Advertisement

LarryFarma

Follow

Comment history

Kansas vs. Darwin

--"To clarify, this particular "beginning" took place in 2005 when three members of the Kansas State Board of Education - Steve Abrams, Kathy Martin and Connie Morris - conducted controversial hearings to debate where God belonged in the classroom."--

Wrong -- the debate was not over where God belonged in the classroom -- the debate was over where criticism of Darwinism belonged in the classroom.

October 1, 2007 at 9:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

[img/photos/2007/09/13/darwinvskansas.jpg]

The "kangaroo court" excuse for the boycott just does not hold water. Then why didn't the Darwinists boycott the Dover trial after learning that the judge was a conservative church-going Bush-appointed Republican?

September 29, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Education board to revisit debate over evolution

Hardline Darwinists are anti-intellectuals who are trying to suppress legitimate criticism of Darwinism.

February 11, 2007 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State board battles image problem

I think that the primary concern of applicants may be job security. I think that a lot of applicants don't care that much about the evolution controversy, and some may even be in favor of including critical analysis of evolution in the curriculum. Maybe now the board will regret having run Corkins off so quickly.

January 17, 2007 at 1:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Speaker: Science above the fray

>>>>>Larry, dear Larry, there was no crystal ball involved. <<<<<

Nullifidian, dear Nullifadian, all I can say is that the courts are very unpredictable.

>>>>>And as for having an arguable claim, I'm not stopping him from arguing that legal theory in court, but he shouldn't be surprised when he's landed with the costs for advancing a frivolous legal argument. <<<<<

If a lawsuit has any arguable basis at all, usually the courts will not hold that lawsuit to be frivolous.

November 30, 2006 at 8:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Speaker: Science above the fray

Posted by Nullifidian on November 28, 2006 at 6:05 a.m.
>>>>>The current legal thinking is that things that are even vastly more egregious than what you and Caldwell call a "violation of the establishment" clause are permissible under the Lemon test. <<<<<<

I am really fed up to here with you know-it-alls who think that you have crystal balls that can predict how the courts are going to rule in any particular case. The fact is that Caldwell had an arguable claim and was justified in suing the government.

November 29, 2006 at 3:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Speaker: Science above the fray

Nullifidian said ( November 26, 2006 at 1:34 p.m.) ---

>>>>>"You are changing the subject. The issue here was whether Caldwell had an arguable constitutional claim."

No, actually the subject was how what was posted to the Exploring Evolution site amounted to a establishment clause violation. <<<<<<

That's the next subject. That was not the first subject. The first subject was the question. The next subject is the answer.

>>>>> "A small, small violation of the establishment clause is still a violation of the establishment clause."

You snipped my observation about how, since the passage was geared for people who were *already* adherents, there was no net furthering of a religious interest. How dishonest. <<<<<

No, it was not dishonest at all. Your claim that the passage was geared for people who were already adherents has nothing to do with your implied claim that the passage was more excusable because it was just a "small, small part of the website."

>>>>>> Things that could be seen as "small violations" have been ruled acceptable for decades, going back to the Cochran case (Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education 281 U.S. 370 (1930)), where it was ruled that public institutions could loan school textbooks to parochial schools, or parents could be refunded the cost of busing their children to parochial schools, despite the fact that religious education was a part of these schools (Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)). <<<<<<

It appears that Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), overturned Cochran and Everson. Anyway, it is often not possible to use past court rulings to predict future court rulings.

November 26, 2006 at 10:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Speaker: Science above the fray

Nullifidian said ( November 23, 2006 at 10:35 a.m.) --

>>>>> "What breached the establishment clause was that the website used government funds to promote a religious viewpoint, that viewpoint being that there is no antagonism between evolution and religion."

Sorry, you and Larry Caldwell both fail this test on Constitutional law. <<<<<

You are changing the subject. The issue here was whether Caldwell had an arguable constitutional claim. He clearly did. Judges are required to initially accept all of the plaintiff's allegations as true. There was no judgment on the merits of the claim because the case was dismissed on grounds of lack of standing to sue.

>>>>>Saying that some religious traditions have reconciled themselves with evolution neither inhibits religion, nor does it advance it. <<<<<

Wrong. Saying that some religious "traditions" have reconciled themselves with evolution tends to promote those religious traditions over religious traditions that have not reconciled themselves with evolution.

>>>>>The clear audience for that small, small part of the website is theists whose acceptance of evolution is shaky based on their belief that it conflicts with their faith. <<<<<

A small, small violation of the establishment clause is still a violation of the establishment clause.

>>>>>> "Also, the website may have even promoted the idea that mainstream religion actually supports evolution."

It may to someone who cannot read for comprehension, but then that can hardly be the basis for a legal decision, since people who cannot read for comprehension can pull any conclusion out of any text. <<<<<

How can you say that I misinterpreted the text without presenting what the text actually said? I just seem to remember that the text promoted the idea that some mainstream religions actually support evolution.

November 26, 2006 at 6:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Speaker: Science above the fray

Nullifidian said ( November 21, 2006 at 9:42 a.m. ) --

>>>>>LarryFarma,

Would you kindly explain to us all how a private non-profit can breach the establishment clause by having people who go speak at churches?

Or how a website can breach the establishment clause simply by noting the entirely innocuous fact that there are numerous religious figures and organizations which have said there's no necessary antagonism between evolutionary biology and their respective faiths?<<<<<<

What breached the establishment clause was that the website used government funds to promote a religious viewpoint, that viewpoint being that there is no antagonism between evolution and religion. Also, the website may have even promoted the idea that mainstream religion actually supports evolution.

November 22, 2006 at 9:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Speaker: Science above the fray

>>>> Larry, why didn't you note that the lawsuit was DISMISSED? <<<<<

Because the dismissal is not relevant to the question of whether the allegations were true or not.

>>>>> Why is it that creationists RARELY tell the WHOLE truth? <<<<<

Why should I tell something that is not relevant?

Also, I am not a "creationist."

November 19, 2006 at 10:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous