Michael Zimmerman has newish blog on Huffington Post

| 83 Comments

Michael Zimmerman of Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Weekend fame tells us that his recent article The Nonscience of the Scientific Arguments against Evolution received the seventh-highest number of comments in the history of the Huffington Post. I was frankly very pleased to hear that his contributions are catching on so fast. Richard B. Hoppe commented on an earlier article here.

Mr. Zimmerman’s latest article is called The Danger of Ignoring Creationism. For those who don’t already know, he explains, among other things, why the Discovery Institute is little more than a shill for the billionaire Howard Ahmanson, whom Mr. Zimmerman quotes as saying, “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.”

Creationism correlates with HIV denial, global-warming denial, and probably many other denials, not to mention Holocaust denial. It is thus easy to argue with Mr. Zimmerman’s contention that creationism is essentially a religious war, not a controversy between science and religion. Why can’t it be both?

Picky, picky! The article is very well worth reading, and if you don’t characterize it as scary or weird, you must not have paid enough attention. I receive Mr. Zimmerman’s e-mails every week or so, and I look forward to a continuous stream of equally enlightening articles.

83 Comments

I agree - why CANT it be both. Evolution, such as it is currently understood, is “fully compatible” with my religious world view. Lion (IRC)

It is thus easy to argue with Mr. Zimmerman’s contention that creationism is essentially a religious war, not a controversy between science and religion. Why can’t it be both?

There has been a significant increase in the claim that making any compromise with “millions of years”, or secular science, or any tolerance of liberalism, is the reason that “Christianity” is becoming more and more ineffective against all the evils in the world.

One of the primary sources of this seems to be coming from Ken Ham and his “State of the Nation” addresses as well as his “Answers Academy” indoctrinations. These indoctrinations are now taking place around the country (we had one locally fairly recently).

Ham is particularly concerned at the acceptance of other religions and non-religions in our society. He seems to make it clear that it is Obama’s fault along with “Humanists” and the teaching of evolution.

No doubt there are people with power and influence (e.g., the executives at Fox Noise) who are seeing an opportunity in stoking this to disrupt democratic processes and push a sectarian theocracy agenda.

Zimmerman seems to be correct in noting that this is as much a war against other churches and other religions as it is against science and secular society.

Some of the media are also giving these extremist views more credibility than they deserve to be given

Lion IRC said:

I agree - why CANT it be both. Evolution, such as it is currently understood, is “fully compatible” with my religious world view. Lion (IRC)

Aren’t you the same guy who said that scientists can’t be trusted because they were evil and godless, and that genome sequencing is evil because scientists developed it with the expressed intent to discriminate against people with genetic disorders?

Speaking of the Dishonesty Institute and Casey Luskin, they’re at it again at the Jet Propulsion Lab in California:

Discrimination Lawsuit Filed against NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab for Harassing and Demoting Supporter of Intelligent Design

They think they’ve found another martyr for their religious cause, oops, I mean “science” cause, ID is science, isn’t it? Who said no?

Sorry, here’s the link at the dishonesty institute’s site: http://www.discovery.org/a/14501

Stanton said:

Lion IRC said:

I agree - why CANT it be both. Evolution, such as it is currently understood, is “fully compatible” with my religious world view. Lion (IRC)

Aren’t you the same guy who said that scientists can’t be trusted because they were evil and godless, and that genome sequencing is evil because scientists developed it with the expressed intent to discriminate against people with genetic disorders?

Good on him if he’s found some enlightenment.

DavidK said:

Sorry, here’s the link at the dishonesty institute’s site: http://www.discovery.org/a/14501

It really is impossible to keep the crazies out 100% of the time, isn’t it? Kurt Wise (although he at least admits he’s in full denial of the evidence), Jonathan Wells, Marcus Ross. A friend of a friend got a PhD from Harvard’s Division of Medical Sciences and went right to work for the Institute for Creation Research. Madness.

I’m just seeing more & more of this pathetic case (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/0[…]filed_a.html):

“Coppedge is suing JPL and Caltech for religious discrimination, harassment and retaliation; violation of his free speech rights; and wrongful demotion. Coppedge is represented by Los Angeles First Amendment attorney William J. Becker, Jr., of The Becker Law Firm.”

“Intelligent design is not religion, and nothing in the DVDs that Coppedge shared deals with religion,” noted Luskin. “Even so, it’s unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on what they deem is religion.”

The case is the latest in a string of free-speech controversies surrounding allegations of public and private institutions punishing scientists and other experts for holding controversial views on evolution.

“Anyone who thinks that today’s culture of science allows an open discussion of evolution is sorely mistaken,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture. “When it comes to intelligent design, private and government-run agencies are suppressing free speech.”

A couple of points. Now how can Coppedge sue for religious discrimination if ID is not religion according to Luskin?

Second, West talks about open discussion, but as pointed out elsewhere on PT and by Zimmerman’s articles, the DI NEVER, NEVER allows open discussion regarding their dishonesty institute’s blog.

DavidK said:

“Intelligent design is not religion” “Coppedge is suing JPL and Caltech for religious discrimination”

how can Coppedge sue for religious discrimination if ID is not religion according to Luskin?

The capacity for that paradox to experience legal representation perturbs my calm demeanor.

bah, i meant to continue… if anything should have a Don’t ask Don’t tell policy it is the choice one makes as they openly cuddle and sooth themselves at the work place with flamboyant super-natural narcissism.

Stanton said:

Lion IRC said:

I agree - why CANT it be both. Evolution, such as it is currently understood, is “fully compatible” with my religious world view. Lion (IRC)

Aren’t you the same guy who said that..blah blah blah… —> insert strawman here <—

Nope.

Lion (IRC)

PS - Tempting to resort to bad memory ad homs but two wrongs dont make a right.

As well as Zimmermann’s posts, Huffington Post has also recently put up this piece of mangled pseudoscientific garbage, Evolution Presupposes Design, So Why the Controversy?, by Ervin László. Catchphrase:

Design is a necessary assumption, because chance doesn’t explain the facts.

Yet no danger to ignoring this Zimmerman guy. Accusations like this do not hurt creationism (s) but make our point about the incompetence of the opposition to take on our well studied and punchy intellectual arguments. Surely this is desperation or someone trying to ride the wave of a rising creationist intellectual movement. If opposition to ideas that attack Christian doctrines or God doctrines is to be wary of then how much more can we say evolution and company are attacking Christianity/God and truly make this a great issue of our times?! This guy makes the case that creationism is a rising and important threat to existing concepts in the present establishment. A revolution here is surely taking place and its a exciting time to fight for its victory and for other results from the victory. A victory being something like equal place. I don’t mean yet the total destrction of evolutionism etc. Not yet. So tell this dude to preach on the danger posed. To error, injustice and bad guys everywhere it is a danger. The more publicity the better.

Keep on yammering about “well studied and punchy intellectual arguments”, Byers, especially while demonstrating that you are incapable of writing a coherent English sentence. No doubt you convince yourself, considering that you don’t handle reality well. But in fact, you only reveal yourself for what you are.

DavidK Wrote:

Second, West talks about open discussion, but as pointed out elsewhere on PT and by Zimmerman’s articles, the DI NEVER, NEVER allows open discussion regarding their dishonesty institute’s blog.

West is exploiting a situation that has driven me up the wall for years. Every “kind” of pseudoscience makes baseless charges of “censorship,” because they have no science of their own and know it. It’s all they can do to get the attention of those who don’t have the time or interest to see what they are really doing. But the reaction of their critics is what annoys me the most. Usually it’s merely “we’re not censoring anything.” But it needs to be “we’re not censoring anything, but you are.”

“Coppedge is suing JPL and Caltech for religious discrimination, harassment and retaliation; violation of his free speech rights; and wrongful demotion. Coppedge is represented by Los Angeles First Amendment attorney William J. Becker, Jr., of The Becker Law Firm.”

“Intelligent design is not religion, and nothing in the DVDs that Coppedge shared deals with religion,” noted Luskin. “Even so, it’s unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on what they deem is religion.”

Isn’t there an old joke about paradoxical denials that starts with, “But Your Honor…”? Seems Luskin is presenting his own version here.

Mr. Zimmerman’s latest article is called The Danger of Ignoring Creationism. For those who don’t already know, he explains, among other things, why the Discovery Institute is little more than a shill for the billionaire Howard Ahmanson, whom Mr. Zimmerman quotes as saying, “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.”

Ahmanson is a Xian Dominionist and a follower of Rushdooney. Biblical law has dozens of capital offenses including adultery, violating Sunday, disobedient children, being gay, heresy, and wearing mixed fabrics. It is estimated that instituting biblical law in the USA would result in 1% of the population killing the other 99%, 297 million people sent to hell.

I can’t see that as being either popular or moral but genocide has never appealed to me.

He also funds Exodus International, a US group whose last achievement was to almost push through a law in Uganda enabling genocide of anyone who is gay.

These are not nice people. They hate the USA, secular democracy, the Enlightenment, western civilization, and of course, other xians and other religions.

PS There is little evidence that biblical law ever de facto existed in the ancient world outside of what was written in the bible. The ancient Jewish society was never known to be any more bloodthirsty than any neighboring society. And the Rabbis have interpreted the laws in such a way that they are virtually unenforceable.

Discrimination Lawsuit Filed against NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab for Harassing and Demoting Supporter of Intelligent Design

They think they’ve found another martyr for their religious cause, oops, I mean “science” cause, ID is science, isn’t it? Who said no?

Religious Connections: Fired for acknowledging evolutionary …Apr 12, 2010 … Fired for acknowledging evolutionary science: Bruce Waltke … Though he accepts a theistic version of evolution (acknowledging the reality …

I’m sure that the Disreputable Institute ignored that Bruce Waltke, a noted theologian was fired by The Reformed Theological Seminary a few days ago. His crime was claiming that evolution and xianity are compatible.

James F said:

DavidK said:

Sorry, here’s the link at the dishonesty institute’s site: http://www.discovery.org/a/14501

It really is impossible to keep the crazies out 100% of the time, isn’t it? Kurt Wise (although he at least admits he’s in full denial of the evidence), Jonathan Wells, Marcus Ross. A friend of a friend got a PhD from Harvard’s Division of Medical Sciences and went right to work for the Institute for Creation Research. Madness.

Madness, or an easy and well paid job?

Rolf Aalberg said:

James F said:

DavidK said:

Sorry, here’s the link at the dishonesty institute’s site: http://www.discovery.org/a/14501

It really is impossible to keep the crazies out 100% of the time, isn’t it? Kurt Wise (although he at least admits he’s in full denial of the evidence), Jonathan Wells, Marcus Ross. A friend of a friend got a PhD from Harvard’s Division of Medical Sciences and went right to work for the Institute for Creation Research. Madness.

Madness, or an easy and well paid job?

From what I can tell via our mutual friend, he’s a true believer - there’s not even the sense of disgracing his degree for a job.

Robert Byers said: Accusations like this do not hurt creationism (s) but make our point about the incompetence of the opposition to take on our well studied and punchy intellectual arguments.

“Punchy” is a good term for the anti-intellectual arguments attempting to support creationism. Glad to hear you use it.

And “well studied” apologetics for religion have not won a single court case for the creationists yet. Are you even aware of the 2005 Dover case? How well did the creationists’ “intellectual arguments” succeed with the US Supreme Court in the Aguillard case?

…a rising creationist intellectual movement.

Great Ghu - led by whom? Ken Ham? Kent Hovind? Casey Luskin?

Hrafn said:

As well as Zimmermann’s posts, Huffington Post has also recently put up this piece of mangled pseudoscientific garbage, Evolution Presupposes Design, So Why the Controversy?, by Ervin László. Catchphrase:

Design is a necessary assumption, because chance doesn’t explain the facts.

