoRezMe" <lor...@aol.com>
>>
>> Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes,
>believe
>> it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
>> campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies.
>
>You do know doing that in a state school is illegal?

Nope; sorry. See my other response.

<snip>

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 13, 2001, 6:25:44 PM5/13/01
to
On 13 May 2001 10:02:37 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Stanley Friesen
<sar...@friesen.net>:

>newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <9dleto$7bp$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, Michael Brass says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"LoRezMe" <lor...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:20010512230726...@ng-mq1.aol.com...
>>>Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes,
>>>believe
>>>it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
>>>campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies.
>>>
>>>A state school? Then you do realise what they have done is against the law
>>>of the country and they can have their asses sued ?
>>>
>>Why?
>
>Our constitution has this little thing in it about the government not
>establishing religion. Using government money to establish religion by
>denying a valid part of science on purely religious grounds could be
>construed as a violation of the US Constitution.

Usually I agree with your posts, but on this I have to
disagree. Unless the school has substituted creationism for
evolutionary theory, there doesn't seem to be any handle by
which to grasp this. Merely removing a particular subject
doesn't seem to be addressed by the Constitution, regardless
of the motive, if no religious beliefs are actually taught.

>
>[And, yes, courts have officially ruled that Creationism is religion].

Yep, and rightly so. But "merely" removing mention of
evolution is *not* the same as teaching creation, no matter
how Luddist (?) it may be.

>
>The peace of God be with you.

And with you.

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 13, 2001, 6:31:57 PM5/13/01
to
On 13 May 2001 14:20:12 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Bobby D. Bryant"
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu>:

>David Jensen wrote:
>
>> "Michael Brass" <Mikey_La...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >You do know doing that in a state school is illegal? Somebody should take
>> >them to court.
>> >
>> I'm not sure they can get nailed for removing evolution from the
>> curriculum.
>
>It would presumably depend on whether you could convince the court that it had
>been removed for specifically religious reasons.

I don't think so. The Constitution (and presumably the USSC)
are concerned with actions, not motives. So long as religion
isn't actively taught, there doesn't seem to me to be any
way to prevent removal of *any* course from a school
curriculum. (Although concerned parents could presumably
take the school board to court on the grounds of failing to
teach science in science class, this would be difficult to
support for grades K-8, where *very* general science is the
rule.)

>
>Which, of course, is the whole underpinning of the creation "science"
>movement, whereby fundamentalists use a bad parody of science to "prove" that
>the world is only 6000 years old, and say that religion isn't among their
>motivations for making the claim.

And, of course, they're lying through their teeth. But
teaching of creation wasn't mentioned.

Paul J. Gans

unread,
May 13, 2001, 9:27:24 PM5/13/01
to
LoRezMe <lor...@aol.com> wrote:
> Hello all,

> I've been reading and using the talkorigins.org site for a couple of years now
> and have found it extremely useful. I've not had time to post to this
> newsgroup until now but I've been lurking for a week or so. Feel like I "know"
> some of you already <g>

> As for my background, I'm a former earth sciences major who attained a lowly AS
> before leaving school and work to stay home with a passle of young kids since
> spouse was earning more and I was lazier (ha!). Now that the kids are growing
> I'm going back to finish up my (institutional) education and maybe see about
> ways that I can spread the Good News that Science Rules. I'd like a chance to
> counteract some of the bad science to which I've seen school kids exposed.

> I've also had a close brush with fundie-ism and all that's negative and
> destructive in it. I've got an ax to grind with creationists and their so
> called scientific creationism. I've become addicted to reading this newsgroup.
> I may not post often but I'll be here reading and cheering you on.

> Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes, believe


> it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their

> campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies. It appears
> that this policy may be on the way ou, but I'm aghast that this can even happen
> in this day.

> I'm extremely grateful for all the work that's gone into the set up and
> maintenance of the website and this newsgroup!

> Lorez

Hey Lorez! Welcome to the nut house. We've got 'em in all
flavors, creationist, evolutionist, punnist, etceteraist.

Enjoy and post when you can!

---- Paul J. Gans

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
May 13, 2001, 9:36:50 PM5/13/01
to
On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.

The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.

Mark

--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}

newbie

unread,
May 13, 2001, 10:02:30 PM5/13/01
to
In article <slrn9fudm1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
VandeWettering says...

>
>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>
>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>
But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>
This another argument from authority?

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
May 13, 2001, 11:35:01 PM5/13/01
to
On 13 May 2001 22:02:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn9fudm1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>VandeWettering says...
>>
>>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>
>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>
>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?

Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?

>This another argument from authority?

Well, in this case they _are_ the authority. The meaning of the
United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.

Mark

newbie

unread,
May 14, 2001, 12:34:52 AM5/14/01
to
In article <slrn9fukjh...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark

VandeWettering says...
>
>On 13 May 2001 22:02:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrn9fudm1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>>VandeWettering says...
>>>
>>>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>>
>>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>>
>>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>
>Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?
>
You just made it with that comment.

>
>>This another argument from authority?
>
>Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>
Thought so.

>
>The meaning of the
>United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>
This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the first
amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
>
If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money given
to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have a way
of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.
>
I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".

Brian O'Neill

unread,
May 14, 2001, 1:45:17 AM5/14/01
to
Michael Brass <mik...@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:9dmp59$7tm$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...

> > I'm not sure they can get nailed for removing evolution from the
> > curriculum.

> It's virtually guaranteed they'd have replaced it with some religious
> teachings disguished as "science"...

Not necessarily. Many states have opted to take the word out of its
teachings and modify the science that is taught to offer less of the direct
evidences of evolution so the kids would even have trouble drawing their own
conclusions.

Of course, teaching Creation is against the rules. But unfortunately,
simply ignoring evolutionary sciences and/or the e-word itself is not. Much
better to have stupid kids than heathens, of course...

