I’m Proud of Wyoming

| 134 Comments

granite2500.jpg I recently finished some fieldwork in Wyoming’s Bighorn Mountains, and was favorably impressed with many road signs describing geological formations in the area.

No appeasement of young-earth creationists here! Wyoming is telling visitors just how old the area actually is. Hurrah for Wyoming!

madison330.jpg

This sign for the Cloverly formation is correct.

cloverly66.jpg

But this sign for the Cloverly formation, near Shell, Wyoming, is sadly incorrect. They’re putting the Cretaceous into the Triassic! Somebody fix me?

cloverly205x.jpg

If you’re curious what the field project was about, check out my music video synopsis on YouTube.

On a totally offtopic tangent, I’ll be holding down the mainstream view of things tomorrow night (August 21st, 11 PM MDT) on Coast-to-Coast AM, as my colleague Kim Johnson and I debate “9/11 Truth” with Richard Gage and Niels Harrit, members of “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.”

Details here.

134 Comments

I drove through the Bighorn National Forest just two weeks ago, and had the exact same thought. ‘m not sure if that would go over so well here in Texas.

Wow, I live in Northern Colorado, and I had never associated Wyoming with forward thinking. Good for them!!!

Impressive. In Kentucky signs like that would all have the same date.

Y’know, I’ve seen those signs while cruising across Wyoming, and it never occurred to me just how much they probably infuriate fundies.

I always paid more attention to the “jackalope” billboard one sees going up I-25. There’s a triceratops billoard as well – state dinosaur, you see. There’s a nice little fossil museum at Thermopolis in the middle of the state and of course the triceratops is a prominent exhibit.

I didn’t notice the bit about DT’s debate with the Troothers on CTC-AM on the first read. Oh dear, if anything could be worse than creationists, Troothers would be a prime candidate.

I keep thinking the Troothers are on the fade. As long as the Bush II Administration was in office, they could scream “coverup”, but that gets harder now that Obama is president – “C’mon people, you really think Obama, like him or not, is going to cover up for Bush and not stick it to him immediately?” Alas, conspiracy theorists always have an answer, generally involving the “CIA conspiracy”.

What’s the difference between a fairy tale and a conspiracy theory? A fairy tale starts: “Once upon a time …” – while a conspiracy theory starts: “There is absolutely NO doubt …”

Dave Thomas Wrote:

No appeasement of young-earth creationists here!

It’s not the YECs who are appeased when the ages are avoided, but the “don’t ask don’t tell” gang (IDers and the more politically correct Biblicals). A well-read YEC will see the ages as opportunities to spin incredulity sound bites, whereas the last thing an IDer wants is for their audience to know how anti-evolutionists are in hopeless disagreement on some of the most basic - and settled - questions.

So please everyone, mention ages, especially if in the millions or billions of years, at every opportunity. And never miss an opportunity to note when an anti-evolution activist concedes that science is correct on those ages, and/or common descent.

I want to report here that in the past, I have driven a similarly labeled stretch of highway between Vernal Utah and Flaming Gorge, which I believe is called the road through the ages scenic byway or something similar. A Google search gave a link that connected to the Bureau of Land Management, but I could find no specific information there. Some Utah tourist sites listed a “wildlife through the ages” scenic drive, but gave no specifics. Is this being obscured? Has it been dismantled? Is it not been promoted as part of the scenic byway system? These geologically labeled highways serve an important purpose in tourism and science education and ought to be protected and promoted.

Meanwhile, I just returned to Colorado from a trip to Pittsburgh traveling into a bit of Kentucky just south of Cincinnati. There, I encountered a sign on the freeway (US 275 I believe) letting me know that the Creation Museum was at the next exit. As far as I could tell, the sign was an official one and had the same brown background color as the ones pictured above. Does this mean (once I have the money) that I can buy a plot of land next to a federal freeway and get signage for a museum for the purpose of promoting a religious philosophy of my own choosing?

Y’all are missing the point. The age is in god dog years! So there’s really no conflict.

I wonder if we could find out how often the Wyoming DOT gets complaints.

I remember going on a driving field trip in Oklahoma and finding the lone Pre-Cambrian outcrop.

There it was, outstanding in it’s field, so to speak.

We circled it and had a moment of silence under the hot Oklahoma sun for this Old Man. We didn’t even take a sample. Just left it there to enjoy the day unmolested.

I’m sure if the YEC’s knew where it was they’d try to burn it! Just sayin’…

Have you guys ever noticed that one of the most common YEC claims is that the Cambrian explosion was the sudden appearance of life and thus the time of (recent) creation itself?

The problem with that assumption is that even the Cambrian period consisted only of ocean creatures, and none of them even remotely resembled animals living today, not even today’s fish or arthropods.

If YEC was valid at all, the Cambrian period would have consisted of animals viturally identical to organisms living now, including land animals, and we would not even be able to differentiate the various periods from the Cambrian to the Tertiary periods. The fact that we can do so would be a sufficient proof for an honest and open-minded person of both an Earth hundreds of millions of years old and of evolution, but we must remember that we are dealing with con artists and dogmatic extremists.

Frank J said:

Dave Thomas Wrote:

No appeasement of young-earth creationists here!

It’s not the YECs who are appeased when the ages are avoided, but the “don’t ask don’t tell” gang (IDers and the more politically correct Biblicals). A well-read YEC will see the ages as opportunities to spin incredulity sound bites, whereas the last thing an IDer wants is for their audience to know how anti-evolutionists are in hopeless disagreement on some of the most basic - and settled - questions.

Here’s such an example of Bill Jack who haunts the Denver Museum of Science and Nature with his home school tours. (The docents there deserve combat pay.)

http://www.worldview.org/video_samples/tours.html

Vacationers flood national parks. Museums are the secular temples of our culture where people go to worship either the “works of their hands” (Acts 7:41) or “the creature rather than the Creator.” (Romans 1:25)

Not content with being politically correct, Bill Jack and Rusty Carter from B.C. Tours guide you through a Biblically Correct Tour of:

The Denver Zoo, The Denver Museum of Nature and Science, The Denver Museum of Art, Law and Order at the Colorado State Capitol, and Dinosaur Ridge outside Denver.

Frank continues:

So please everyone, mention ages, especially if in the millions or billions of years, at every opportunity. And never miss an opportunity to note when an anti-evolution activist concedes that science is correct on those ages, and/or common descent.

Good idea, because this is the reaction from the same guy.

http://www.worldview.org/video_samp[…]clothes.html

The Emperor’s New Clothes Format: DVD

Every one of the Emperor’s courtiers raved about the magnificent and elegant cloth the two strangers were weaving for the Emperor’s new clothes — even though the courtiers obviously could not see anything on the looms.

Why? The two weavers had convinced the Emperor that only the wise and discerning could see the magical cloth. No one, not even the Emperor himself, wanted to appear foolish and stupid…so the Emperor ended up parading naked before the kingdom in his “exquisite new clothes” in order to maintain his “credibility.”

Many of the True King’s courtiers are raving about Progressive Creationism’s magnificent and elegant theories on the origin of His creation. These courtiers are convinced that only the wise and discerning — those with advanced academic degrees — can magically explain the King’s creation and thus maintain the Christian’s credibility with the scientific community.

Before you find yourself parading naked in the marketplace of ideas, watch and learn as Bill Jack exposes the bare truth about Progressive Creationism through interviews and commentary from a biblical perspective. Learn to value the integrity of the King’s Word over credibility with the world.

What a sad day when we feel we should congratulate a state office for simply not spreading middle-ages fairy tales.

For even more such signs and a very close look at the strata I suggest a drive through Wind River Canyon between Shoshone and Thermopolis, Wyoming. It’s like a Wayback machine carved out of the cornerstone of the planet.

If YEC was valid at all, the Cambrian period would have consisted of animals viturally identical to organisms living now, including land animals, and we would not even be able to differentiate the various periods from the Cambrian to the Tertiary periods.

That’s a good observation, Dale. Don’t the YEC’s try to counter that with their “hydrologic” model?

I typically forget most of that stuff as soon as I read it; too much stupid to retain.

watch them struggle with essentially your point here, Dale:

http://forums.ccmmagazine.com/m_466[…]rintable.htm

and *I think* this is their standard response, for what it’s worth:

http://www.creationscience.com/onli[…]ences25.html

Not quite on topic, but the Bighorn range is a really interesting place. On one side of it is high plains - rolling grasslands, farms and ranches, terrain typical of that found all the way at least to Minnesota. On the other side of the mountains, just a dozen or two miles away, is bare desert. No grass, no rolling hills, terrain characterized by creosote bushes and steep cliffs, canyons carved into the rock. Almost like a short drive through the woods to a different planet altogether.

A fascinating transition in the summer. Not driveable in the winter.