Urgh, the A-Field guy; and he quotes Hoyle’s junkyard analogy too. Also, is HuffPo still put out those blog posts by David Kirby, trying to claim vaccines might have caused autism? Stuff like this is why I keep away from HuffPo.

Good on them for having Zimmerman to challenge the anti-evolutionists, anyway.

raven said: And the Rabbis have interpreted the laws in such a way that they are virtually unenforceable.

Yes. Torah law sounds absolutely intransigent, with its “thou shalt nots” and “their blood is on their own heads”, but there’s an ancient and very wholesome Jewish tradition of bargaining with God. Yes, under Rabbinical law, there was such a thing as a death penalty, but the Rabbis also held that if any two were carried out in four generations, it was too many, and it was the community that was at fault.

Let us not forget the Jewish tradition of spilling another’s blood (typically, an animal’s blood) as a substitute sacrifice: that the sinner may continue to go on and worship God. You talk about cutting someone some slack, Gee Whiz … kill him instead of me and you and I, we’ll be tight as ever, eh God? Now, that’s a free pass. No eye for an eye in that one!

In the end, religion is a religious man’s game. And I’ve never met a religious man yet that hasn’t played the game in such a way that he doesn’t end up the winner! Such a one-to-one correlation is clearly irrefutable proof of divine revelation. And anyone who doesn’t agree is obviously not a religious man.

Lion IRC

why CANT it be both. Evolution, such as it is currently understood, is “fully compatible” with my religious world view. Lion (IRC)

That’s good to hear. I strongly support your right to live and believe as you see fit. I probably don’t agree with your religion, and certainly support the right of others to dispute or even ridicule it (for the exact same reasons that I support your right to freely choose to follow it), but this is a free country (as are other countries you would most likely be posting from).

I do recall your name as being associated with some weak attacks on the theory of evolution in the past. Although there could be two people with the same name, I take this in a more optimistic way.

It seems likely that you were formerly under the incorrect impression that the theory of evolution had something to do with your religion. You investigated that possibility and gained enough knowledge to see otherwise. Congratulations.

Let us not forget the Jewish tradition of spilling another’s blood (typically, an animal’s blood) as a substitute sacrifice:

Can you provide documentation of that claim? I have never heard it before, and neither has a friend of mine who is a minor expert on the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, the ancient Israelites were forbidden to eat blood, so it would be bizarre if they were instructed to draw blood as a sacrifice. My first reaction was that the claim sounded as if it originated in some anti-Semitic canard, but maybe I was just reacting to the tone of the comment.

At any rate, while searching around the Internet, I found this source, in which Geoff Dennis of the University of North Texas attributes the belief to “some forms of Christianity,” not to Judaism. I don’t really want to get into it, but Mr. Dennis discusses the verses that precede Lev. 17:11, “It is the blood, as life, that effects expiation,” which is evidently the source of the belief. But according to Mr. Dennis, Jews do not interpret that verse or any other as implying blood sacrifice.

Current Jewish belief is that blood-sacrifice for expiation, as described in Leviticus, requires the ritual be carried out by a member of the Aaronic priesthood, correctly accoutred, in the Temple. Since neither the priesthood nor the Temple still exists, the whole business is not operative.

This is an example of what I mean: Torah law looks absolute. It isn’t.

I’m not in my primary area of expertise here, my Old Testament mentions blood a fair number of times in, for example, Leviticus, mainly as an element for purification. This is supported by my JPS translation of Tanakh, so it’s not an anti-Semitic addition. I haven’t reviewed this in great detail, but I think that they used the blood of animals that were sacrificed in various rituals – a portion of each animal was burned on the altar, and a portion went to the priests.

I always found it a bit odd that a supposedly transcendent (yet immanent and omnipotent) deity likes the smell of burnt flesh.

I guess I’m taken by surprise at the inroads being made by right-wing religious zealots. So many people seem so willing to cling to their traditional beliefs at any cost, that reason, science and understanding take a back seat to Fox news, tea bag parties and radio talk show hosts. It all seems so backwards to me. I enjoy pandasthumb for the reasonableness of the thoughts being expressed here, but I can’t help but think that in the end, reason may not win the day. It looks at times as if our society is headed for more Crusades and a return to the Spanish Inquisition.

Hi Sojourner, The Spanish Inquisition failed. You cannot “convert” someone by force, violence and aggression.

Tomas de Torquemada learned that.

His opponents argued, (quite logically in my opinion,) that the very need to use force was itself an admission that the ideology was so flawed that it would never be freely accepted.

And if a person will not freely renounce their former ideology, then getting them to do so by force or aggression simply highlights the fact that people will lie if you beat them hard enough.

Some however, hold an idea to be so important and founded in truth, that they are willing to go to their deaths in Nero’s Stadium rather than submit to earthly/secular authority.

Lion (IRC)

Hey Booby -

Why don’t you just shut up and put your words down on paper:

Alex H said:

Robert Byers said:

Relying on these minor court cases shows a bigger problem with your side. The whole censorship/expel game is coming under attack by increasing interested parties. There is no problem for creationism to win in the courts as the issue becomes a topic in public conversation. All creationism needs is better lawyers. We have the law on our side in reality. The law from the founders of America and the centuries since. In fact i have discussed myself why the present censorship is illegal or is illegal because its only one way. The issue is bigger then the straitjacket of the dover thing. Its about the freedom to seek and teach the truth on origins in public institutions. Creationism can’t but win. Just more activity and agitation is needed.

AND you can make a fortune working from home. Ask me how!

With any luck, you can be as prolific a published author as my “favorite” Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer, one William Dembski. The last time I checked, I think he had published more books than E. O. Wilson, Niles Eldredge, Genie Scott and Frank McCourt combined since 2000. What an amazing example of literary fecundity, don’t you think?

Alex H -

That last comment of mine was of course addressed to everyone’s favorite living cretinist Mexican pinata, Booby Byers.

Sincerely,

John

John Kwok said:

Alex H -

That last comment of mine was of course addressed to everyone’s favorite living cretinist Mexican pinata, Booby Byers.

Sincerely,

John

No problem, John. I was just making a joke about how closely his statement resembled the kind of things I find in my spam filter.

The Spanish Inquisition failed. You cannot “convert” someone by force, violence and aggression.

that was not the function, nor is it, of the Inquisition then, or now.

then it was used as a terrorist device in order to maintain the political clout of the Catholic Church.

Now, it is used as a strongarm device (rarely needed, but still exists) in order to kaibash outspoken internal critics of current dogma.

as far as converting by force… you might want to go back in time and take that up with the Romans.

Some however, hold an idea to be so important and founded in truth, that they are willing to go to their deaths in Nero’s Stadium rather than submit to earthly/secular authority.

we should go back to throwing idiots xians to the lions, just so they can see what REAL persecution is like, instead of this Drama Queen act they like to put on for their own benefit these days.

A little history about the inquisition:

On July 21, 1542, Pope Paul III established the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, whose task it was “to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith and to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines”. It served as the final court of appeal in trials of heresy and served as an important part of the Counter-Reformation (remember Galileo, et. al?).

It was renamed the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1908 by Pope Saint Pius X.

Renamed again changed to Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on December 7, 1965. In 1983, “Sacred” was dropped, so its current name is Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

The current Pope was, prior to his elevation to infallible popeness, Cardinal Ratzinger, who headed the CDF (i.e., the office of the inquisition).

Paul Burnett said:

A continuingly delusional Robert Byers said: There is no problem for creationism to win in the courts as the issue becomes a topic in public conversation.

Then why hasn’t it won any court cases? “The public” continues to be amazingly scientifically illiterate, but that has no effect on court cases, as there are lots of smart judges, who can see right through the transparent fraud of creationism, which has no proof whatsoever.

All creationism needs is better lawyers.

Good luck. The problem for lawyers trying to defend creationism is there is nothing to show. The other side can easily a pattern of obfuscation and downright lying in support of creationism. As Judge Jones ruled about certain sworn witnesses’ perjury in 2005, “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 (Intelligent Design) Policy.” Why do creationists lie under oath, Byers?

We have the law on our side in reality.

No. You. Don’t. If you did, you would win in court.

The law from the founders of America and the centuries since.

Quote us that law, Byers. Chapter and verse. You can’t, can you?

I can. Chapter and verse. The right to freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in all things of American life. including education. Now if a law is brought up about origin issues and schools then the law is again on the good guys side. The law(as its wrongly used at the present time in these issues) was made by a very Protestant/Puritan Yankee/Southern peoples and no and never did they put in their constitution anything to be constructed to ban God or genesis from subjects in schools touching on origins. There is no law against creationism and there is the law that allows creationism. These little obscure court cases have nothing to do with the real issue and law(or no law) touching on these matters. They are minor skirmishes before minor battles. The whole subject just needs to gain in public awareness and the right court cases will come along with right principals at stake.

Well, Byers, since you can’t quote any law, let’s try you on your own delusional grounds. “Freedom of thought, speech and inquiry in all things of American life”, you say, is the law. You’re wrong, of course, but let’s operate as if you weren’t.

Let us leave aside the fact that as a Canadian, you have no right whatsoever to instruct the Courts of the United States in how they shall interpret the law of the United States. Let us also leave aside the fact that speech, at least, is not unrestricted, as Oliver Wendell Holmes demonstrated, and that thought and inquiry is restricted by no law whatsoever. (Even you, Byers, delusional as you are, may think whatever you please, and make whatever inquiries you like, just as we may regard you as unhinged and risible - for we partake of the same freedom.)

No, let us only consider whether you are in any way constrained in your thought, speech or enquiry by an (interpretation of) a law that states that creationism is a religious doctrine, and hence cannot be taught as science in the public schools. The plain and obvious fact is that you are not in any way constrained.

Now, you will probably argue (or you would, were you capable of rational thought) that science teachers are in some way constrained by such an interpretation of the law. Well, there are teachers who teach like John Freshwater, and who would like to slip creationism in as if it were science. But the plain fact is that creationism is not science. It is a religious dogma. Such teachers, by presenting a dogma as science, are teaching falsehood. No teacher has the right to teach falsehood. There is no such right, much in the way that freedom of speech does not licence a person to stand up and bellow “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

Hence, even in your delusional Universe, Byers, where quoting “chapter and verse” of laws that exist only in your imagination, and holding it to be true because Puritans in the seventeenth century probably thought so, and the court decisions of the twentieth and twenty-first don’t exist, you’re totally wrong, Byers.

“billionaire Howard Ahmanson, whom Mr. Zimmerman quotes as saying, “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.” Always amusing when they say this and ignore the bible when convenient, like that part of how a rich man can’t get into heaven and how one should give away all of ones’s wealth and follow Jesus.

Robert Byers said:

I can. Chapter and verse. The right to freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in all things of American life. including education.

Hmm. I googled that exact phrase and got…

No results found for “The right to freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in all things of American life.”

So, um, apparently, you’re not actually quoting any actual law. You’re just waving your hands again.

If you actually do have the law, please quote it.

You know, like this…

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688)

Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et al. v. Aguillard et al., 482 U.S. 578 (1987)

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982)

John Hendren v. Glenden Campbell, MARION SUPERIOR COURT, NO. 5 CAUSE NO. S577-0139 (1977)

Joseph C. Daniel, Jr., et al., v. Hugh Waters, Chairman, Textbook Commission of the State of Tennessee, et al. 515 F.2d 485 (6th Cir. 1975)

Alton J. Lemon, et al. v. David H. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, et al.; John R. Earley, et al. v. John DiCenso, et al.; William P. Robinson, Jr. v. John DiCenso, et al. 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

Susan Epperson et al. v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)

Now that would be “chapter and verse”.

Oh… hey, now, … wouldja lookit that…

Once you line up all the court cases on the subject, they all go against your side, Byers.

Now who’da thunk it?

vel said:

“billionaire Howard Ahmanson, whom Mr. Zimmerman quotes as saying, “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.” Always amusing when they say this and ignore the bible when convenient, like that part of how a rich man can’t get into heaven and how one should give away all of ones’s wealth and follow Jesus.

To be fair, the bible stories indicate that it is more difficult for a rich man to get into heaven, but not impossible. The catch is what motivates the person to be rich and how the person feels about money in general. If it rules his life, then he will find it hard to follow Jesus or let God rule. Ditto for anything man can become attached to: cars, sex, drugs, marriage, procreation, booze, self, work, people, power, philosophy, religion, and even life itself. Basically put, anything that one can’t just walk from even with some difficulty and regret is a burden and focus preventing a person from achieving real fulfillment.

Original post says in part: “Creationism correlates with HIV denial, global-warming denial, and probably many other denials, not to mention Holocaust denial.”

That’s a pretty heavy speculation to lay down, that there about Holocaust denial, on the strength of a mere “probably.”

Got data? If not, aren’t the facts about the various denialisms that beset us bad enough without employing the Holocaust as a speculative point-scoring name-drop?

Larry Gilman said:

Original post says in part: “Creationism correlates with HIV denial, global-warming denial, and probably many other denials, not to mention Holocaust denial.”

That’s a pretty heavy speculation to lay down, that there about Holocaust denial, on the strength of a mere “probably.”

Got data? If not, aren’t the facts about the various denialisms that beset us bad enough without employing the Holocaust as a speculative point-scoring name-drop?

There was a persistent, frantically morphing and sockpuppeting creationist troll here for years who was also a Holocaust denier. Oddly enough, he happened to be named Larry. I forget how to spell his last name. Strangely, being a Holocaust denier never stopped him from blaming Darwin for the Holocaust, which he said didn’t happen. He went to great lengths to earn the name “Larry Farfromsane”.

On top of that I personally consider the creationist obsession with blaming Darwin for the Holocaust akin to Holocaust denial itself, as while they admit the event happened they deny and distort the actual reasons for it, for example totally ignoring the long history of christian anti-semitism.

The catch is what motivates the person to be rich and how the person feels about money in general.

Excellent sleight of hand. Bravo! Wealthy man / poor man, now you see it, switcheroo to motivations and feelings, now you don’t see it. WOW. You should play Vegas.

You all ought to read the original article re: HIV and evolution. It says nothing that Mr. Zimmerman claims.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said:

I can. Chapter and verse. The right to freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in all things of American life. including education.

Hmm. I googled that exact phrase and got…

No results found for “The right to freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in all things of American life.”

So, um, apparently, you’re not actually quoting any actual law. You’re just waving your hands again.

If you actually do have the law, please quote it.

You know, like this…

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688)

Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et al. v. Aguillard et al., 482 U.S. 578 (1987)

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982)

John Hendren v. Glenden Campbell, MARION SUPERIOR COURT, NO. 5 CAUSE NO. S577-0139 (1977)

Joseph C. Daniel, Jr., et al., v. Hugh Waters, Chairman, Textbook Commission of the State of Tennessee, et al. 515 F.2d 485 (6th Cir. 1975)

Alton J. Lemon, et al. v. David H. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, et al.; John R. Earley, et al. v. John DiCenso, et al.; William P. Robinson, Jr. v. John DiCenso, et al. 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

Susan Epperson et al. v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)

Now that would be “chapter and verse”.

Oh… hey, now, … wouldja lookit that…

Once you line up all the court cases on the subject, they all go against your side, Byers.

Now who’da thunk it?

If you and others are making your case that Americans are not free in inquiry, speech, and everything of thought then go ahead. You will lose. Yet you must indeed say this. Freedom of thought/speech means the government can not impose censorship in the peoples institutions. Today in schools etc there is censorship of the true, historic, and popular convictions of origins from God or/and Genesis.

The courts cases are a poor lot indeed. They are just minor skirmishes in obscure circles. The great case of creationism in the schools is yet to come.

I am confident that freedom will prevail in the end. if origins is a subject then all sides that the people want must be presented in equal measure. There is no law that bans just the creationist side from the founders of America. Its an absurdity of the 1960’s. The state can not by teaching evolution and by banning creationism be said to be nuetral on matters of religion. This idea being the origin of the censorship.

You just can’t find in the Yankee/Southern Protestant peoples anything in the constitution that bans God/Genesis in schools. In fact they would of banned any opposition to same. Creationism just needs to become more organized in taking on the dumb ideas iused to bann freedom or knowledge in schools. Well done arguements will prevail with the people and with honest smart judges. Of coarse thats a problem because today they are picked because of identity and so not even close to worthy able real judges.

Okay, I know, he’s over the rainbow crazy, and he’s Canadian.

Correlation != causation.

It’s not our fault.

Sojourner said:

The catch is what motivates the person to be rich and how the person feels about money in general.

Excellent sleight of hand. Bravo! Wealthy man / poor man, now you see it, switcheroo to motivations and feelings, now you don’t see it. WOW. You should play Vegas.

Not aware of any slight of hand on this; the words are pretty specific even after copious rewrites and edits. I may not be a Christian at this point in my life, but I do know the history and culture pertained to in the bible and what the verses mean in most cases.

Robert Byers said: You just can’t find in the Yankee/Southern Protestant peoples anything in the constitution that bans God/Genesis in schools.

Because as all Real AmericansTM know, those are the only people that count. And we aren’t too sure about them Yankees.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: You just can’t find in the Yankee/Southern Protestant peoples anything in the constitution that bans God/Genesis in schools.

Because as all Real AmericansTM know, those are the only people that count. And we aren’t too sure about them Yankees.

What does yankee/southern mean? When the constitution was written, anyone from any of the states was considered a yankee by the british. It wasn’t until we expanded and actually had a “south” that the states became more divided and began referring to each other as “yankee” or “southern.”

Robert Byers said: You just can’t find in the Yankee/Southern Protestant peoples anything in the constitution that bans God/Genesis in schools. In fact they would of banned any opposition to same. Creationism just needs to become more organized in taking on the dumb ideas iused to bann freedom or knowledge in schools. Well done arguements will prevail with the people and with honest smart judges. Of coarse thats a problem because today they are picked because of identity and so not even close to worthy able real judges.

Except for the fact that it, is you know, respecting the establishment of your religion, and that little establishment clause applies to states and political subdivisions thereof via the due process clause 14th Amendment. The creationist propensity to outright ignore what is right in front of their eyes only contributes to little creationists growing up, leaving the church and not becoming big creationists.

Jesse said:

Robert Byers said: You just can’t find in the Yankee/Southern Protestant peoples anything in the constitution that bans God/Genesis in schools. In fact they would of banned any opposition to same. Creationism just needs to become more organized in taking on the dumb ideas iused to bann freedom or knowledge in schools. Well done arguements will prevail with the people and with honest smart judges. Of coarse thats a problem because today they are picked because of identity and so not even close to worthy able real judges.

Except for the fact that it, is you know, respecting the establishment of your religion, and that little establishment clause applies to states and political subdivisions thereof via the due process clause 14th Amendment. The creationist propensity to outright ignore what is right in front of their eyes only contributes to little creationists growing up, leaving the church and not becoming big creationists.

Please remember that we’re dealing with a self-proclaimed Canadian who thinks that the 1st Amendment of the United States’ Constitution says that it’s actually illegal to teach Evolution or any other science in a science classroom because science conflicts with his own, personal religious bigotries.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on April 15, 2010 5:31 PM.

R. Kelly Hamilton, meet George Orwell was the previous entry in this blog.

Phalacrocorax auritus 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