-Brian

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, four days, 19 hours, 36 minutes and 49 seconds.
15992 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,999.08.
Extra life saved: 7 weeks, 6 days, 12 hours, 40 minutes.

See my Sig File FAQ: http://pages.prodigy.net/briank.o/SigFAQ.htm


Mark VandeWettering

unread,
May 14, 2001, 2:53:52 AM5/14/01
to
On 14 May 2001 00:34:52 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn9fukjh...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>VandeWettering says...
>>
>>On 13 May 2001 22:02:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>In article <slrn9fudm1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>>>VandeWettering says...
>>>>
>>>>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>>>
>>>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>>>
>>>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>>
>>Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?
>>
>You just made it with that comment.

The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution of the
United States. It is not very much of a stretch to say that they
actually define what the Constitution means. They stepped into
the election of President Bush and by their ruling effectively
ended any legal challenge that Gore could have mounted. I'm sure
you would like to read more into my original statement, but those
really are the facts.

>>>This another argument from authority?
>>
>>Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>>
>Thought so.

This is different from the usual case treated here in talk.origins.
In this case, the Supreme Court is specially empowered to act as the
final authority of what the Constitution means. Scientists cannot
define science by authority: nobody grants them that power. The
SCOTUS _does_ define the Constitution by their rulings, as they are
empowered to do so directly by the Constitution.

>>The meaning of the
>>United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>>
>This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the first
>amendment? Sure it was not Congress?

No, it was the SCOTUS. It is not the job of the legislative branch to
interpret law.

>If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do
>with money given to University and grant money given to students.

Can you express your question in the form of a question?

>Federal money *does* have a way of finding itself in the hands of
>the educational system.

That of course doesn't mean it is legal or constitutional. The federal
government isn't empowered to create public schools at all, so the fact
that money gets transferred to them from the federal government is an
interesting topic in and of itself.

>I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".

What I think really doesn't matter, as I am not a Supreme Court Justice.

What the SCOTUS says does, and you might want to review some of these
cases to find out what they think contitutes "establishing".

A good list is at:
http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.religion.html

Interesting cases include, McCollum vs. BOE (1948), Engel vs. Vitale (1962),
Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968), Edwards vs. Aquillard (1987), and
Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000).

Brian O'Neill

unread,
May 14, 2001, 3:35:26 AM5/14/01
to
newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:dfJL6.77$6j3....@www.newsranger.com...

> >>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
> >>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
> >>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
> >>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
> >>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
> >>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
> >>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.

> >>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.

> >>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?

> >Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?

> You just made it with that comment.

No, he didn't. You brought this up, explain why it is relevant.

> >>This another argument from authority?

> >Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.

> Thought so.

> >The meaning of the
> >United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.

> This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the
first
> amendment? Sure it was not Congress?

Yes, he's sure.

Congress has the power to *create* constitutional law in the form of
amendments. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret how Constitutional Law
is enforced. As such, the statement as made is essentially correct.

An argument from authority is quite legitimate when they *are* the
authority.

You might want to check into our systems of checks and balances. I remember
seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock" when I was seven.

> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money
given
> to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have
a way
> of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.

What on earth are you talking about?

> I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".

What he thinks is irrelevant. There is a solid precedent going back to
Thomas Jefferson as to this matter. Read a book.

-Brian

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:

One year, one month, five days, 5 hours, 30 minutes and 51 seconds.
16009 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,001.15.
Extra life saved: 7 weeks, 6 days, 14 hours, 5 minutes.

newbie

unread,
May 14, 2001, 3:56:21 AM5/14/01
to
In article <9do1qp$7tf0$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill says...

>
>newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:dfJL6.77$6j3....@www.newsranger.com...
>
>> >>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>> >>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>> >>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>> >>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>> >>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>> >>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>> >>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>
>> >>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>
>> >>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>
>> >Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?
>
>> You just made it with that comment.
>
>No, he didn't. You brought this up, explain why it is relevant.
>
Yes, he did. Explain why you don't think it is relevant.

>
>> >>This another argument from authority?
>
>> >Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>
>> Thought so.
>
>> >The meaning of the
>> >United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>
>> This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the
>first
>> amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
>
>Yes, he's sure.
>
Speak for yourself.

>
>Congress has the power to *create* constitutional law in the form of
>amendments. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret how Constitutional Law
>is enforced. As such, the statement as made is essentially correct.
>
Essentially, huh. Oddly enough, I agree with your statement about the Judiciary.

>
>An argument from authority is quite legitimate when they *are* the
>authority.
>
No. It does not mean they are right.
>
>You might want to check into our systems of checks and balances. I remember
>seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock" when I was seven.
>
I doubt that statement.
>
>> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money
>given
>> to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have
>a way
>> of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.
>
>What on earth are you talking about?
>
That green stuff that most schools get. Read the whole post before replying.

>
>> I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".
>
>What he thinks is irrelevant.
>
So what. I asked.

>
>There is a solid precedent going back to
>Thomas Jefferson as to this matter. Read a book.
>
And with that I leave you with your own advice.

Dave Horn

unread,
May 14, 2001, 4:05:16 AM5/14/01
to
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:YbML6.207$6j3....@www.newsranger.com...

>
> In article <9do1qp$7tf0$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill
says...
> >
> >newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:dfJL6.77$6j3....@www.newsranger.com...

[Snip]

Let's remember that anyone who disagrees with Newbie sooner or later is
branded a liar.

> >You might want to check into our systems of checks and
> >balances. I remember seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock"
> >when I was seven.
>
> I doubt that statement.

What reason does Newbie have for doubting this statement?

It's simple. Brian is disagreeing with him. Since Newbie cannot make an
intelligent counter argument, he must lay the groundwork so that he can
declare Brian to be a liar.

For what it's worth, I remember a "Schoolhouse Rock" segment that covered
this subject, as well.

