The NCSE started publishing a journal called Creation/Evolution in 1980. In 1996 it was merged with Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Now the entire run of Creation/Evolution Journal has been put online. It was OCRed so it’s searchable, but it has not yet been proofread so searches may be a little wonky sometimes.
Via John Pieret.
http://ncseweb.org/cej/3/1/victory-arkansas
I found this article to be of interest.
The parallels to the Dover case are undeniable, just the anti-evolution participants were more dishonest during the Dover trial. What should that tell any IDiot supporter?
How much more dishonest must the anti-evolution side be if the switch scam, currently being run by the ID perp failures, goes to court? From cluelessness to perjury to what next?
Ron,
Several of the court decisions mentioned are available free on the web:
McLean vs Arkansas from TalkOrigins
Segraves vs. California posted by ‘FFire’ (I hope I have that attribution right. If not, I apologize).
And of course the Louisiana law mentioned in the article eventually resulted in Edwards vs. Aguillard (post also care of TalkOrigins).
You can find links to quite a few court decisions on the Panda’s Thumb link page.
What I found interesting was the account of the trial and not the written decision of the judge. Sort of like reading a short Devil in Dover.
Very interesting OP. I clicked on the link and became instantly fascinated. But what is obvious from the outset is the fact that the journal is recognizing pseudo-Creationism. Real Creationism, circa 1802-1859, accepted species immutability. Baraminology didn’t even exist until well after the death of Darwin. And real Creationism accepted an Old Earth. I guess recognizing Fundamentalists as the genuine article of Creationism makes Darwinists feel smart, if not superior.
Ray Martinez, Old Earth Creationist-species immutabilist.
Ray wrote:
“But what is obvious from the outset is the fact that the journal is recognizing pseudo-Creationism.”
So, what’s your point? Real scientists are against pseudo science, creationism and pseudo creationism. They are skeptical of any views that are not based on evidence. They are against anyone who seeks to undermine the teaching of real science. They are offended by anyone who views are dogmatic and immutable.
It’s really ironic that those whose views are not based on evidence are always trying to to tell everyone else why other views are not acceptable. We have heard lots of people explain why others are not true Christians, now Ray is going to explain why others are not true creationists. The big tent seems to have some holes showing.
“I guess recognizing Fundamentalists as the genuine article of Creationism makes Darwinists feel smart, if not superior.”
Who cares about feeling superior? What we need to do is defend science education from attacks by nut jobs of all colors. What difference does it make if you are a “real” creationist or a “pseudo” creationist? If you try to attack science education you will be opposed. If you don’t think these people are real creationists then you argue with them, you try to convince them that they are wrong. They disguise their true intentions specifically to undermine science education. Why should that make us any less offended by their actions?
Now Ray, if species are immutable, can you explain to us why all atrhropods have a virtually identical mitochondrial gene order? Can you explain to us why terrestrial artiodactyls share the same SINE insertions as Cetaceans? Can you explain the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities found between all organisms? Can you explain how you can believe that species are immutable when speciation has been observed and documented? Can you explain why your views are immutable in spite of this evidence?
‘Cause the Bible says so. Duh. Next question.
In any case, boasting that you’re smarter than a creationist is like boasting that you own the tallest building in Podunk, North Dakota. It is no sign of superiority.
For legal resources, don’t forget NCSE’s creationism and the law page: http://ncseweb.org/creationism/lega[…]ationism-law
The page pretty much has it all, in one place. Just posted the Comer v. Scott appeal, in fact.
Update