Wes on Opderbeck and Dover

| 57 Comments

This is a good read: Wes on Opderbeck and Dover.

57 Comments

The link (http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/[…]k-and-dover/) says: “The website cannot display the page”

The link doesn’t work; comes up with the error “500 - Internal Server Error”

Opderbeck says: ““Religion” is a constitutionally proper subject of study in the public schools, provided that the purpose and effect of that study is not sectarian.” (Thanks for the alternate, link, Amo.)

And that’s the point: The lying religionists on the Dover School Board were trying to disguise religion as science - and got caught.

I often quote from Judge Jones’ decision about a few of the sworn witnesses: “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”

I restarted the PHP backend.

I have another post up where I respond to David Opderbeck’s latest comment.

That is great stuff Wes. We should really write a “Review of criticisms of the Kitzmiller decision” article and put stuff like that in it.

Wes Elseberry: You [Opderbeck] have completely failed to address the reasons that one might legitimately expect a lengthy and detailed consideration of those arguments that were put before the court by the defense and the plaintiffs. [Italics in original]

I agree. Both defense and plaintiffs asked the judge to rule on this issue. Both defense and plaintiffs called expert witnesses specifically to address this issue. So in my mind there’s nothing improper about ruling on the issue.

As far as I can tell, Opderbeck’s argument is that ruling that ID is not science was unnecessary - i.e. there was enough lying by the defense to justify throwing out the board’s actions without considering the larger question.

Now, maybe “never rule on substance when you can use a technicality to dismiss a case” is good legal advice for a judge. IANAL and wouldn’t know about that. What I do know, however, it that this makes for a weak blog argument. Even if it wasn’t necessary, Opderbeck should still tell us whether he thinks the judge ruled correctly or incorrectly that ID isn’t science. To avoid that question is weaselly.

eric said: Even if it wasn’t necessary, Opderbeck should still tell us whether he thinks the judge ruled correctly or incorrectly that ID isn’t science. To avoid that question is weaselly.

Welcome to the world of intelligent design creationism apologetics. Of course the weasels avoid that question - because it has the “wrong” answer.

We need to keep pounding on these IDiots that intelligent design creationism is not science. I usually throw in that the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences and essentially every other actual science organization in the country all agree that intelligent design creationism is not science - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o[…]igent_design for details.

Opderbeck does say that the decision provided the correct result, that is, a win for the plaintiffs, so I don’t think that he is avoiding that question. However, I think he believes that there exists some legitimate form of “intelligent design” whose future is endangered by the decision, and thus he feels compelled to criticize the decision’s explicit handling of the arguments made about the legitimacy of “intelligent design” as science. There is, of course, nothing to “intelligent design” except a legal-precedent-evading label for a subset of the same old ensemble of religious antievolution arguments.

The dover decision was wrong and silly. The issue is simple. It is what are the kids to be taught abort the origins of certain matters. These origins were not witnessed and so study of remaining evidence is the only coarse to follow. Like any subject. Then one side is banned and trys to overthrow this and a court again bans them. The court therefore is either saying the one side is wrong or regardless if they are wrong they must be banned. A absurdity in a area that is seeking truth. Schools.

the court is not banning imperfect science but rather in saying I.D is not science therefore it has no place in science class. Yet its more then this. the court is really saying I.D is religion. Its illegal to discuss religion as true as a source of origins.

Therefore the court is saying the religion of I.D. is not true. So the court has interfered and so the state in the truth of religion. Its official. God and genesis are not true. This decision will not stand.

origin issues are not science anyways. Yet I.D does the same amount of study as evolutionists in drawing conclusions.

The court has no place to say, in the subject of practical real origins, that God and Genisus are not true. Its illegal by the very law they use to ban creationism at present.

For sincere evolution groupies I suggest you walk in a creationists shoes. Think how we think. You are asking us to accept a banning of what we think is true on certain subjects in public institutions dedicated to teaching what is true on these same subjects. In a nation and culture that claims freedom of enquiry is a heritage and a future in intellectual endeavors. To a creationist its ABSURD to have our side banned by a state claiming it teaches the truth whichever way it turns. An absurd censorship is today in effect. Knowledge, science, and conclusions thereof is today controlled by the state. Looks that way to us. This shall not stand.

Wow, Mr. Byers’ opinion on the matter is eerily similar to Mr. Opderbeck’s.

Byers, I have been training myself for over forty years to think like a rational human being, one who actually accepts evidence, looks for probable cause, and reasons from observed fact. I can’t now think how a creationist thinks, and I DON’T WANT TO.

Robert Byers said:

The dover decision was wrong and silly. The issue is simple. It is what are the kids to be taught abort the origins of certain matters.

The Dover decision was about evolution, not origins. In fact the Board directive states “Note: Origins of Life is not taught.” And that’s the Boards position Robert - the pro-ID side, your side.

So you have obviously misunderstood the entire legal case right from the get-go.

You are asking us to accept a banning of what we think is true on certain subjects in public institutions dedicated to teaching what is true on these same subjects.

Its not banned - you can teach Design in comparative religion class. You just can’t teach it in biology class because it isn’t science.

Robert Byers said:

The dover decision was wrong and silly. The issue is simple. It is what are the kids to be taught abort the origins of certain matters. These origins were not witnessed and so study of remaining evidence is the only coarse to follow. Like any subject. Then one side is banned and trys to overthrow this and a court again bans them. The court therefore is either saying the one side is wrong or regardless if they are wrong they must be banned. A absurdity in a area that is seeking truth. Schools.

the court is not banning imperfect science but rather in saying I.D is not science therefore it has no place in science class. Yet its more then this. the court is really saying I.D is religion. Its illegal to discuss religion as true as a source of origins.

Therefore the court is saying the religion of I.D. is not true. So the court has interfered and so the state in the truth of religion. Its official. God and genesis are not true. This decision will not stand.

origin issues are not science anyways. Yet I.D does the same amount of study as evolutionists in drawing conclusions.

The court has no place to say, in the subject of practical real origins, that God and Genisus are not true. Its illegal by the very law they use to ban creationism at present.

For sincere evolution groupies I suggest you walk in a creationists shoes. Think how we think. You are asking us to accept a banning of what we think is true on certain subjects in public institutions dedicated to teaching what is true on these same subjects. In a nation and culture that claims freedom of enquiry is a heritage and a future in intellectual endeavors. To a creationist its ABSURD to have our side banned by a state claiming it teaches the truth whichever way it turns. An absurd censorship is today in effect. Knowledge, science, and conclusions thereof is today controlled by the state. Looks that way to us. This shall not stand.

here is (one of) the major flaw in your statement “absurdity in a area that is seeking truth. Schools.”

It is not the mission to “seek truth” - it is the mission of schools to educate students as best we can about what we already know- and top prepare students to be productive citizens of our society. “Seeking truth” is the mission of research facilities or perhaps thological/philosophical organizations.

Here’s your next error: “court is saying the religion of I.D. is not true” nope - saying that you can’t TEACH the RELIGION of ID using taxpayer money - there was NO judgement about the ‘truth’ of ID

Robert Byers Wrote:

For sincere evolution groupies I suggest you walk in a creationists shoes. Think how we think. You are asking us to accept a banning of what we think is true on certain subjects in public institutions dedicated to teaching what is true on these same subjects. In a nation and culture that claims freedom of enquiry is a heritage and a future in intellectual endeavors. To a creationist its ABSURD to have our side banned by a state claiming it teaches the truth whichever way it turns. An absurd censorship is today in effect. Knowledge, science, and conclusions thereof is today controlled by the state. Looks that way to us. This shall not stand.

I think Mr. Byers is missing an important point here; namely, that over the last 40+ years, we have looked at ID/creationism.

The consistent and repeatable result of that scrutiny has been to demonstrate that ID/creationism is a pseudo-science at best. The concepts that ID/creationism seeks to perpetrate are caricatures of science. ID/creationists get nearly every concept of science wrong, from basic physics concepts to those concepts that form the foundation of evolutionary theory and evidence.

Wrong, wrong, wrong; and there is not one example of ID/creationist concepts Mr. Byers can provide that can show otherwise. That is why he keeps harping on things like “absurd censorship”, “freedom of inquiry”, and “walking in creationist shoes.”

It wouldn’t make any difference if religion was involved or not; you just don’t teach things that are known to be wrong and have been shown to be wrong repeatedly. Hiding such criminality behind the sanctimonious, self-righteousness of sectarian dogma simply compounds the criminality.

eric said:

Robert Byers said:

The dover decision was wrong and silly. The issue is simple. It is what are the kids to be taught abort the origins of certain matters.

The Dover decision was about evolution, not origins. In fact the Board directive states “Note: Origins of Life is not taught.” And that’s the Boards position Robert - the pro-ID side, your side.

So you have obviously misunderstood the entire legal case right from the get-go.

You are asking us to accept a banning of what we think is true on certain subjects in public institutions dedicated to teaching what is true on these same subjects.

Its not banned - you can teach Design in comparative religion class. You just can’t teach it in biology class because it isn’t science.

This is what this judge misunderstood. Evolution is about origins. Origin of species. Not just origins of life. The I,D, case was about design in biology. Unless I’m wrong here.

If design is not taught in biology class then its because a opinion is being made there is no design evident in the origins of biological life. Design is all about the atomic nature of living life. Evolution is not science like real sciences. The evidence for design is as fair a study in biology as seeking to see no design but just selection on mutation.

Robert Byers said:

This is what this judge misunderstood. Evolution is about origins. Origin of species. Not just origins of life. The I,D, case was about design in biology. Unless I’m wrong here.

Yes, you are wrong here.

You are wrong at AtBC.

You are wrong in your marsupial essay.

You are wrong in Canada.

You are wrong in a box with a fox, on a train, in the rain.

You are wrong.

Everywhere.

JASONMITCHELL said:

Robert Byers said:

The dover decision was wrong and silly. The issue is simple. It is what are the kids to be taught abort the origins of certain matters. These origins were not witnessed and so study of remaining evidence is the only coarse to follow. Like any subject. Then one side is banned and trys to overthrow this and a court again bans them. The court therefore is either saying the one side is wrong or regardless if they are wrong they must be banned. A absurdity in a area that is seeking truth. Schools.

the court is not banning imperfect science but rather in saying I.D is not science therefore it has no place in science class. Yet its more then this. the court is really saying I.D is religion. Its illegal to discuss religion as true as a source of origins.

Therefore the court is saying the religion of I.D. is not true. So the court has interfered and so the state in the truth of religion. Its official. God and genesis are not true. This decision will not stand.

origin issues are not science anyways. Yet I.D does the same amount of study as evolutionists in drawing conclusions.

The court has no place to say, in the subject of practical real origins, that God and Genisus are not true. Its illegal by the very law they use to ban creationism at present.

For sincere evolution groupies I suggest you walk in a creationists shoes. Think how we think. You are asking us to accept a banning of what we think is true on certain subjects in public institutions dedicated to teaching what is true on these same subjects. In a nation and culture that claims freedom of enquiry is a heritage and a future in intellectual endeavors. To a creationist its ABSURD to have our side banned by a state claiming it teaches the truth whichever way it turns. An absurd censorship is today in effect. Knowledge, science, and conclusions thereof is today controlled by the state. Looks that way to us. This shall not stand.

here is (one of) the major flaw in your statement “absurdity in a area that is seeking truth. Schools.”

It is not the mission to “seek truth” - it is the mission of schools to educate students as best we can about what we already know- and top prepare students to be productive citizens of our society. “Seeking truth” is the mission of research facilities or perhaps thological/philosophical organizations.

Here’s your next error: “court is saying the religion of I.D. is not true” nope - saying that you can’t TEACH the RELIGION of ID using taxpayer money - there was NO judgement about the ‘truth’ of ID

The schools are about truth. Which classes are not or its only a option? Origin subjects are taught as the accuracy of the subject being discussed. Evolution is taught as the accurate origin for biological life.

If in teaching origins I.D etc is not taught when its a well known idea or if its banned is sO the state saying its not true. Otherwise they would be teaching origin subjects without the goal of truth or accuracy. A absurdity for education. No way around it. the banning of a opinion in any subject that is taught is the state saying the opinion is false. In this case a illegal interference with religion by their own reasoning.

My only comment to Robert Byers is to please read your post before posting it. The post is so poorly written that I automatically, without conscious thought, discount the value of what you have to say. Please take this as constructive criticism and not just as a direct criticism. Clear, concise grammatical writing makes the writer seem more intelligent regardless of the content. Poor grammar, misspelled and misused words, seemingly random thoughts, make the writer look ignorant, again regardless of the actual content. By the way, I find evolution to be an overwhelmingly compelling idea to support the facts found in the field.

At this point, reading the interminable posts by Mr. Byers, I’ve got to say that he reminds me of the unlamented Larry Farfromsane. Bullshit, obvious bullshit, repeatedly. When pointed out that he’s clearly incorrect, never changes. Other than as information to lurkers, pointless to respond to, as his mind is fixed.

I admire all of you who have responded to him. But, to paraphrase Barney Frank, arguing with Robert Byers is “like arguing with a dining room table”.

No doubt Mr. Byers will respond to this with yet another whine about how he’s really not wrong and that I am, but still, I can’t see a reason to respond even to that.

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

Opderbeck does say that the decision provided the correct result, that is, a win for the plaintiffs, so I don’t think that he is avoiding that question. However, I think he believes that there exists some legitimate form of “intelligent design” whose future is endangered by the decision, and thus he feels compelled to criticize the decision’s explicit handling of the arguments made about the legitimacy of “intelligent design” as science. There is, of course, nothing to “intelligent design” except a legal-precedent-evading label for a subset of the same old ensemble of religious antievolution arguments.

If you are replying to eric I do not think that his point was whether the ruling was correctly for the plaintiffs, but for all Opderbeck’s laments, whether the judge was correct in his determination that ID was not science. The guy can whine all he wants to about technical issues, but if the ruling was the correct one, who really cares?

When even the ID perps admit that they never had a scientific theory, and that they never had anything equivalent to the real science it is sort of a moot point.

If there is a legitimate side to ID what is it?

What will happen to the next rube legislator or school board that pops up and wants to teach the science of intelligent design? What has happened in every such case, even Dover? Why does the creationist switch scam not even mention that ID ever existed? Who is running the bait and switch on such creationist rubes that fell for the ID scam? Why were the ID perps running the bait and switch scam, on the creationist rubes that believed them, years before they lost in Dover? If there is a legitimate side to the ID creationist scam, Opderbeck should first demonstrate that it exists.

Wes, I read your response to Opderbeck. It is amusing that he tried to play the ad hom card. From my experience these types do not use the term as applying to the logical fallacy. They can call all scientists liars etc. and that isn’t ad hom because everyone pretty much knows that it isn’t true and may not apply to the argument at hand, but if you do point out something that is true and negative that does apply to the point at hand, that is an ad hom. It seems strange, but that is how it is applied by the ID/creationist side. It is as if since it is true, you must have really meant it.

Ron Okimoto said:

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

Opderbeck does say that the decision provided the correct result, that is, a win for the plaintiffs, so I don’t think that he is avoiding that question. However, I think he believes that there exists some legitimate form of “intelligent design” whose future is endangered by the decision, and thus he feels compelled to criticize the decision’s explicit handling of the arguments made about the legitimacy of “intelligent design” as science. There is, of course, nothing to “intelligent design” except a legal-precedent-evading label for a subset of the same old ensemble of religious antievolution arguments.

If you are replying to eric I do not think that his point was whether the ruling was correctly for the plaintiffs, but for all Opderbeck’s laments, whether the judge was correct in his determination that ID was not science. The guy can whine all he wants to about technical issues, but if the ruling was the correct one, who really cares?

When even the ID perps admit that they never had a scientific theory, and that they never had anything equivalent to the real science it is sort of a moot point.

If there is a legitimate side to ID what is it?

What will happen to the next rube legislator or school board that pops up and wants to teach the science of intelligent design? What has happened in every such case, even Dover? Why does the creationist switch scam not even mention that ID ever existed? Who is running the bait and switch on such creationist rubes that fell for the ID scam? Why were the ID perps running the bait and switch scam, on the creationist rubes that believed them, years before they lost in Dover? If there is a legitimate side to the ID creationist scam, Opderbeck should first demonstrate that it exists.

On looking at Eric’s text a second time, I agree with you that Eric’s concern wasn’t the overall suit, but the specific issue of “is ID science”. This from Opderbeck is about as close as I’ve seen about that:

For this and other reasons, I personally don’t agree with the “teach the controversy” approach promoted by many ID advocates. If I were to serve on my local school board, I would not vote in favor of introducing ID materials into the science curriculum, primarily because I don’t believe the ID program has generated sufficient results to reach the public schools. Like the courts, the public schools lack the time and resources to address views that fall far outside the scientific mainstream.

Which leaves us with Opderbeck objecting to the decision not because he disagrees that IDC is not ready for public school science classes, but because he mistakenly thinks the decision was about establishing a demarcation criterion for science.

Robert Byers said:

JASONMITCHELL said:

Robert Byers said:

The dover decision was wrong and silly. The issue is simple. It is what are the kids to be taught abort the origins of certain matters. These origins were not witnessed and so study of remaining evidence is the only coarse to follow. Like any subject. Then one side is banned and trys to overthrow this and a court again bans them. The court therefore is either saying the one side is wrong or regardless if they are wrong they must be banned. A absurdity in a area that is seeking truth. Schools.

the court is not banning imperfect science but rather in saying I.D is not science therefore it has no place in science class. Yet its more then this. the court is really saying I.D is religion. Its illegal to discuss religion as true as a source of origins.

Therefore the court is saying the religion of I.D. is not true. So the court has interfered and so the state in the truth of religion. Its official. God and genesis are not true. This decision will not stand.

origin issues are not science anyways. Yet I.D does the same amount of study as evolutionists in drawing conclusions.

The court has no place to say, in the subject of practical real origins, that God and Genisus are not true. Its illegal by the very law they use to ban creationism at present.

For sincere evolution groupies I suggest you walk in a creationists shoes. Think how we think. You are asking us to accept a banning of what we think is true on certain subjects in public institutions dedicated to teaching what is true on these same subjects. In a nation and culture that claims freedom of enquiry is a heritage and a future in intellectual endeavors. To a creationist its ABSURD to have our side banned by a state claiming it teaches the truth whichever way it turns. An absurd censorship is today in effect. Knowledge, science, and conclusions thereof is today controlled by the state. Looks that way to us. This shall not stand.

here is (one of) the major flaw in your statement “absurdity in a area that is seeking truth. Schools.”

It is not the mission to “seek truth” - it is the mission of schools to educate students as best we can about what we already know- and top prepare students to be productive citizens of our society. “Seeking truth” is the mission of research facilities or perhaps thological/philosophical organizations.

Here’s your next error: “court is saying the religion of I.D. is not true” nope - saying that you can’t TEACH the RELIGION of ID using taxpayer money - there was NO judgement about the ‘truth’ of ID

The schools are about truth. Which classes are not or its only a option? Origin subjects are taught as the accuracy of the subject being discussed. Evolution is taught as the accurate origin for biological life.