I wonder when Newbie will get around to providing the evidence that
"strongly suggests" a component to life other than chemical processes.

While he's at it, perhaps Newbie will gnat-strain about my use of the word
"component." Then again, he also said that I had dishonestly "inserted" it
in his words. Of course, he is challenged to show where I did that, as
well.

But Newbie never answers challenges. He runs from them.

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
May 14, 2001, 12:43:53 PM5/14/01
to
On 14 May 2001 03:56:21 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>In article <9do1qp$7tf0$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill says...
>>
>>newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>>news:dfJL6.77$6j3....@www.newsranger.com...
>>
>>> >>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>> >>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>> >>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>> >>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>> >>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>> >>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>> >>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>
>>> >>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>
>>> >>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>>
>>> >Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?
>>
>>> You just made it with that comment.
>>
>>No, he didn't. You brought this up, explain why it is relevant.
>>
>Yes, he did. Explain why you don't think it is relevant.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. I made the point
that the Supreme Court does not agree with your interpretation of
what "establishment" is. In retrospect, I can see what the point
of your diversion into the election of President Bush was: to try
to draw my personal political views into the discussion to further
cloud the issue.

The issue is nevertheless clear, and has nothing to do with my
personal views: the Supreme Court does not agree with your
interpretation of what "establishment" is.

>>> >>This another argument from authority?
>>
>>> >Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>>
>>> Thought so.
>>
>>> >The meaning of the
>>> >United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>>
>>> This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the
>>first
>>> amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
>>
>>Yes, he's sure.
>>
>Speak for yourself.

I'll speak for myself. I am sure.

>>Congress has the power to *create* constitutional law in the form of
>>amendments. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret how Constitutional Law
>>is enforced. As such, the statement as made is essentially correct.
>>
>Essentially, huh. Oddly enough, I agree with your statement about the Judiciary.

Actually, I would amend that statement. It is the job of the Executive to
enforce laws. The judiciary has no power to enforce laws, only to decide
cases (and thereby define what laws actually mean by establishing case law).

But my original statement is correct: the meaning of the Constitution
is defined by the Supreme Court. As there is no higher court to
appeal cases which are brought before the Supreme Court, that would seem
rather obvious.

>>
>>An argument from authority is quite legitimate when they *are* the
>>authority.
>>
>No. It does not mean they are right.

I never said that they were "right". But they are the final authority for
deciding what "establishing" religion is, and their rulings have been rather
consistently against the interpretation that you chose to present.

>>You might want to check into our systems of checks and balances. I remember
>>seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock" when I was seven.
>>
>I doubt that statement.

Of course you do. But you have no rebuttal for it either.

>>> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money
>>given
>>> to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have
>>a way
>>> of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.
>>
>>What on earth are you talking about?
>>
>That green stuff that most schools get. Read the whole post before replying.

Try rereading it again. It is jibberish.

>>> I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".
>>
>>What he thinks is irrelevant.
>>
>So what. I asked.

He is right. What I think doesn't really matter in any practical
sense. It is like asking "what do you think about being related
to apes?" What I think doesn't really matter. Humans are related
to apes. You can't pick your relatives. Get on with your life.

>>There is a solid precedent going back to
>>Thomas Jefferson as to this matter. Read a book.
>>
>And with that I leave you with your own advice.

Mark

newbie

unread,
May 14, 2001, 4:13:25 PM5/14/01
to
In article <slrn9g02q7...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
VandeWettering says...

>
>On 14 May 2001 03:56:21 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>In article <9do1qp$7tf0$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill says...
>>>
>>>newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dfJL6.77$6j3....@www.newsranger.com...
>>>
>>>> >>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>>> >>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>>> >>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>>> >>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>>> >>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>>> >>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>>> >>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>>
>>>> >>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>>
>>>> >>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>>>
>>>> >Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?
>>>
>>>> You just made it with that comment.
>>>
>>>No, he didn't. You brought this up, explain why it is relevant.
>>>
>>Yes, he did. Explain why you don't think it is relevant.
>
>I don't know what point you are trying to make. I made the point
>that the Supreme Court does not agree with your interpretation of
>what "establishment" is. In retrospect, I can see what the point
>of your diversion into the election of President Bush was: to try
>to draw my personal political views into the discussion to further
>cloud the issue.
>
"To cloud the issue" is your interpretation, bub, as is your view about the
Supreme Court "disagreeing" with me. Read "interpretation" to be interchangeable
with personal political view.

>
>The issue is nevertheless clear, and has nothing to do with my
>personal views: the Supreme Court does not agree with your
>interpretation of what "establishment" is.
>
And the band plays on.

>
>>>> >>This another argument from authority?
>>>
>>>> >Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>>>
>>>> Thought so.
>>>
>>>> >The meaning of the
>>>> >United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>>> This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the
>>>first
>>>> amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
>>>
>>>Yes, he's sure.
>>>
>>Speak for yourself.
>
>I'll speak for myself. I am sure.
>
Of course you would not "nit-pick" about the definitions of defined and meaning
if pressed to answer why. You would accuse me of it.

>
>>>Congress has the power to *create* constitutional law in the form of
>>>amendments. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret how Constitutional Law
>>>is enforced. As such, the statement as made is essentially correct.
>>>
>>Essentially, huh. Oddly enough, I agree with your statement about the Judiciary.
>
>Actually, I would amend that statement. It is the job of the Executive to
>enforce laws. The judiciary has no power to enforce laws, only to decide
>cases (and thereby define what laws actually mean by establishing case law).
>
Wow. Now case law determines the meaning of laws. Wow.

>
>But my original statement is correct: the meaning of the Constitution
>is defined by the Supreme Court. As there is no higher court to
>appeal cases which are brought before the Supreme Court, that would seem
>rather obvious.
>
You argue in support of your own interpretation with no further support it is
correct.

>
>>>
>>>An argument from authority is quite legitimate when they *are* the
>>>authority.
>>>
>>No. It does not mean they are right.
>
>I never said that they were "right". But they are the final authority for
>deciding what "establishing" religion is, and their rulings have been rather
>consistently against the interpretation that you chose to present.
>
I wouldn't argue with this, because of the way you chose your words. Though you
might as well have said that they are the final authority for deciding what the
intent of laws are and no one can stop them.
>
>>>You might want to check into our systems of checks and balances. I remember
>>>seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock" when I was seven.
>>>
>>I doubt that statement.
>
>Of course you do. But you have no rebuttal for it either.
>
Yes I do. I doubted the statement.

>
>>>> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money
>>>given
>>>> to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have
>>>a way
>>>> of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.
>>>
>>>What on earth are you talking about?
>>>
>>That green stuff that most schools get. Read the whole post before replying.
>
>Try rereading it again. It is jibberish.
>
You do the same. It is not jibberish. ( you are seeing a pattern here, except
you don't see how many patterns there are - one of them is your's)

>
>>>> I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".
>>>
>>>What he thinks is irrelevant.
>>>
>>So what. I asked.
>
>He is right. What I think doesn't really matter in any practical
>sense.
>
Then why did you give your opinion in the first place about the Supreme Court
then here take issue with being asked what your opinion was? The Supreme Court
has been divided over this issue, as has/is the country. And it doesn't matter
to me whether you think some rulings have shown they disagree with me, my point
still stands. Your citing case law is not a refutation.

>
>It is like asking "what do you think about being related
>to apes?" What I think doesn't really matter. Humans are related
>to apes. You can't pick your relatives. Get on with your life.
>
Blah blah blah.

>
>>>There is a solid precedent going back to
>>>Thomas Jefferson as to this matter. Read a book.
>>>
>>And with that I leave you with your own advice.
>
And do you agree about this solid precedent in this implied context?

Al Petterson

unread,
May 14, 2001, 4:12:58 PM5/14/01
to

LoRezMe wrote:
> Three years ago they wanted
> to introduce full on fundie textbooks (anyone ever hear of ABeka
> texts?) for their history courses and some of the nonfundie parents
> objected so they had to leave off with that idea.

I hadn't heard of them. Did a websearch and found www.abeka.com.

I experienced the reaction of a passerby observing a train wreck or
Pauly Shore movie. I found it difficult to look away.

The following quotes are from their online 7-12 science catalog, and are
representative of the content of the catalog:

"Students begin their study with a section on astronomy, in which they
learn how the heavens proclaim the glory of God."

"The text closes with a chapter on science versus the false philosophy
on education."

"The geology section includes a good refutation of the 'principle of
uniformity' and other ideas of evolutionary philosophers."

"Thoroughly Christian in perspective and tone / Truly nonevolutionary in
philosophy, spirit, and sequence of study."

"Environmental issues such as ozone depletion, global warming, and
nuclear power are presented from a balanced, conservative perspective."

"Interspersed throughout the text are biographies of great physicists
who were also Bible-believing Christians."

I suppose I knew things like this must exist. This is... words fail
me.

--
"See that? That's the Moon. A long time ago, we used to go there."

pz

unread,
May 14, 2001, 4:34:13 PM5/14/01
to
In article <3B003E58...@oro.net>, Al Petterson <aa...@oro.net>
wrote:

> LoRezMe wrote:
> > Three years ago they wanted
> > to introduce full on fundie textbooks (anyone ever hear of ABeka
> > texts?) for their history courses and some of the nonfundie parents
> > objected so they had to leave off with that idea.
>
> I hadn't heard of them. Did a websearch and found www.abeka.com.
>
> I experienced the reaction of a passerby observing a train wreck or
> Pauly Shore movie. I found it difficult to look away.

Ditto. I found myself simultaneously appalled and acutely interested in
ordering one of their books.

>
> The following quotes are from their online 7-12 science catalog, and are
> representative of the content of the catalog:
>
> "Students begin their study with a section on astronomy, in which they
> learn how the heavens proclaim the glory of God."
>
> "The text closes with a chapter on science versus the false philosophy
> on education."

You mean "evolution", not "education".

>
> "The geology section includes a good refutation of the 'principle of
> uniformity' and other ideas of evolutionary philosophers."
>
> "Thoroughly Christian in perspective and tone / Truly nonevolutionary in
> philosophy, spirit, and sequence of study."
>
> "Environmental issues such as ozone depletion, global warming, and
> nuclear power are presented from a balanced, conservative perspective."

Yeah, and we get "a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
what that means, but it worries me.

>
> "Interspersed throughout the text are biographies of great physicists
> who were also Bible-believing Christians."
>
> I suppose I knew things like this must exist. This is... words fail
> me.

I feel so sorry for the kids who get taught this garbage.

--
pz

Ken Cox

unread,
May 14, 2001, 4:54:54 PM5/14/01
to
pz wrote:

> Al Petterson <aa...@oro.net> wrote:
> > I hadn't heard of them. Did a websearch and found www.abeka.com.

[snip much]



> Yeah, and we get "a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
> what that means, but it worries me.

Ah, but you at least had some years experience with the
creationist mindset on talk.origins. I fear that most
scientists will be taken completely by surprise when
their own oxen start getting gored.

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com

Nathan Urban

unread,
May 14, 2001, 5:21:41 PM5/14/01
to

> Yeah, and we get "a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
> what that means, but it worries me.

Forget that, what about "Christian" *mathematics*??

http://www.messiah.edu/acdept/depthome/mathsci/acms/bibliog.htm

A Beka Book Publications
1983 Traditional arithmetic for Christian schools
News release. Jan 1983: 1.
A Beka Book Publications; Pensacola Christian College.
*
Stresses absolutes, concrete facts, drill for training; ``set theory
has done to ... mathematics what the theory of evolution has done to
... science.'' [GBC]

More amusement (mostly old books):

Alberda, Willis
1975 What is number?
Pro Rege 3, 3, Mar 1975:2-8, Dordt College
Professor of Mathematics, Dordt College(sa)
*
Number is an irreducible aspect of God's creation, subject to law, with
existence independent of human thought, which we apprehend intuitively,
and use to God's glory. [GBC]

Brondsema, John; Hoeksema, Klaas; Lanning, Arthur; Likkel, Gerrit; Vanden Hock,
John
1958 Mathematics Curriculum Guide
Grand Rapids, MI: National Union of Christian Schools [now Christian Schools International], 38
p+biblio.
?
Revised version of National Union of Christian Schools [1953],
though still written from the perspective of ``old math''; for
later revisions see Boonstra [1971] and Boonstra et al. [1982]. ``A
deliberate attempt to help the teacher present mathematics from the
Christian viewpoint.'' Relates mathematical ideas to God as their
source. Children should learn to praise the Creator through their
study of mathematics. [CJ]

Fakkema, Mark
1940? The Christian way of teaching arithmetic
Christian Philosophy and its Educational Implications
Book 3, Chapter 5: 78-81
Chicago, IL: National Association of Christian Schools, ca. 1940
Educational Director of National Association of Christian Schools
*
True motivation for learning mathematics is man's desire to be God's
image-bearer, to do as God ``the Master Mathematician,'' to discover
abstract concepts that God has thought before him. Mathematics reveals
the eternal existence and various attributes of God. Redeemed man
alone can honor God through mathematics. [CJ]

Fritz, Henry J
1955 Mathematics and the humanities
Catholic Educator 26, Oct 1955: 130-131, 144
Marycliffe Novitiate, Glencoe MO
?
The content of mathematics is practical; its method is good mental
training. It points to the Creator in its orderly procedure,
in its unitary principles, and in its clarity (clear because
abstract). However, it is a danger to the brilliant: ``The very light
shed by mathematics makes them blind to any other light.'' (131) [GBC]

Hengstman, Albert
1970 Mathematics in the Christian school
Christian Home and School, Jan 1970: 13,27
*
Christians can see God's greatness in mathematics. They know that
mathematical results are certain because of God's laws and faithfulness
to his creation. Doing mathematics Christianly focuses on God's role
and adopts an attitude of humility. Mathematics, together with the
rest of the curriculum, must form one ``family of knowledge.'' [CJ]

Keister, J C
1982 Math and the Bible
The Trinity Review 27, Sep-Oct 1982: 1-3
Professor of Physics, Covenant College
*
An attempt to use the Bible to generate and validate the axiomatic
foundations of mathematics, particularly the axioms for arithmetic. [CJ]

Lay, Stephen R
1973 Relating mathematics and the Christian faith
In: Christian College Consortium [1973]
Professor of Mathematics, Aurora College (sa)
* 7p ms 8/24/73
There is a reciprocal interplay between mathematics and
Christianity. The former needs the latter to be grounded in truth;
the latter benefits from the former because mathematics teaches us to
distrust our mere senses. [GBC]

LeMieux, Louis A
1950 Christ-centered teaching of science and mathematics
Catholic School Journal 50, Apr 1950: 121-123
Head, Department of Chemistry, Marquette University High School, Milwaukee WI
*
Mathematics is Christ-centered rather than secular when it is done
well, with gratitude toward God, enriching and clarifying faith,
pointing beyond laws to the Lawgiver. [GBC]

Neuhouser, David L
1973a Understanding 'proofs' in mathematics and faith
Universitas 1, 8, May 1973: 1,3,4
Chairman & Professor of Mathematics, Taylor University(a)
*
Just as a mathematician does not discard a model because of paradoxes,
neither should a Christian disregard the Bible in the face of
paradoxes. Compare his [1979]. [GBC]

O'Toole, G Barry
1944 Physical mathematics and mathematical metaphysics
Catholic Educational Review 42, May 1944: 257-270
?
Mathematics is neither transcendent (metaphysical) nor sensible
(physical). Modern algebra invades metaphysics by predicating things
of predicates or by claiming that 0 is a number. Modern non-Euclidean
geometries invade the physical, leading to nominalism. Recommends a
return to Euclid: definitions are analyses of concepts, postulates
are evident possibilities, axioms are statements of necessary
relations. None of the three are ``assumptions'' per current
``relativistic sophistry.'' [GBC]

Riordan, James T, S.J.
1964 Is there a Christian mathematics?
Catholic Educational Review 62, Sep 1964: 361-368
Loyola Seminary, Shrub Oak, NY
*
Mathematics is a sign, like a sacrament, pointing beyond itself
(the eschatological emphasis), and an art worthwhile in itself (the
incarnational emphasis). 2000 years from now the Church may be the
guardian of mathematics to the same degree that it preserved the
treasures of the classic era in the past. [GBC]

Sullivan, Helen, O.S.B.
1947 Mathematics for women
http://www.messiah.edu/acdept/depthome/mathsci/acms/bibliog.htm
Catholic Educational Review 45, Mar 1947: 160-165
?
God made women different from men, so we should teach them mathematics
differently--as a liberal art, yes, but with emphasis on the universal,
not the specialized; the concrete, not the abstract; the aesthetic,
not the practical. [GBC]

Zimmerman, Larry L
1980 Mathematics: is God silent? Parts I, II, III
The Biblical Educator 2, 1-3, Jan, Feb, Mar, 1980.
Institute for Christian Economics, 1007 E. North St., Anaheim, CA 92805
*
If mathematics is a free artistic creation, why are important
discoveries like calculus often simultaneous? why is it so useful? Only
a theistic view has accounted for it. Mathematics deals with truths,
not just logical validity. Its beauty reflects its Creator. [GBC]

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
May 14, 2001, 5:54:19 PM5/14/01
to

Are you actually claiming that the SCOTUS agrees with your interpretation
of what "establishing" is? I think the evidence argues against that.

>>The issue is nevertheless clear, and has nothing to do with my
>>personal views: the Supreme Court does not agree with your
>>interpretation of what "establishment" is.
>>
>And the band plays on.

Translation: "I can't make a real argument, so I'll pretend like
I did, and maybe nobody will notice just how vacant my position
is."

>>
>>>>> >>This another argument from authority?
>>>>
>>>>> >Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>>>>
>>>>> Thought so.
>>>>
>>>>> >The meaning of the
>>>>> >United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>>>>
>>>>> This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the
>>>>first
>>>>> amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, he's sure.
>>>>
>>>Speak for yourself.
>>
>>I'll speak for myself. I am sure.
>>
>Of course you would not "nit-pick" about the definitions of defined
>and meaning if pressed to answer why. You would accuse me of it.

It amuses me how often you attempt to turn discussions to center
around yourself newbie. The fact of the matter is that neither
your views nor my views define what "establishing of religion" is:
only the Supreme Court's views matter. That is not a matter of
opinion: that is just a matter of law. You can argue that it is
not "good", but it is correct. How you feel about the SCOTUS isn't
particularly relevent.


>>
>>>>Congress has the power to *create* constitutional law in the form of
>>>>amendments. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret how Constitutional Law
>>>>is enforced. As such, the statement as made is essentially correct.
>>>>
>>>Essentially, huh. Oddly enough, I agree with your statement about the Judiciary.
>>
>>Actually, I would amend that statement. It is the job of the Executive to
>>enforce laws. The judiciary has no power to enforce laws, only to decide
>>cases (and thereby define what laws actually mean by establishing case law).
>>
>Wow. Now case law determines the meaning of laws. Wow.

Of course it does. Is this news to you?

>>But my original statement is correct: the meaning of the Constitution
>>is defined by the Supreme Court. As there is no higher court to
>>appeal cases which are brought before the Supreme Court, that would seem
>>rather obvious.
>>
>You argue in support of your own interpretation with no further support it is
>correct.

Read a high school civics text.

>>>>An argument from authority is quite legitimate when they *are* the
>>>>authority.
>>>>
>>>No. It does not mean they are right.
>>
>>I never said that they were "right". But they are the final authority for
>>deciding what "establishing" religion is, and their rulings have been rather
>>consistently against the interpretation that you chose to present.
>>
>I wouldn't argue with this, because of the way you chose your words. Though you
>might as well have said that they are the final authority for deciding what the
>intent of laws are and no one can stop them.

That is pretty much true as well, as their appointments are for life, and the
removal of Supreme Court Justices is pretty difficult.

>>>>You might want to check into our systems of checks and balances. I remember
>>>>seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock" when I was seven.
>>>>
>>>I doubt that statement.
>>
>>Of course you do. But you have no rebuttal for it either.
>>
>Yes I do. I doubted the statement.

I'm not suprised that you think that personal doubt is a rebuttal.
Of course, that doesn't make it rebuttal.

>>>>> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money
>>>>given
>>>>> to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have
>>>>a way
>>>>> of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.
>>>>
>>>>What on earth are you talking about?
>>>>
>>>That green stuff that most schools get. Read the whole post before replying.
>>
>>Try rereading it again. It is jibberish.
>>
>You do the same. It is not jibberish. ( you are seeing a pattern here, except
>you don't see how many patterns there are - one of them is your's)

Look at the sentence:

NEWBIE> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do
NEWBIE> with money given to University and grant money given to students.

There is a missing verb in the second clause.

>>>>> I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".
>>>>
>>>>What he thinks is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>So what. I asked.
>>
>>He is right. What I think doesn't really matter in any practical
>>sense.
>>
>Then why did you give your opinion in the first place about the Supreme Court
>then here take issue with being asked what your opinion was? The Supreme Court
>has been divided over this issue, as has/is the country. And it doesn't matter
>to me whether you think some rulings have shown they disagree with me, my point
>still stands. Your citing case law is not a refutation.

Uh, yes it is. The SCOTUS has ruled what establishing of religion entails.
It differs signicantly from your description. Their opinion establishes the
meaning of law. Your opinion is.. well... your opinion.

>>It is like asking "what do you think about being related
>>to apes?" What I think doesn't really matter. Humans are related
>>to apes. You can't pick your relatives. Get on with your life.
>>
>Blah blah blah.

No real response? I'm not surprised.

>>>>There is a solid precedent going back to
>>>>Thomas Jefferson as to this matter. Read a book.
>>>>
>>>And with that I leave you with your own advice.
>>
>And do you agree about this solid precedent in this implied context?

Of course there is.

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 14, 2001, 5:56:55 PM5/14/01
to
On 13 May 2001 22:02:30 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by newbie <nos...@newsranger.com>:

>In article <slrn9fudm1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>VandeWettering says...
>>
>>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>
>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>
>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?

No.

>>
>This another argument from authority?

Er, you really don't know what that means, do you?

Andrew Glasgow

unread,
May 14, 2001, 6:10:24 PM5/14/01
to

<http://www.ozyandmillie.org/d/20010427.html>

<http://www.ozyandmillie.org/d/20010428.html>

<http://www.ozyandmillie.org/d/20010430.html>

<http://www.ozyandmillie.org/d/20010501.html>

--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |

pz

unread,
May 14, 2001, 7:52:36 PM5/14/01
to
In article <9dpi8m$mbq$1...@crib.corepower.com>,
nur...@crib.corepower.com (Nathan Urban) wrote:

Urk. OK, you've convinced me -- creationists are idiots.
--
pz

newbie

unread,
May 14, 2001, 7:57:25 PM5/14/01
to
In article <b4l0gtkdl14qn71li...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova says...

>
>On 13 May 2001 22:02:30 -0400, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by newbie <nos...@newsranger.com>:
>
>>In article <slrn9fudm1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>>VandeWettering says...
>>>
>>>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>>
>>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>>
>>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>
>No.
>
>>>
>>This another argument from authority?
>
>Er, you really don't know what that means, do you?
>
Er, you really are not asking, are you?

newbie

unread,
May 14, 2001, 8:11:17 PM5/14/01
to
In article <slrn9g0l0k...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
I am actually claiming what I claimed above originally. You can re-read it.
Obviously you are not trying to understand what my claim is.
>
>>>The issue is nevertheless clear, and has nothing to do with my
>>>personal views: the Supreme Court does not agree with your
>>>interpretation of what "establishment" is.
>>>
>>And the band plays on.
>
>Translation: "I can't make a real argument, so I'll pretend like
>I did, and maybe nobody will notice just how vacant my position
>is."
>
You mean like when you state over and over that the Supreme Court doesn't agree
with me?

>
>>>
>>>>>> >>This another argument from authority?
>>>>>
>>>>>> >Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thought so.
>>>>>
>>>>>> >The meaning of the
>>>>>> >United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the
>>>>>first
>>>>>> amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, he's sure.
>>>>>
>>>>Speak for yourself.
>>>
>>>I'll speak for myself. I am sure.
>>>
>>Of course you would not "nit-pick" about the definitions of defined
>>and meaning if pressed to answer why. You would accuse me of it.
>
>It amuses me how often you attempt to turn discussions to center
>around yourself newbie. The fact of the matter is that neither
>your views nor my views define what "establishing of religion" is:
>only the Supreme Court's views matter. That is not a matter of
>opinion: that is just a matter of law. You can argue that it is
>not "good", but it is correct. How you feel about the SCOTUS isn't
>particularly relevent.
>
Are you American?

>>>
>>>>>Congress has the power to *create* constitutional law in the form of
>>>>>amendments. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret how Constitutional Law
>>>>>is enforced. As such, the statement as made is essentially correct.
>>>>>
>>>>Essentially, huh. Oddly enough, I agree with your statement about the Judiciary.
>>>
>>>Actually, I would amend that statement. It is the job of the Executive to
>>>enforce laws. The judiciary has no power to enforce laws, only to decide
>>>cases (and thereby define what laws actually mean by establishing case law).
>>>
>>Wow. Now case law determines the meaning of laws. Wow.
>
>Of course it does. Is this news to you?
>
Yes. Case law is used as reference to previous cases. The SC has an obligation
to interpret the constitution the way it was intended by the framers. You may
say that the SC determines the meaning, but that is a generalized and confusing
statement.
>
>>>But my original statement is correct: the meaning of the Constitution
>>>is defined by the Supreme Court. As there is no higher court to
>>>appeal cases which are brought before the Supreme Court, that would seem
>>>rather obvious.
>>>
>>You argue in support of your own interpretation with no further support it is
>>correct.
>
>Read a high school civics text.
>
Seems that is as far as you have progressed.

>
>>>>>An argument from authority is quite legitimate when they *are* the
>>>>>authority.
>>>>>
>>>>No. It does not mean they are right.
>>>
>>>I never said that they were "right". But they are the final authority for
>>>deciding what "establishing" religion is, and their rulings have been rather
>>>consistently against the interpretation that you chose to present.
>>>
>>I wouldn't argue with this, because of the way you chose your words. Though you
>>might as well have said that they are the final authority for deciding what the
>>intent of laws are and no one can stop them.
>
>That is pretty much true as well, as their appointments are for life, and the
>removal of Supreme Court Justices is pretty difficult.
>
Agreed. Yet this is one thing that keeps the SC in check.(very loosely though)

>
>>>>>You might want to check into our systems of checks and balances. I remember
>>>>>seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock" when I was seven.
>>>>>
>>>>I doubt that statement.
>>>
>>>Of course you do. But you have no rebuttal for it either.
>>>
>>Yes I do. I doubted the statement.
>
>I'm not suprised that you think that personal doubt is a rebuttal.
>Of course, that doesn't make it rebuttal.
>
Neither is what you are doing.

>
>>>>>> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money
>>>>>given
>>>>>> to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have
>>>>>a way
>>>>>> of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.
>>>>>
>>>>>What on earth are you talking about?
>>>>>
>>>>That green stuff that most schools get. Read the whole post before replying.
>>>
>>>Try rereading it again. It is jibberish.
>>>
>>You do the same. It is not jibberish. ( you are seeing a pattern here, except
>>you don't see how many patterns there are - one of them is your's)
>
>Look at the sentence:
>
>NEWBIE> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do
>NEWBIE> with money given to University and grant money given to students.
>
>There is a missing verb in the second clause.
>
Hmm, what to do, what to do. Here. What do we do. Better?

>
>>>>>> I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".
>>>>>
>>>>>What he thinks is irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>So what. I asked.
>>>
>>>He is right. What I think doesn't really matter in any practical
>>>sense.
>>>
>>Then why did you give your opinion in the first place about the Supreme Court
>>then here take issue with being asked what your opinion was? The Supreme Court
>>has been divided over this issue, as has/is the country. And it doesn't matter
>>to me whether you think some rulings have shown they disagree with me, my point
>>still stands. Your citing case law is not a refutation.
>
>Uh, yes it is. The SCOTUS has ruled what establishing of religion entails.
>
This is what you claim.

>
>It differs signicantly from your description. Their opinion establishes the
>meaning of law. Your opinion is.. well... your opinion.
>
And you talk to me of what refutation is?

>
>>>It is like asking "what do you think about being related
>>>to apes?" What I think doesn't really matter. Humans are related
>>>to apes. You can't pick your relatives. Get on with your life.
>>>
>>Blah blah blah.
>
>No real response? I'm not surprised.
>
Neither am I with you.

>
>>>>>There is a solid precedent going back to
>>>>>Thomas Jefferson as to this matter. Read a book.
>>>>>
>>>>And with that I leave you with your own advice.
>>>
>>And do you agree about this solid precedent in this implied context?
>
>Of course there is.
>
Well, I will refute you. Here is the refutation. Now go away.
>
http://members.aol.com/larrypahl/estab1.htm

Adam Marczyk

unread,
May 14, 2001, 9:12:10 PM5/14/01
to
Nathan Urban <nur...@crib.corepower.com> wrote in message
news:9dpi8m$mbq$1...@crib.corepower.com...

> In article <myers-4DB0EC....@news.onvoy.net>, pz
<my...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, and we get "a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
> > what that means, but it worries me.
>
> Forget that, what about "Christian" *mathematics*??

I think that's what Erik used on his spreadsheet. You know, the kind of
mathematics that proves evolution is impossible.

[snip]

--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"

To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
May 14, 2001, 10:14:10 PM5/14/01
to
On 14 May 2001 20:11:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

[ Classic newbie stripped ]

Sorry, I am not going to subject myself to another newbie thread. The
tactics of avoid and counterattack are just too childish for words. I
may not have something much better to do with my time, but I am willing
to bet that with some effort I could find something.

Alturalan

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:29:00 AM5/15/01
to
>Subject: Re: ABeka books (was: Another new poster)

RE: >"a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure


>> > what that means, but it worries me.
>>
>> Forget that, what about "Christian" *mathematics*??

Well, cripes, I had a Catholic math book in Junior High, believe it or no.
despite the fact that math is universal and non-sectarian. Somehow, a
"Christian perspective on chemistry" reminds me of a line from "1984": "Chess
and its Relations to Ingsoc."

How many chem labs did Jesus go to? Is that how he learned to turn water into
wine?

-- K-Man

Adam Marczyk

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:40:23 AM5/15/01
to
Alturalan <altu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010515002759...@ng-bh1.aol.com...

Personally, I think it was some form of cold fusion.

newbie

unread,
May 15, 2001, 2:06:51 AM5/15/01
to
In article <slrn9g147s...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
VandeWettering says...

>
>On 14 May 2001 20:11:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>[ Classic newbie stripped ]
>
>Sorry, I am not going to subject myself to another newbie thread. The
>
Probably because you read the URL I gave, thought about it and realized that
there has not been a clear precedent concerning establishment of religion.

>
>tactics of avoid and counterattack are just too childish for words. I
>
Have to agree with you that my counterattacks were just as childish as your's.

>
>may not have something much better to do with my time, but I am willing
>to bet that with some effort I could find something.
>
Not conversation or debate unless you put in considerable more effort than you
did in this thread.
>
Mark V.: You are wrong. Supreme Court says so. End of story.
>
Very interesting, Mark.

Dave Horn

unread,
May 15, 2001, 2:11:15 AM5/15/01
to
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:5%WL6.1169$6j3.1...@www.newsranger.com...

>
> In article <slrn9g02q7...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
> VandeWettering says...

[Snip]

If one removes Mark's comments, one would remove the only meaningful
contribution to this exchange. So there really is no point in quoted
Newbie's rantings. Let's just remind him of a few things from which he,
that is, Glenn (I never run from argument) Sheldon has left unanswered:

What is the evidence that "strongly suggests" that there is a component to
life other than chemical processes?

What is the "science" to "creation 'science?'"

How did science reveal the Piltdown hoax and fail to use the scientific
method while doing so?

What "laws of matter" does life fail to obey (and how)?

There appears to have been a recent admission that there is no evidence that
"wilderness_voice" lied when he said he had a masters in Bible and held a
pastorate. Why, then, was this person addressed and stigmatized as having
lied?

What is the evidence that "Just Another Lurker" is a mental patient named
"George?"

How can one read a summary of a book that included specific identification
of a chapter titled, "biogeography" and then later claim that the impression
left is that there is "no chapter entitled as such."

These and other questions will not go away.

But Newbie will run away...again...

Dave Horn

unread,
May 15, 2001, 2:18:30 AM5/15/01
to
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:YbML6.207$6j3....@www.newsranger.com...

>
> In article <9do1qp$7tf0$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill
says...
> >
> >newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:dfJL6.77$6j3....@www.newsranger.com...

[Snip]

Let's remember that anyone who disagrees with Newbie sooner or later is
branded a liar.

> >You might want to check into our systems of checks and


> >balances. I remember seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock"
> >when I was seven.
>
> I doubt that statement.

What reason does Newbie have for doubting this statement?

wilkins

unread,
May 15, 2001, 3:43:41 AM5/15/01
to
Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:

> Alturalan <altu...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010515002759...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: ABeka books (was: Another new poster)
> >
> > RE: >"a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
> > >> > what that means, but it worries me.
> > >>
> > >> Forget that, what about "Christian" *mathematics*??
> >
> > Well, cripes, I had a Catholic math book in Junior High, believe it or no.
> > despite the fact that math is universal and non-sectarian. Somehow, a
> > "Christian perspective on chemistry" reminds me of a line from "1984":
> "Chess
> > and its Relations to Ingsoc."
> >
> > How many chem labs did Jesus go to? Is that how he learned to turn water
> into
> > wine?
>
> Personally, I think it was some form of cold fusion.
>

Rubbish. All you have to do is put the water on vines, then squeeze the
result and add fermenting bacteria. Simple...

--
John Wilkins, Head, Communication Services, The Walter and Eliza Hall
Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>

David Jensen

unread,
May 15, 2001, 4:42:05 AM5/15/01