Ichthyic said:

If YEC was valid at all, the Cambrian period would have consisted of animals viturally identical to organisms living now, including land animals, and we would not even be able to differentiate the various periods from the Cambrian to the Tertiary periods.

That’s a good observation, Dale. Don’t the YEC’s try to counter that with their “hydrologic” model?

I typically forget most of that stuff as soon as I read it; too much stupid to retain.

Ichthyic said:

watch them struggle with essentially your point here, Dale:

http://forums.ccmmagazine.com/m_466[…]rintable.htm

and *I think* this is their standard response, for what it’s worth:

http://www.creationscience.com/onli[…]ences25.html

OF COURSE most of the fossils were buried rapidly! Floods happen all the time, all over the world (except perhaps in deserts). What YECs ignore is that it’s simply impossible that a SINGLE and GLOBAL flood could have produced the layers of fossils in the order we find them. You would only expect such layers and such order if the fossils were laid down in millions of local floods. Claims that the fossils were “sorted” by the flood waters of Noah’s time to produce the results we see have absolutely NO foundation whatsoever. You can assert such things, but they cannot be tested and even if they could be tested, they are contradicted by the actual evidence. NO ONE would take the claims of “scientific Creationists” at face value if he was not already brainwashed by the blasphemous dogma that the Bible is the “Word of God”!

Dr. Mark’s response:

“And I really don’t understand your reasoning at all. The prevalence of fossils is primarily correlated with the number of individual organisms available to be fossilized. Why should less common “modern” animals leave just as many fossils as more common extinct ones? “

and:

“ the flood itself didn’t lead to their becoming fossils, the after effects of it’s draining away did”

would probably be the response to:

You would only expect such layers and such order if the fossils were laid down in millions of local floods.

seriously, I do believe that’s the BEST argument I’ve seen against stratigraphy coming from the YEC’s, and it’s all essentially based on Morris.

*shakes head sadly*

yes, if one wants to believe, one can rationalize anything as true.

Ichthyic said:

Dr. Mark’s response:

“And I really don’t understand your reasoning at all. The prevalence of fossils is primarily correlated with the number of individual organisms available to be fossilized. Why should less common “modern” animals leave just as many fossils as more common extinct ones? “

and:

“ the flood itself didn’t lead to their becoming fossils, the after effects of it’s draining away did”

would probably be the response to:

You would only expect such layers and such order if the fossils were laid down in millions of local floods.

seriously, I do believe that’s the BEST argument I’ve seen against stratigraphy coming from the YEC’s, and it’s all essentially based on Morris.

*shakes head sadly*

yes, if one wants to believe, one can rationalize anything as true.

Hang on, he’s saying that all the extinct forms were more common and that all the current forms were less common? (Assuming, as he has to, that they were all extant at the same time before the Flood.)

So the Flood wiped out all the commonest sea creatures, but left the uncommon ones to persist to this day? They’re actually saying that?

And what effects would attend this “draining away” of the waters of the Flood? (Where would they “drain away” to, one wonders, but that’s by the way.) Why would you not expect the dead animals and plants to be jumbled up together, sorted by size and density, not morphology. Wouldn’t they be found in great vertical middens around choke points, not in even horizontal layers?

The wonders of making stuff up!

The Law of Faunal Succession states that assemblages of plants and animals get progressively more and more different from those observed today the further back in the past you go in the fossil record. Now if hydrologic sorting after the magic flood was by size or density, then that means that in order to account for the observed pattern, all extant forms must be either smaller or less dense than all of the extinct forms. SImple really. You just make stuff up and hope that no one is smart enough to figure out that your so called “hypothesis” ids conclusively falsified by these inconvenient truths.

Now I wonder why these guys are surprised when no one takes them seriously?

The evidence of the Earth testifies that there has never been a ‘worldwide flood’.

Every genuine geologist (not the fake geologists of the YEC organizations, degrees notwithstanding) knows that a ‘worldwide flood’ would have scoured every sedimentary rock off the face of every continent, leaving only bare basement rock, like northern and central Canada.

The Oceans would be filled to the brim with one gigantic column of graded-bedding sediments - no deep trenches, no abyssal plains.

The continents would be leveled, and the oceans would be filled. All stratigraphy and palaeontology testify against a ‘worldwide flood’.

Ergo there has never been a ‘worldwide flood’.

Genuine geologists consider “Flood Geology” silly and childish, undeserving of serious comment. Such questions were settled 150 years ago.

GvlGeologist, FCD said:

I wonder if we could find out how often the Wyoming DOT gets complaints.