If in teaching origins I.D etc is not taught when its a well known idea or if its banned is sO the state saying its not true. Otherwise they would be teaching origin subjects without the goal of truth or accuracy. A absurdity for education. No way around it. the banning of a opinion in any subject that is taught is the state saying the opinion is false. In this case a illegal interference with religion by their own reasoning.

“the banning of a opinion in any subject that is taught is the state saying the opinion is false”

incorrect - the “truth” of the opinion banned is irrelevant. I cannot state in a history class (in a public school) “Our Lord and Savior was born August 23rd in the year 4 BCE” regardless if this is/isn’t Jesus of Nazareth’s birthday. The statement promotes religion/Christianity and is therefore forbidden in public schools

likewise ID is ‘banned’

Jason,

Perhaps we should demand that Robert teach my recipe for cherry pie in his sunday school class. Even though it is a terrible recipe, he really should not be able to discriminate against me just because of that. What is he, an anti cherry pieite?

One more time just to be fair, ID is not banned. It is not allowed in SCIENCE classes, because it is not science. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. It isn’t science, period.

When Robert invites me to give a demonstration on how to make cherry pie in his Sunday school class, he will still be completely wrong about ID, but then perhaps he at least will not be a hypocrite.

“the banning of a opinion in any subject that is taught is the state saying the opinion is false”

That isn’t true at all. The state bans all religions in the schools without taking a position on any one over another.

This is good. What if the state decided Catholicism, Wicca, or Hinduism was the One True Religion? The insane Bryers would really have something to babble on about.

The state does have an opinion on creationism, de facto. It is simply superstition and wrong.

Evolution is critical in medicine and agriculture. It helps feed 6.7 billion people and keep them alive. The state funds that research.

If Bryers wants to live in a fact free Dark Age, fine, free country even if it is Canada. He isn’t going to have a lot of company though.

Most people want to stay alive as long as possible and eat.

the banning of a opinion in any subject that is taught is the state saying the opinion is false

No, the state is saying that the subject is vacuous.

The state is saying that there’s no there there.

If you can flesh out some details, Robert, if you can fill the vaccum with some empirical, testable evidence, then you have science which can be taught in any school all o’er the land.

JASONMITCHELL said:

Robert Byers said:

JASONMITCHELL said:

Robert Byers said:

The dover decision was wrong and silly. The issue is simple. It is what are the kids to be taught abort the origins of certain matters. These origins were not witnessed and so study of remaining evidence is the only coarse to follow. Like any subject. Then one side is banned and trys to overthrow this and a court again bans them. The court therefore is either saying the one side is wrong or regardless if they are wrong they must be banned. A absurdity in a area that is seeking truth. Schools.

the court is not banning imperfect science but rather in saying I.D is not science therefore it has no place in science class. Yet its more then this. the court is really saying I.D is religion. Its illegal to discuss religion as true as a source of origins.

Therefore the court is saying the religion of I.D. is not true. So the court has interfered and so the state in the truth of religion. Its official. God and genesis are not true. This decision will not stand.

origin issues are not science anyways. Yet I.D does the same amount of study as evolutionists in drawing conclusions.

The court has no place to say, in the subject of practical real origins, that God and Genisus are not true. Its illegal by the very law they use to ban creationism at present.

For sincere evolution groupies I suggest you walk in a creationists shoes. Think how we think. You are asking us to accept a banning of what we think is true on certain subjects in public institutions dedicated to teaching what is true on these same subjects. In a nation and culture that claims freedom of enquiry is a heritage and a future in intellectual endeavors. To a creationist its ABSURD to have our side banned by a state claiming it teaches the truth whichever way it turns. An absurd censorship is today in effect. Knowledge, science, and conclusions thereof is today controlled by the state. Looks that way to us. This shall not stand.

here is (one of) the major flaw in your statement “absurdity in a area that is seeking truth. Schools.”

It is not the mission to “seek truth” - it is the mission of schools to educate students as best we can about what we already know- and top prepare students to be productive citizens of our society. “Seeking truth” is the mission of research facilities or perhaps thological/philosophical organizations.

Here’s your next error: “court is saying the religion of I.D. is not true” nope - saying that you can’t TEACH the RELIGION of ID using taxpayer money - there was NO judgement about the ‘truth’ of ID

The schools are about truth. Which classes are not or its only a option? Origin subjects are taught as the accuracy of the subject being discussed. Evolution is taught as the accurate origin for biological life.

If in teaching origins I.D etc is not taught when its a well known idea or if its banned is sO the state saying its not true. Otherwise they would be teaching origin subjects without the goal of truth or accuracy. A absurdity for education. No way around it. the banning of a opinion in any subject that is taught is the state saying the opinion is false. In this case a illegal interference with religion by their own reasoning.