I would not be surprised if there have not been all that many complaints, at least not from residents of that somewhat harsh state. Wyoming has a pretty rich history of geologic exploration and study…all the way back to the Hayden survey (at least).

As for any travelling YECs who may complain, I imagine that they are too busy ignoring the scenery to notice the signs.

John Vanko said:

The evidence of the Earth testifies that there has never been a ‘worldwide flood’.

Every genuine geologist (not the fake geologists of the YEC organizations, degrees notwithstanding) knows that a ‘worldwide flood’ would have scoured every sedimentary rock off the face of every continent, leaving only bare basement rock, like northern and central Canada.

The Oceans would be filled to the brim with one gigantic column of graded-bedding sediments - no deep trenches, no abyssal plains.

The continents would be leveled, and the oceans would be filled. All stratigraphy and palaeontology testify against a ‘worldwide flood’.

Ergo there has never been a ‘worldwide flood’.

Genuine geologists consider “Flood Geology” silly and childish, undeserving of serious comment. Such questions were settled 150 years ago.

May I quote you on that?

Hang on, he’s saying that all the extinct forms were more common and that all the current forms were less common? (Assuming, as he has to, that they were all extant at the same time before the Flood.) So the Flood wiped out all the commonest sea creatures, but left the uncommon ones to persist to this day? They’re actually saying that?</i? *looks behind* wait, you’re looking at ME? btw, maybe this is “Dr Mark”? http://creationwiki.org/Mark_Harwood I have no clue! far be it from me to truly understand the mind of a fundy, or what crazy shit they will think up next as rationalizations. read the thread i linked to!

man, codefail.

Hang on, he’s saying that all the extinct forms were more common and that all the current forms were less common? (Assuming, as he has to, that they were all extant at the same time before the Flood.) So the Flood wiped out all the commonest sea creatures, but left the uncommon ones to persist to this day? They’re actually saying that?

*looks behind*

wait, you’re looking at ME?

I have no clue! far be it from me to truly understand the mind of a fundy, or what crazy shit they will think up next as rationalizations. read the thread i linked to!

btw, maybe this is “Dr Mark”?

http://creationwiki.org/Mark_Harwood

arguing with a creationist.…

read the comments from and responses to in this thread from Alan Clarke:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/[…]itanoboa.php

good way to waste an afternoon.

John Vanko said:

Genuine geologists consider “Flood Geology” silly and childish, undeserving of serious comment. Such questions were settled 150 years ago.

The same goes for physics and chemistry.

When ID/creationists attempt to use the laws of physics to explain their literal reading of their holy book, they really screw things up. They have to change the laws of physics in the past in order to make their biblical stories and chronology come out right.

That means changing radioactive decay rates, hydrological effects, the speed of light, and a whole host of other physical laws.

Then they are stuck with the problem of the laws changing at some point in time to what they are now. Were they there when this happened? Does their holy book actually state somewhere that the laws of physics were different before the flood, or before “The Fall?” If the laws of physics were different; how did chemistry work? Did anybody eat back then?

I don’t know how any of these ID/creationist “PhDs” can look at themselves in the mirror and not start laughing. The stuff they glibly toss out without cracking a smile is so incredibly stupid and unrecognizable as physics that it is breathtaking to watch their responses when someone nails them.

Hermetically sealed brains; yet they still draw salaries and have awestruck followers. All you can do is shake your head in amazement.

Dale Husband said:

May I quote you on that?

Go for it. (What have I done?)

Mike Elzinga said:

I don’t know how any of these ID/creationist “PhDs” can look at themselves in the mirror and not start laughing.

It’s worse than that. They know that they are dishonest. The believe (subliminally perhaps) that “lying for Jesus” is justified.

In order to promote their faith, they sin.

Ichthyic said: wait, you’re looking at ME?

I have no clue! far be it from me to truly understand the mind of a fundy, or what crazy shit they will think up next as rationalizations. read the thread i linked to!

Nah. I used the third person singular, meaning one other than the person being addressed.

Why can’t you grasp the fact that “the law” in the US is what the US Supreme Court (as final arbiters) determine it to be? Even if you don’t like their determination (and there are a couple of recent ones I don’t like), they ARE THE LAW!

If we (in the US, not Canada) don’t like the present law, as applied by the Supremes, we might get Congress to pass new laws, which again can be struck down or accepted as constitutional by the Court.

But again the LAW is what the Court says it is, and it says you’re WRONG, Byers.

Just Bob said:

Why can’t you grasp the fact that “the law” in the US is what the US Supreme Court (as final arbiters) determine it to be? Even if you don’t like their determination (and there are a couple of recent ones I don’t like), they ARE THE LAW!

If we (in the US, not Canada) don’t like the present law, as applied by the Supremes, we might get Congress to pass new laws, which again can be struck down or accepted as constitutional by the Court.

But again the LAW is what the Court says it is, and it says you’re WRONG, Byers.

Robert Byers refuses to grasp what US laws say because they do not say what he wants to hear, i.e., that the worship of Jesus H. Christ, that Young Earth Creationism be taught instead of actual science, and that the English translation of the Holy Bible be interpreted literally, under pain of imprisonment, torture, death and eternal damnation.

Oclarki said:

Robert Byers said:

This law is invoked to ban creationism.

Creationism has effectively banned itself from science curricula because those who promote it consistently fail to demonstrate that its hypotheses have been developed and tested in accordance with the principles and methodologies of science.

Outside of this self-imposed exile from the sciences, I can think of no other circumstances from which creationism has been banned by law.

Huh? The law is the one banning creationism in school classes as a option for origins. This is why when creationism is brought in by legislatures it ends up in court. They claim its against the law.

Just Bob said:

Why can’t you grasp the fact that “the law” in the US is what the US Supreme Court (as final arbiters) determine it to be? Even if you don’t like their determination (and there are a couple of recent ones I don’t like), they ARE THE LAW!

If we (in the US, not Canada) don’t like the present law, as applied by the Supremes, we might get Congress to pass new laws, which again can be struck down or accepted as constitutional by the Court.

But again the LAW is what the Court says it is, and it says you’re WRONG, Byers.

Well I’m saying the court has been clearly wrong. the law invoked is a invention of the last 50 years and not in the constitution.

Dave Luckett said:

Byers lies: “The law says no state/church interference with each other.”

That’s a lie. It doesn’t say that. It says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion”.

Byers, you’re a liar as well as a fool. You are also a joke, but on this occasion, I’m not laughing.

I’m not lying! its a false accusation. Anyways. it is the essence of the whole debate that state/church should not interfere with each other. Church/State issue is the title when this matter comes up. Your closer to the truth because you smell this is a bad case for you. So you try to say its just about Congress making no law about religion etc.

In short the state can’t teach creationism because it is teaching religion as true. I say if it bans religion or teaches against it in origin issues then the state is making a law and a opinion on the ruth of religion. Its breaking the law you invoke. In banning creationism the state is making a law respecting the establishment of religion. Its saying its false. By law.

of coarse there is no such law in reality and the legislature is the one to decide.

of coarse booby would rather follow a false religion so he can whine and moan about how persecuted he is than admit that his religion is false and he would rather not learn any englishes ever anyways

Robert Byers, you continue to talk like an idiot: Geology is not a religion, and making geological signs conform to Young Earth Creationism is illegal, period.

DS said:

of coarse booby would rather follow a false religion so he can whine and moan about how persecuted he is than admit that his religion is false and he would rather not learn any englishes ever anyways

That, and he isn’t even Americanese to begin with.

Robert Byers said:

Huh? The law is the one banning creationism in school classes as a option for origins. This is why when creationism is brought in by legislatures it ends up in court. They claim its against the law.

There is no science in “creation science”. None. That is why it should not be a component of science curricula. That is what the courts have found as well. Consistently.

Perhaps you should take your own creationist “scientists” to task for failing to ensure that their work is consistent with the principles and methodologies of science rather than complain about the courts.

Robert Byers said:

Dave Luckett said:

Byers lies: “The law says no state/church interference with each other.”

That’s a lie. It doesn’t say that. It says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion”.

Byers, you’re a liar as well as a fool. You are also a joke, but on this occasion, I’m not laughing.

I’m not lying! its a false accusation. Anyways. it is the essence of the whole debate that state/church should not interfere with each other. …

In short the state can’t teach creationism because it is teaching religion as true. I say if it bans religion or teaches against it in origin issues then the state is making a law and a opinion on the [t]ruth of religion. Its breaking the law you invoke. In banning creationism the state is making a law respecting the [e]stablishment of religion. Its saying its false. By law.

of coarse [sic] there is no such law in reality and the legislature is the one to decide.

Lying is a strong word … let’s say you’re misinformed.

Similar arguments have also been shot down in court. I have a feeling I’ve quoted these before, but you don’t seem to have paid much attention. This is US law. Read the decisions. The first case addresses your argument that “if it bans religion or teaches against it in origin issues then the state is making a law and a opinion on the [t]ruth of religion.”:

“You can’t teach evolution, because it disagrees with my religion”: Shot down by Epperson v. Arkansas, and again by Seagraves v. State of California.

“OK, you can teach evolution, but you have to teach both”: Shot down by McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.

“But evolution is a religion, too; so teaching it violates the Establishment Clause …”: Shot down by Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District.

“… and making me teach it against my beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause …”: Also shot down by Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District.

“… and making me shut up about my religion in the classroom violates my First Amendment freedom of speech, too”: Also shot down by Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, and again by Webster v. New Lennox School District.

“Well, alright, you don’t have to teach either, but if you do teach evolution, you also have to give equal time to “creation science”: Shot down by Edwards v. Aguillard.

“And if our Christian fundamentalist school teaches that evolution is baloney and rewrites history a la Texas, the University of California has to admit our kids anyway”: Shot down by Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns.

“OK, teach evolution, and don’t teach creationism. But let the kids know there’s this other ‘theory’ out there – and by the way, we didn’t say the word ‘God’”: Shot down by Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover Area School District.

John_S said:

Lying is a strong word … let’s say you’re misinformed.

Ah, a tactful Panda. It is not the norm here.

I am of the opionion that RB believes every word he says. I must add, however, that I don’t really understand how.

MrG said:

John_S said:

Lying is a strong word … let’s say you’re misinformed.

Ah, a tactful Panda. It is not the norm here.

I am of the opionion that RB believes every word he says. I must add, however, that I don’t really understand how.

Robert Byers believes every moronic word he spouts because he’s an idiot, that’s why.

Stanton said:

Robert Byers believes every moronic word he spouts because he’s an idiot, that’s why.

Now what was I just saying about tact …

Anyway, I can’t argue with that as a general answer, but I can still say I find it hard to believe. Then again, as the saying goes: “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits.”

John_S said:

Robert Byers said:

Dave Luckett said:

Byers lies: “The law says no state/church interference with each other.”

That’s a lie. It doesn’t say that. It says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion”.

Byers, you’re a liar as well as a fool. You are also a joke, but on this occasion, I’m not laughing.

I’m not lying! its a false accusation. Anyways. it is the essence of the whole debate that state/church should not interfere with each other. …

In short the state can’t teach creationism because it is teaching religion as true. I say if it bans religion or teaches against it in origin issues then the state is making a law and a opinion on the [t]ruth of religion. Its breaking the law you invoke. In banning creationism the state is making a law respecting the [e]stablishment of religion. Its saying its false. By law.

of coarse [sic] there is no such law in reality and the legislature is the one to decide.

Lying is a strong word … let’s say you’re misinformed.

Similar arguments have also been shot down in court. I have a feeling I’ve quoted these before, but you don’t seem to have paid much attention. This is US law. Read the decisions. The first case addresses your argument that “if it bans religion or teaches against it in origin issues then the state is making a law and a opinion on the [t]ruth of religion.”:

“You can’t teach evolution, because it disagrees with my religion”: Shot down by Epperson v. Arkansas, and again by Seagraves v. State of California.

“OK, you can teach evolution, but you have to teach both”: Shot down by McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.

“But evolution is a religion, too; so teaching it violates the Establishment Clause …”: Shot down by Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District.

“… and making me teach it against my beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause …”: Also shot down by Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District.

“… and making me shut up about my religion in the classroom violates my First Amendment freedom of speech, too”: Also shot down by Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, and again by Webster v. New Lennox School District.

“Well, alright, you don’t have to teach either, but if you do teach evolution, you also have to give equal time to “creation science”: Shot down by Edwards v. Aguillard.

“And if our Christian fundamentalist school teaches that evolution is baloney and rewrites history a la Texas, the University of California has to admit our kids anyway”: Shot down by Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns.

“OK, teach evolution, and don’t teach creationism. But let the kids know there’s this other ‘theory’ out there – and by the way, we didn’t say the word ‘God’”: Shot down by Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover Area School District.

These cases just repeat the same original error. my point has not been made in these cases by creationists. These are still obscure areas that have not received much attention in jurisprudence. Some famous but not a lot of lawyering in reality. Creationism has everything on its side in overturning the censorship by the state. Its coming.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on August 20, 2010 1:13 PM.

Are psychics liable for crackpots? was the previous entry in this blog.

Photography Contest: Finalists, Invasive 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