“the banning of a opinion in any subject that is taught is the state saying the opinion is false”

incorrect - the “truth” of the opinion banned is irrelevant. I cannot state in a history class (in a public school) “Our Lord and Savior was born August 23rd in the year 4 BCE” regardless if this is/isn’t Jesus of Nazareth’s birthday. The statement promotes religion/Christianity and is therefore forbidden in public schools

likewise ID is ‘banned’

Not the same thing. In origin issues a conclusion is taught that is saying the bible is false. if that history class taught that jesus was not born because he never existed or he is not the son of gOd then the state likewise would be making a opinion and so breaking the law it uses to censor creationism. By the way. BCE is not accurate. iTS BC. this is the measures we use and its a aggression of people with no authority to change this measuring of time. Its not from the people and so null and void despite use here and there. Another example of minorities censoring/controlling what they have no moral/legal right to do. This is why creationism will prevail in being in the classes that deal with origins.

DS said:

Jason,

Perhaps we should demand that Robert teach my recipe for cherry pie in his sunday school class. Even though it is a terrible recipe, he really should not be able to discriminate against me just because of that. What is he, an anti cherry pieite?

One more time just to be fair, ID is not banned. It is not allowed in SCIENCE classes, because it is not science. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. It isn’t science, period.

When Robert invites me to give a demonstration on how to make cherry pie in his Sunday school class, he will still be completely wrong about ID, but then perhaps he at least will not be a hypocrite.

A hypocrite? ? ? cherry pie? ? ?

Your wrong. I.D or YEC is banned because its said to be religious and so illegal as a option for origin discussions in public institutions. Its not because its claimed to be not science. its about the law and not what is or is not science. They just say because they “judge’ its not science therefore its religion therefore its banned.

raven said:

“the banning of a opinion in any subject that is taught is the state saying the opinion is false”

That isn’t true at all. The state bans all religions in the schools without taking a position on any one over another.

This is good. What if the state decided Catholicism, Wicca, or Hinduism was the One True Religion? The insane Bryers would really have something to babble on about.

In this case the subject is a practical one of origins about this or that. Since the state is teaching a opinion and not teaching other opinions then its saying the untaught ones are not true. further when creationism asks for rebuttal its told NO. so either the state is saying its not true or despite being possibly true its still banned. banned in a school where the express purpose on these issues is the discussion of truth of the origins. Where’s my reasoning wrong?

stevaroni said:

the banning of a opinion in any subject that is taught is the state saying the opinion is false

No, the state is saying that the subject is vacuous.

The state is saying that there’s no there there.

If you can flesh out some details, Robert, if you can fill the vaccum with some empirical, testable evidence, then you have science which can be taught in any school all o’er the land.

Wrong. The state is saying creationism is illegal and so since origin subjects are taught without it then creationism is FALSE. This is all absurdity. To ban a historic and presently, even growing, common opinion about God/Genesis being the origin of much, is just not going to stand the march of freedom and truth. It really was the attempt of small circles in the 60’s to attack Christian doctrines in the schools. It will disappear into the ashheap of history.

Creationism is shrinking, not growing, as is church attendance, even in America, and across the western world. Byers, if you march towards truth, why do you find it necessary to lie so much?

What you are pleased to call your “reasoning”, Byers, is wrong specifically because of the false equivalence. The modern Theory of Evolution is not “an opinion”, as Biblical inerrancy or creationism is an opinion. The MET is a scientific theory, attested by a vast weight of evidence from nature, obtained by observation and experiment. Creationism is an opinion derived from the dogmatic assertion that the Bible is inerrant in fact, and is therefore a religious doctrine.

Creationism may not therefore be taught as science or as fact because (a) it isn’t science, and isn’t supported by any facts and (b) it is a religious doctrine, which may not be taught by the State because the Constitution forbids the State to establish a religion.

That’s why your reasoning is wrong, Byers. But of course, you’re too one-eyed to see it.

a historic and presently, even growing, common opinion about God/Genesis being the origin of much

Dumbass, Genesis doesn’t describe the origin of “much”, it describes the origin of everything. Is there anything you can’t get completely wrong, including your own pet mythology?

Your theology is vacuous, your understanding of science is non-existent, and you’re about as much of a legal scholar as Larry Farfarman. You can’t spell, your grammar sucks, virtually nobody agrees with anything you say here or anywhere else, and you whine ignorantly and incessantly about the constitution of a country you don’t even live in. You’re also a rank hypocrite because you pretend to be interested in freedom of religion, but constantly reveal that the only religion you see as deserving protection is your own narrow fake Christianism. Are you good at anything?

Robert Byers said:

The state is saying creationism is illegal and so since origin subjects are taught without it then creationism is FALSE.

Public schools in the United States do not teach Fourier transforms – or Laplace transforms, for that matter. According to Byers’s “reasoning” this means that “the state is saying Fourier and Laplace transforms are FALSE.”

Wild.

Robert,

So then, you are inviting me to come to your sunday school and bake cherry pie? Great, just post hhe address and I’ll be right over. What, your not invitin me? You are bannin me from yur sunday school! How dare you ban a good cherry pie bakin disciple. Cherry pie is science I tells ya. It is, it is, it is. No wait, I want to teach it in sunday school, so it must be religion. That’s it, the religion of cherry pie. Man, I’m gonna get lots of converts, specially if I brings me some ice cream too.

What’s wrong Robert, don’t ya like ma reasonin? Wel l, it’s exactly the same “argument” you are a usin, dipstick.

IRONY OF THE WEEK CANDIDATE:

“Another example of minorities censoring/controlling what they have no moral/legal right to do. This is why creationism will prevail in being in the classes that deal with origins.”

Has anyone asked Mr. Byers exactly what creationism concepts and mechanisms he would teach, and how these address and solve the issues he has with the science that addresses these same areas?

And further, can Mr. Byers explain in his own words those fundamental concepts in science that he thinks are wrong; and why. Otherwise, we have no idea why he thinks teaching creationism is so important.

He should start with the easy stuff in physics first; then move on to chemistry and biology.

All science teachers are required to have lesson plans; and most State Boards of Education have fairly detailed minimum requirements outlined in their standards.

Mr. Byers should do the same so we can see just what he intends to do.

Robert’s lesson plan:

1) Lecture: The magical flood

2) Lab: humans changing skin color instantly

3) Lab: placental mammals turning into marsupials, instantly

4) Lab: something changing into a whale, instantly

5) Lab; cherry pie baking (come on man, you got to include that in any real science class)

Granted these would not take up much time. But I’m sure Robert could spend al of the extra time teaching English as a second language.

DS said: 5) Lab; cherry pie baking (come on man, you got to include that in any real science class)

Sorry DS, but its a general rule of chemistry that you never eat anything produced in the lab. Eating your product sits next to mouth pipetting in the cabinet of Really Bad Ideas.

Except for LN-produced ice cream of course…but despite the fact that it goes really well with ice cream, I’m pretty sure there’s no exception for pie.

No cherry pie baking lab for you!

Eric,

So, another anti pieite eh. You guys will never stop me from preaching the truth of the cherry pie in science class. Besides, wes only bakin, nobody said nothin bout no eatin nohow. You can’t eat the holy pie man, what is ya a blasphemer? After all of the kids is gone, the holy pie just up an diskapppears i tells ya. It’s a real slice of heaven. Oh yea of little faith.

Anyway, im sure the sunday school kids will be allowed to eat the holy pie.

eric said:

DS said: 5) Lab; cherry pie baking (come on man, you got to include that in any real science class)

Sorry DS, but its a general rule of chemistry that you never eat anything produced in the lab. Eating your product sits next to mouth pipetting in the cabinet of Really Bad Ideas.

Except for LN-produced ice cream of course…but despite the fact that it goes really well with ice cream, I’m pretty sure there’s no exception for pie.

No cherry pie baking lab for you!

Take your “Health & Safety” hat off! This is “creation science”, which you can do without spending money on laboratories, equipment or even scientists. (Well, the DI manages it.) If thought experiments would good enough for Einstein.….

In any case, pie is obviously equal to 3.

DS said:

You can’t eat the holy pie man!

Blasphemer!

The pie is a pretender to the throne… er, plate!

The pie pales next to the radiance that is the Flying Spaghetti Monster! And you had better repent before judgment day when she will cast down the pie heretics who will wail and gnash their teeth and spend eternity bubbling in spicy marinara sauce, knowing that they bet on the wrong wheat product.

(I call this principal “Pascal’s lunch order”).

Mmmm.. spicy marinara sauce. Ra’men.

Kevin B said: Take your “Health & Safety” hat off! This is “creation science”, which you can do without spending money on laboratories, equipment or even scientists.

Oh your right! I forgot that creationists practice a different, more christian science. Its safe to eat laboratory pie, once you’ve redefined “safe,” “pie,” and “laboratory.” And possibly “eat,” “its,” and “to.”

Soup nazi misquote retracted. Pie for you!

eric said:

Sorry DS, but its a general rule of chemistry that you never eat anything produced in the lab. Eating your product sits next to mouth pipetting in the cabinet of Really Bad Ideas.

Except for LN-produced ice cream of course…but despite the fact that it goes really well with ice cream, I’m pretty sure there’s no exception for pie.

No cherry pie baking lab for you!

It’s been bothering me for sometime now that The Food Guardians allow a product to be called “ice cream”, when its main component is “modified milk ingredients” .

Byers has some problems all right.

Go look at his history of posting at Dawkin’s site: racism, misogyny, flatly contradicting himself, inability to read, listen, or reason.

A genuine moron (and I say that charitably), there really is no reason to respond to him at all: he is incapable of understanding reason to begin with.

Dave Luckett said:

What you are pleased to call your “reasoning”, Byers, is wrong specifically because of the false equivalence. The modern Theory of Evolution is not “an opinion”, as Biblical inerrancy or creationism is an opinion. The MET is a scientific theory, attested by a vast weight of evidence from nature, obtained by observation and experiment. Creationism is an opinion derived from the dogmatic assertion that the Bible is inerrant in fact, and is therefore a religious doctrine.

Creationism may not therefore be taught as science or as fact because (a) it isn’t science, and isn’t supported by any facts and (b) it is a religious doctrine, which may not be taught by the State because the Constitution forbids the State to establish a religion.

That’s why your reasoning is wrong, Byers. But of course, you’re too one-eyed to see it.

stevaroni,

Sorry man, didn’t mean to dis your religion. Actually, FSM and CP are compatible. You can have your spaghetti and eat your pie to. All you have to do is eat the pasta first, then you can still have room left over for desert. It may take six days to create the meal, but you can enjoy it for thousands of years. Come on man, join the big buffet. There is plenty of food for thought under the buffet tent.

You do make a good point though. I guess we should all demand to know why FSM has been banned from Robert’s sunday school class as well.

For those of you who think that I am being disrespectful of Robert’s views, you are correct. However, I suspect that all of this will just go right over his head. He apparently doesn’t know the meaning of the word fear. Here as some other words that he apparently doesn’t know the meaning of:

metaphor

symbolism

analogy

logic

your

So, are you really insulting someone if they really are too stupid to understand the insult? If Robert wants to object, he will have to explain exactly why he is insulted. I won’t be holding my breath.

DS said:

So, are you really insulting someone if they really are too stupid to understand the insult? (…)

Tree falls in the woods

And only a deaf man hears.

So, make applesauce.

My latest reply to Opderbeck is now up.

DS said:

stevaroni,

Sorry man, didn’t mean to dis your religion. Actually, FSM and CP are compatible. You can have your spaghetti and eat your pie to. All you have to do is eat the pasta first, then you can still have room left over for desert. It may take six days to create the meal, but you can enjoy it for thousands of years. Come on man, join the big buffet. There is plenty of food for thought under the buffet tent.

Blasphemers and heretics. Spaghetti? Cherry pie? It is common knowledge that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. There is no extra room in the buffet tent, there is only one cake. You may try to sneak in your pasta and pie, but when the tent flap closes we all know what the leftovers will be and what will end up in the trash.

**Disclaimer** Any similarity to the IDiot “Big Tent” scam is only prophetic.

Ron Okimoto said:

… There is no extra room in the buffet tent, there is only one cake.

The cake is a lie.

Dave Luckett said:

Ron Okimoto said:

… There is no extra room in the buffet tent, there is only one cake.

The cake is a lie.

So, you’re trying to run the old bait and switch cake scam eh? Well you mendacious intellectual pienographers won’t get away with it. All you guys need is a bigger tent, see. Pie, cake, strudel, why can’t we all just get along? The real enemy is sugar free, we all need to unite to fight that threat.

And there’s plenty a room in the buffet tent for all types of pasta; spaghetti, linguini, even lasagna are all perfectly fine, you won’t even go to hell. And don’t forget the blessed angel hair pasta, it was made by god six thousand years ago.

Long live the holy cherry pie! Those a la mode heretics will get their just deserts.

DS said:

Dave Luckett said:

Ron Okimoto said:

… There is no extra room in the buffet tent, there is only one cake.

The cake is a lie.

So, you’re trying to run the old bait and switch cake scam eh? Well you mendacious intellectual pienographers won’t get away with it. All you guys need is a bigger tent, see. Pie, cake, strudel, why can’t we all just get along? The real enemy is sugar free, we all need to unite to fight that threat.

And there’s plenty a room in the buffet tent for all types of pasta; spaghetti, linguini, even lasagna are all perfectly fine, you won’t even go to hell. And don’t forget the blessed angel hair pasta, it was made by god six thousand years ago.

Long live the holy cherry pie! Those a la mode heretics will get their just deserts.

No bait and switch at all, just the facts. It is common knowledge that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. All the rest are just pretenders. The next thing that you will be claiming is that tofu worshipers should be allowed inside the big tent. We all know that would be a lie. People may eat it due to peer pressure or just having nothing else, but no one with any brains or tastebuds wants to worship tofu.

You heard it here first: Intelligent design, the tofu of the religious beliefs in the big tent. The first one that would be dumped if they didn’t need to perpetrate a political scam. I might hedge my bets here and call ID the turnip of religious beliefs. I don’t think that I have anything to fear from the one true turnip, but there are a lot of Buddhists that eat tofu and they can get pretty rowdy.

Ron wrote:

“You heard it here first: Intelligent design, the tofu of the religious beliefs in the big tent.”

Now that we can agree on.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on December 1, 2009 1:28 AM.

Open thread: questions and explanations was the previous entry in this blog.

Battle in Beverly Hills: Reflections on the Prothero/Shermer vs. Meyer/Sternberg “debate,” Nov. 30, 2009 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter