Another year, another clueless school board

| 143 Comments

Springboro, Ohio, described by Wikipedia as “an affluent suburb of Cincinnati and Dayton,” has a school board on which two members are pushing for the inclusion of creationism in the district’s science curriculum. The Dayton Daily News reported today that BOE members Kelly Kohls and Scott Anderson, elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility, are one vote away from a creationist majority on the Board. According to the story, Kohls requested that

… the district’s curriculum director look into ways of providing “supplemental” instruction dealing with creationism.

It goes on

“Creationism is a significant part of the history of this country,” Kohls said. “It is an absolutely valid theory and to omit it means we are omitting part of the history of this country.”

Consistent with Lenny Flank’s law, though, Kohls makes the motivation for her advocacy of creationism clear:

Kohls is the head of the Warren County Tea Party. Although she said her desire to teach creationism is not directly related to the emerging political movement, it’s not inconsistent with Tea Party ideals.

“My input on creationism has everything with me being a parent and not a member of the Tea Party,” she said. “We are motivated people who want to change the course of this country. Eliminating God from our public lives I think is a mistake and is why we have gone in the direction of spending beyond our means.”

Nice.

There’s some support for the push from another source:

John Silvius, a former biology professor at Cedarville University, a Christian institution that teaches both evolution and creationism, said the two theories can co-exist, even in a public school classroom.

Cedarville is a Baptist young-earth institution; it even has a young earth geology program, taught, it is claimed, from “both naturalistic and young-earth paradigms of earth history.”

I trust that the curriculum director will read documents like Edwards v. Aguilar, McLean v. Arkansas, and Epperson v. Arkansas, not to mention Kiztmiller v. Dover. I also hope that the Board’s legal advisers have their wits about them.

The two creationism-pushing board members were supposedly elected on a fiscal responsibility platform. How fiscally responsible is it to expose the district to expenses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars by advocating a bankrupt religious approach in public schools? The Mt. Vernon, OH, and Dover, PA, boards could provide Springboro with some advice on just how “fiscally responsible” pushing creationism is. The same sort of shenanigans cost those districts on the order of $1m each.

143 Comments

How fiscally responsible is it to expose the district to expenses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars by advocating a bankrupt religious approach in public schools?

Well, sure, but they’re highly consistent with creationist cluelessness.

We can always count on them being ignorant clods, after all.

Glen Davidson

At least these guys are honest enough to call it what it is. That puts them way ahead of the IDiots in the honesty department even if they are clueless about the science.

I’ve always said that if you want to change the law you can’t lie about what you are doing like the IDiots and ID perps. Even if you win it is the lie that wins, and then you have to live with the lie as a constant reminder as to how dishonest and bogus the effort was.

Not a big fan of Boehner et al, nevertheless I wonder how long the Right will let these nutjobs steer the ship before they realize the nutjobs aren’t helping. I get that it all started with vote-pandering, but at some point some conservatives are going to realize they courted a bunch of wackos. I hope, really, for their sake.

Maybe this group of scientific illiterates will propose creationism as their opening bid, hoping to bargain down to intelligent design? Dover, here we come!

The “Doctrinal Statement” of Cedarville University includes such gems as “We believe in the literal six-day account of creation, that the creation of man lies in the special, immediate, and formative acts of God and not from previously existing forms of life.” and “We believe that man was created perfect in the image of God…

Given the above, I would love to know how these yahoos can claim to teach both creationism and evolution. Anybody know if their evolution textbook is from Bob Jones University?

Paul Burnett said:

The “Doctrinal Statement” of Cedarville University includes such gems as “We believe in the literal six-day account of creation, that the creation of man lies in the special, immediate, and formative acts of God and not from previously existing forms of life.” and “We believe that man was created perfect in the image of God…

Given the above, I would love to know how these yahoos can claim to teach both creationism and evolution. Anybody know if their evolution textbook is from Bob Jones University?

It could be from Biola University. I could almost laugh after reading that risible example of breathtaking inanity… but almost. Of course it’s absolutely pathetic as an ill-conceived effort to wed literalist religious dogma to science. I wonder if any of the science faculty there really buy into this nonsense; I hope that there is at least one who might not.

Paul Burnett said: Given the above, I would love to know how these yahoos can claim to teach both creationism and evolution.

As you no doubt can guess: “We teach that creationism is right and evolution is wrong.”

I worry. Not because this batch of creotards are any more savvy, or scientifically literate, or more persuasive than their predecessors – they aren’t. I worry because eventually they may accidentally get the perfect storm of idiot judge, incompetent ACLU lawyering, and a social-conservative promoting SCotUS. Imagine the horrific results of allowing Scalia to write a majority opinion on creationism v evolution.

Even winning isn’t all that great – the taxpayer foots the bill, the school district hemorrhages cash, good teachers get threats and scorn from local fundies, bad teachers get encouragement and cash from local churches, and (already marginal) public education gets steadily worse. What we really need is a way to hold those who knowingly promote crap accountable; to hurt their pocketbooks and bottom lines. Is there any way to charge these charlatans with fraud?

J. L. Brown said: I worry because eventually they may accidentally get the perfect storm of idiot judge, incompetent ACLU lawyering, and a social-conservative promoting SCotUS. Imagine the horrific results of allowing Scalia to write a majority opinion on creationism v evolution.

I suppose it could happen but it would really have to be a perfect storm. Not only would Roberts, Alito, etc… have to agree with Scalia on this issue (its not clear to me that they do), but they would have to be interested enough in overturning this precedent that they choose to take the case. Because SCOTUS only hears about 1% of the cases that appeal to them. I think this is probably the sort of issue they will just ignore as long as possible (i.e. until circuit courts start making contradictory rulings).

What we really need is a way to hold those who knowingly promote crap accountable; to hurt their pocketbooks and bottom lines. Is there any way to charge these charlatans with fraud?

Politicians are free to take advice from any source, and the only real recourse is to not re-elect them. I suppose the politicians themselves (i.e. the school boards) could sue their advisors for giving bad advice, but given that the DI is typically telling people what they want to hear, I doubt that’s going to happen very often.

eric said:

J. L. Brown said: I worry because eventually they may accidentally get the perfect storm of idiot judge, incompetent ACLU lawyering, and a social-conservative promoting SCotUS. Imagine the horrific results of allowing Scalia to write a majority opinion on creationism v evolution.

I suppose it could happen but it would really have to be a perfect storm. Not only would Roberts, Alito, etc… have to agree with Scalia on this issue (its not clear to me that they do), but they would have to be interested enough in overturning this precedent that they choose to take the case. Because SCOTUS only hears about 1% of the cases that appeal to them. I think this is probably the sort of issue they will just ignore as long as possible (i.e. until circuit courts start making contradictory rulings).

What we really need is a way to hold those who knowingly promote crap accountable; to hurt their pocketbooks and bottom lines. Is there any way to charge these charlatans with fraud?

Politicians are free to take advice from any source, and the only real recourse is to not re-elect them. I suppose the politicians themselves (i.e. the school boards) could sue their advisors for giving bad advice, but given that the DI is typically telling people what they want to hear, I doubt that’s going to happen very often.

I think the chances of a “perfect storm” as J. L. contends are rare. The Supreme Court would have to follow prior precedent in the cases of Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968), McLean vs. Arkansas (1982), and Edwards vs. Aguilard (1987). It also refused to hear this case, Freiler et al. v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education et al. (1994), in an early precursor to Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (2005), though Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case on June 19, 2000.

(Incidentally, I reviewed information pertaining to these cases at the National Center for Science Education’s online resource on court cases pertaining to creationism.)

Dover II: The Stupidity Continues.

This is local for me, as I live in Dayton and work close to Springboro. What is even more stupid than wanting to teach creationism in public schools (as if that wasn’t stupid enough) is that this school district and city are broke. They’ve been growing rapidly, as a “white flight” suburb of both Dayton and Cincinnati, and their schools were overcrowded. They managed to get taxes raised once long enough to get some badly-needed new schools built, but then tax cut fever set in, and they can’t equip or staff the schools. The last thing that this school district needs is to waste their non-existent funds on lawyers to defend themselves against the inevitable lawsuit, and from paying the legal fees of the successful challengers.

Mike Clinch said:

This is local for me, as I live in Dayton and work close to Springboro. What is even more stupid than wanting to teach creationism in public schools (as if that wasn’t stupid enough) is that this school district and city are broke. They’ve been growing rapidly, as a “white flight” suburb of both Dayton and Cincinnati, and their schools were overcrowded. They managed to get taxes raised once long enough to get some badly-needed new schools built, but then tax cut fever set in, and they can’t equip or staff the schools. The last thing that this school district needs is to waste their non-existent funds on lawyers to defend themselves against the inevitable lawsuit, and from paying the legal fees of the successful challengers.

Let’s keep our fingers crossed Mike that some of your neighbors may show more sense than the two creobot board members and stop them legally from starting a DOVER II.

An “absolutely valid theory?” No, it isn’t. Part of the history of this country? Yes, an embarrassing part, and one which could appropriately be taught in history class. Excluding God from public life? Yet another person who thinks that excluding something is the same as not including it.

John said:

eric said:

J. L. Brown said: I worry because eventually they may accidentally get the perfect storm of idiot judge, incompetent ACLU lawyering, and a social-conservative promoting SCotUS. Imagine the horrific results of allowing Scalia to write a majority opinion on creationism v evolution.

I suppose it could happen but it would really have to be a perfect storm. Not only would Roberts, Alito, etc… have to agree with Scalia on this issue (its not clear to me that they do), but they would have to be interested enough in overturning this precedent that they choose to take the case. Because SCOTUS only hears about 1% of the cases that appeal to them. I think this is probably the sort of issue they will just ignore as long as possible (i.e. until circuit courts start making contradictory rulings).

What we really need is a way to hold those who knowingly promote crap accountable; to hurt their pocketbooks and bottom lines. Is there any way to charge these charlatans with fraud?

Politicians are free to take advice from any source, and the only real recourse is to not re-elect them. I suppose the politicians themselves (i.e. the school boards) could sue their advisors for giving bad advice, but given that the DI is typically telling people what they want to hear, I doubt that’s going to happen very often.

I think the chances of a “perfect storm” as J. L. contends are rare. The Supreme Court would have to follow prior precedent in the cases of Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968), McLean vs. Arkansas (1982), and Edwards vs. Aguilard (1987). It also refused to hear this case, Freiler et al. v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education et al. (1994), in an early precursor to Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (2005), though Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case on June 19, 2000.

(Incidentally, I reviewed information pertaining to these cases at the National Center for Science Education’s online resource on court cases pertaining to creationism.)

Here’s the link to NCSE’s online resource on court cases:

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/

There have been three other cases that were brought before the United States Supreme Court, but the court declined to hear them.

eric -

I suppose it could happen but it would really have to be a perfect storm.

However, they do have a position of advantage, as they are the ocean, and science supporters are the levee.

They have nearly infinite financial resources, a strong willingness to waste the resource of others, and a huge base of support (not majority, in most places, but huge). All they ever have to do is run a dog whistle campaign in a rural or white suburban district somewhere to be elected.

They have nothing to lose. Freshwater, and even he may come out ahead in the long run (I desperately hope not but we don’t know yet), was a rare exception. He seems to have bordered on needing his job. But there are many Kelly Kohls types who probably have some combination of inherited wealth, spousal wealth, wingnut welfare connections, and/or qualifications as an attorney or some other type of portable professional qualifications.

All they have to do is pound and pound and pound. They’re like the ocean - they are unlimited and never stop.

We are the ones who can lose - Americans who value freedom of religion.

They cannot lose. When freedoms are protected, they take advantage of that to pound away at freedom.

If they sometime get a hack right wing SCOTUS to support them - and their worst case scenario if a case made it that far would probably be a 5-4 loss if Kennedy was feeling especially non-demented; if anyone thinks that Roberts and Alito have capacity for partisan independence, the onus is on them to explain why they virtually never exhibit such capacity.

Judge Jones went out of his way to make overturning his decision especially onerous, and he did so for a reason.

A vast swath of America did not like the extension of civil rights to stigmatized minority groups. Blaming “liberals” for that (correctly, of course), they have come to identify every “liberal” thing that this country was built on with “the other people”, and that certainly includes the basic freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

They have shown themselves willing to deny reality. They will not stop in their purely reactive backlash against everything that they perceive as having “persecuted” them by taking away their precious right to persecute certain others, until they are dead or incapacitated.

I see substantial evidence that far fewer people born after 1970 are adopting the cookie cutter post-civil rights wingnut position, relative to people born before that date, but it will take decades for this demographic trend to have any impact, if it ever does.

In the meantime, there will be constant, unending attacks on religious freedom, and the risk of a SCOTUS dominated by right wing political hacks wiping its butt with the constitution is real.

This is a long, hard, defensive struggle.

harold said: In the meantime, there will be constant, unending attacks on religious freedom, and the risk of a SCOTUS dominated by right wing political hacks wiping its butt with the constitution is real.

This is a long, hard, defensive struggle.

I think you are overstating the case when every potential creationism case before the United States Supreme Court has either been ruled against the creationists or the court declined to consider it (Three were heard before the court and all three ruled against the creationists; four others the court refused to hear.). Federal Judge John Jones - who was a registered Republican and a Conservative at the time of his historic Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling - wrote his ruling in such a concise, definitive, and lucid manner that it is now regarded unofficially as legal precedent in other similar cases around the country. If the Supreme Court were to rule on a similar case, then they would have to take Jones’ ruling into account simply because of the excellentce of his legal reasoning and writing.

There’s a further report along with some TV interviews here:

http://www.wlwt.com/education/28732[…]/detail.html

Kohls appears to have a PhD as she’s indroduced as “Doctor”.

Strangely, the parents don’t seem particularly phased by the suggestion, and appear to agree with the new school board members.

Is this another Dover looming ?

Is there a Tammy Kitzmiller in Springboro ?

John -

I think you are overstating the case

I hope so, but doubt it.

when every potential creationism case before the United States Supreme Court has either been ruled against the creationists or the court declined to consider it (Three were heard before the court and all three ruled against the creationists; four others the court refused to hear.).

Unfortunately, my concern is with members of the current supreme court.

Federal Judge John Jones - who was a registered Republican and a Conservative at the time of his historic Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling - wrote his ruling in such a concise, definitive, and lucid manner that it is now regarded unofficially as legal precedent in other similar cases around the country. If the Supreme Court were to rule on a similar case, then they would have to take Jones’ ruling into account simply because of the excellentce of his legal reasoning and writing.

This is true and we should all be very grateful for it.

Kohls appears to have a PhD as she’s indroduced as “Doctor”.

That may or may not mean much.

Creationists and xian leaders are known to acquire impressive sounding degrees from dubious sources. Such as diploma mills.

Kent Hovind also has a Ph.D.. From an unaccredited bible college. His thesis is available online and reads like something a high school kid would write.

It’s cargo cult academics.

How legitimate Kohl’s Ph.D. is depends on where she got it and in what.

Personal Bio: Kelly Kohls, Ph. D., R.D. L.D., has her Ph.D. in Nutrition, …

A quick google search indicates that she has a Ph.D. in nutrition.

I suppose that is a step up from bible studies or some such.

harold said:

John -

I think you are overstating the case

I hope so, but doubt it.

when every potential creationism case before the United States Supreme Court has either been ruled against the creationists or the court declined to consider it (Three were heard before the court and all three ruled against the creationists; four others the court refused to hear.).

Unfortunately, my concern is with members of the current supreme court.

Federal Judge John Jones - who was a registered Republican and a Conservative at the time of his historic Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling - wrote his ruling in such a concise, definitive, and lucid manner that it is now regarded unofficially as legal precedent in other similar cases around the country. If the Supreme Court were to rule on a similar case, then they would have to take Jones’ ruling into account simply because of the excellentce of his legal reasoning and writing.

This is true and we should all be very grateful for it.

I guess we’ll have to disagree respectfully, harold, but since the ideological makeup of the court has remained fairly constant over the past decade, I’m not concerned. Moreover, the court - even someone as obstinate as Scalia - would have to take seriously Jones’ ruling in Kitzmiller vs. Dover and regard that unofficially as recent important legal precedent that they, the Supreme Court, would need to adhere to (Though I’d expect a strong dissenting opinion from the likes of Scalia and Thomas.).

“Creationism is a significant part of the history of this country,” Kohls said. “It is an absolutely valid theory and to omit it means we are omitting part of the history of this country.”

So she’d be OK with it being taught in history class and leave the biology curriculum alone?

“My input on creationism has everything with me being a parent and not a member of the Tea Party,” she said. “We are motivated people who want to change the course of this country. Eliminating God from our public lives I think is a mistake and is why we have gone in the direction of spending beyond our means.”

I think she’s just blown her case right there. Admitting a religious, rather than a scientific, motive was a large part of what lost Kitzmiller for the Dover Area School Board. As for spending beyond our means, I don’t see what God would have done about it. Our national debt began to shoot up with the Reagan tax cuts and accelerated after the Bush tax cuts. We just decided to stop paying our bills ourselves and start paying them with IOUs to the Chinese. Jesus, as I recall, willingly paid his taxes, although he had to get the money from a fish …

Karen S. said:

Dover II: The Stupidity Continues.

More like scientific creationism III or if you want to count the ID scam it would be IV. The Arkansas and Louisiana losses were the reason for the name change to “cdesign proponentsists.”

I said:

Jesus, as I recall, willingly paid his taxes, although he had to get the money from a fish …

On second thought, I guess Jesus would fall right in with Reagan and Bush: he didn’t pay his own bills either. He stole the money from a fish!

Ron Okimoto said:

Karen S. said:

Dover II: The Stupidity Continues.

More like scientific creationism III or if you want to count the ID scam it would be IV. The Arkansas and Louisiana losses were the reason for the name change to “cdesign proponentsists.”

Agreed. For those who don’t know which cases Ron is referring to, they are McLean vs. Arkansas (1982) and Edwards vs. Aguilard (1987). The early drafts of Of Pandas and People had “creation scietists” which “evolved” into “cdesign proponentsists” and then, finally, “design proponents”. This “evolution” was spotted by Nick Matzke when he was working as a NCSE information specialist, and his research was a major reason why Barbara Forrest offered such damning testimony against Intelligent Design when she spoke as a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial.

Court decisions in America at the top should be based on a passion and study of what law should be imposed on a free people. Its a great power and surely this has been destroyed by decades of picking judges for preconceived conclusions and including in the picking is the issue of identity and this affects ideology presumptions. Nevertheless on truth and freedom to seek and discuss truth there is nothing wrong with the constitution. Creationism simply needs more cases to bring before America the absurdity of the present censorship in state institutions.

In censoring creationist(s) conclusions on matters of origins the state can’t escape the charge it is enforcing conclusions on wrong and right answers. if it says its doing this because some conclusions are touching on religion then the state is admitting its saying some religious conclusions are wrong. This is not the job of the state and in fact illegal. Creationism just needs a few more and better lawyers. Time has come. The times are changing.

Mike Clinch said:

This is local for me, as I live in Dayton and work close to Springboro. What is even more stupid than wanting to teach creationism in public schools (as if that wasn’t stupid enough) is that this school district and city are broke. They’ve been growing rapidly, as a “white flight” suburb of both Dayton and Cincinnati, and their schools were overcrowded. They managed to get taxes raised once long enough to get some badly-needed new schools built, but then tax cut fever set in, and they can’t equip or staff the schools. The last thing that this school district needs is to waste their non-existent funds on lawyers to defend themselves against the inevitable lawsuit, and from paying the legal fees of the successful challengers.

I seem to recall that the Governor of Ohio, along with other Republican right-wing conservative governors, was cutting the education budget because tha state didn’t have sufficient funds for public education, but that he was then diverting money that magically appeared from these cuts to private and parochial schools? Can anyone confirm that?

Robert Byers said:

Court decisions in America at the top should be based on a passion and study of what law should be imposed on a free people. Its a great power and surely this has been destroyed by decades of picking judges for preconceived conclusions and including in the picking is the issue of identity and this affects ideology presumptions. Nevertheless on truth and freedom to seek and discuss truth there is nothing wrong with the constitution. Creationism simply needs more cases to bring before America the absurdity of the present censorship in state institutions.

In censoring creationist(s) conclusions on matters of origins the state can’t escape the charge it is enforcing conclusions on wrong and right answers. if it says its doing this because some conclusions are touching on religion then the state is admitting its saying some religious conclusions are wrong. This is not the job of the state and in fact illegal. Creationism just needs a few more and better lawyers. Time has come. The times are changing.

Wrong. You don’t seem to understand the differences in role between judges and lawmakers. You are not censored. You don’t understand the US consitution’s stance on government and religion.

All this aside, I have one question I’d like you to answer. Why do you believe the government wants to censor creationism and what do they gain from doing so?

Ian Derthal said:

There’s a further report along with some TV interviews here:

http://www.wlwt.com/education/28732[…]/detail.html

Kohls appears to have a PhD as she’s indroduced as “Doctor”.

Strangely, the parents don’t seem particularly phased by the suggestion, and appear to agree with the new school board members.

Is this another Dover looming ?

Is there a Tammy Kitzmiller in Springboro ?

From the article:

““Federal law simply says that it is illegal to require the teaching of creationism,” Kohls said. “We’re not talking about that; we’re talking about adding it as a supplement to curriculum.”

Ohio’s Department of Education is staying out of the local debate, saying that state standards do not prohibit schools from teaching creationism and allow individual districts to make that decision.”

The decisions were not that creationism could not be required to be taught. There was something about science in the decision too. It is perfectly legal to teach creationism in a comparative religion class, but it isn’t any type of science worth discussing in the science class. Such discussion would obviously have religious motivation and would not pass the Lemon test.

Do these guys have the supplement that they want to use to teach creationism? What class are they going to teach creationism in? We had a classical mythology class in High School that wasn’t required, but you could take it if you wanted to as an elective.

These guys have always come up short on the science. It was a major problem for the creationists in both the Arkansas and Louisiana court cases. They literally had nothing to teach. Pandas and People was supposed to rectify the hole they had in teaching materials, but it just became part of the intelligent design creationist scam. So what do they have that is legitimate? Have they put forward any lesson plans to demonstrate that there is actually something that people want to teach to their kids? Just think of the intelligent design lesson plan where the fact that space aliens are the most scientific option for intelligent designers is put forward to be taught and you can understand why the ID perps never put forward an intelligent design lesson plan in all the years that they have advocated teaching intelligent design. The Discovery Institute’s ID scam wing has been in operation for over a decade and a half and not a single ID perp has ever put forward an intelligent design public school lesson plan for evaluation. Required to be taught doesn’t matter when there is nothing anyone wants to teach.

Just get the PhD on the board to write up a sample creationist lesson plan for evaluation and see if it matters if it is required to be taught or not. You can’t teach creation science if the science doesn’t exist, or that even the supporters do not want to teach.

circleh said:

The Dumfuck said:

circleh said:

Jesus is often referred to by Christians as the “lamb of God”. I’m not sure if there is a direct Biblical reference to that.

Look up John 1:29 morons!

Ah, that is where JOHN THE BAPTIST referred to Jesus as “the Lamb of God”. You said, “If Jesus can describe himself as a lamb, why shouldn’t I do the same?” So, where is the quote where Jesus himself said, “I am the Lamb of God”? He said a lot of things about himself, but not that! I could refer to Jesus as “the Rabbit of God” but that would not mean much unless he endorsed it.

Jesus was the true author of the whole Bible. He dictated it to the human authors via the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit!

You really are stupid!

Yep, that’s a poe. Desperate one, too. Tell me, sheepie, is attention - any sort of attention - that important to you?

circleh said:

The Jumbuck said:

Just because evolutionists like yourself spend so much time engaging in and thinking about sexual abominations does not mean Christians do the same thing.

Please specify the sexual abominations we are supposed to be engaging in.

This should be fun.

I second your endorsement Dale. I wonder whether we should try them somewhere in the Outback, say maybe over by Ayers Rock?

Dave Luckett said:

Yep, that’s a poe. Desperate one, too. Tell me, sheepie, is attention - any sort of attention - that important to you?

You have my condolences Dave in having to deal with yet another of your creotard countrymen. Hope you realize that my snarky comments about your country only pertain to him.

Dave Luckett said:

Yep, that’s a poe. Desperate one, too. Tell me, sheepie, is attention - any sort of attention - that important to you?

I love your fiery retort that you posted over at PZ’s latest entry (Unfortunately thy “holy” Cephalopodness has an automatic send me to the BW button - though it took him nearly three weeks to figure out it was me - so I won’t post there.). I love your comment so much that it’s worth posting here to remind that deranged loon from Queensland:

“Look, sport, it’s pretty clear you’re two bricks short of a load. Either you’re taking the piss or you wooden know if someone was up yer with an armful of chairs. You’re down on the tintanks, but I’ll take Sydney to a brick you’ve never been closer to Baghdad than Dubbo. And you wooden know a fossil if it reared up and bit you. Go play trains somewhere else.”

The Jumbuck said:

circleh said:

Just Bob said:

If Jesus can describe himself as a lamb, why shouldn’t I do the same?

Really? Where was that? My KJV contains not a single instance of Jesus “describ[ing] himself as a lamb”.

More proof that this is a prankster, folks. Anyone who truly believed all of the Bible is “true” would surely know what’s in it. This joker doesn’t.

And a sincere Christian would realize that it’s grave sin to put words in Jesus’ mouth that he never uttered.

The game’s up, Jumbuck. See if you can invent a more believable troll next time. This one’s just too over-the-top.

Jesus is often referred to by Christians as the “lamb of God” by Christians. I’m not sure if there is a direct Biblical reference to that.

Look up John 1:29 morons!

I did. here it is:

“The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

Now, are your reading skills so weak that you really can’t tell that it was John the Baptist saying that, NOT Jesus?

I’m always astounded by how little Christians know about the Bible, and how willing they are to “improve” it with their own words that they wish were there.

Sheephumper, you LIED. That’s a sin. You LIED about what Jesus said. That’s a DAMNABLE LIE. That makes you a GOD-DAMNED LIAR.

The Jumbuck said:

Jesus was the true author of the whole Bible. He dictated it to the human authors via the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit!

You really are stupid!

What Just Bob just said. Hey, I made a funny!

The Jumbuck said:

The last comment was a reply to Robert Byers. The quoting system didn’t work.

You’re lying. There is no “Robert Byers”. Who are you trying to fool?

John said:

I love your fiery retort…

Heavens, John, where I come from that’s in the nature of general conversation, with humorous overtones.

Dave Luckett said:

John said:

I love your fiery retort…

Heavens, John, where I come from that’s in the nature of general conversation, with humorous overtones.

I was trying to be funny too, Dave, considering that I had studied with one of the world’s great humorists eons ago.

The Jumbuck said: Jesus was the true author of the whole Bible. He dictated it to the human authors via the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit!

Even the parts written before he was born? Neat trick, that.

What about your courts? What about your uber-hateful, over-the-top evolutionist movement? While its true that Christians tend to be more overt in your country than in most places, the same is true of American evolutionists. While Jesus tends to be praised more in your country, it is more than negated by all the folks who spit on him.

I told you, we don’t care if you discuss creationism in a bible study class, just don’t call it science. And you agreed with me on that point. So in what way is demanding creationism not be falsly advertised as science ‘spitting on Jesus?’

Seems to me that by agreeing that creationism isn’t science, you have essentially agreed with our ACLU. With our courts. With the - as you call it - evolutionist movement.

The ACLU has weighed in. Kohls replied to ACLU’s warning by claiming that they don’t intend to require creationism:

“Federal law simply says that it is illegal to require the teaching of creationism,” Kohls said last week. “We’re not talking about that; we’re talking about adding it as a supplement to curriculum.”

eric said:

The Jumbuck said: Jesus was the true author of the whole Bible. He dictated it to the human authors via the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit!

Even the parts written before he was born? Neat trick, that.

It’s magic, after all.

What about your courts? What about your uber-hateful, over-the-top evolutionist movement? While its true that Christians tend to be more overt in your country than in most places, the same is true of American evolutionists. While Jesus tends to be praised more in your country, it is more than negated by all the folks who spit on him.

I told you, we don’t care if you discuss creationism in a bible study class, just don’t call it science. And you agreed with me on that point. So in what way is demanding creationism not be falsly advertised as science ‘spitting on Jesus?’

Do remember that Jumbuck thinks that education is religious in nature, therefore, to Jumbuck, learning literally anything other than the Bible, is apostasy, a mortal sin. Thus, teaching anything other than the Bible is tantamount to “spitting on Jesus.”

Seems to me that by agreeing that creationism isn’t science, you have essentially agreed with our ACLU. With our courts. With the - as you call it - evolutionist movement.

Jumbuck claimed that the ACLU is really an evil Zionist conspiracy to push and maintain “Anti-Christianism” (sic) in “Eagleland,” (sic) nevermind the vast majority of Americans are Christian.

Kohls’ response:

“Federal law simply says that it is illegal to require the teaching of creationism,” Kohls said last week. “We’re not talking about that; we’re talking about adding it as a supplement to curriculum.”

Since when did American Creationists, especially those of the Tea Party, ever let such paltry trifles like the ACLU, federal law, or the Constitution stop them?

Richard B. Hoppe said: Kohls replied to ACLU’s warning by claiming that they don’t intend to require creationism:

“Federal law simply says that it is illegal to require the teaching of creationism,” Kohls said last week…

Yeah, I saw that somewhere else. For Springboro’s sake, let’s home their legal staff are able to explain to Kohls how she’s mischaracterizing current law.

For Byers and Jumbuck: what Kohls is getting wrong is that it’s not just “requiring it” that is illegal, teaching it as science is also illegal. And no, Robert, this is not censorship because you are perfectly welcome to discuss biblical ideas in bible classes. The government does not prevent fundamentalists from studying it, they prevent fundamentalists from falsly advertising creationism as something it isn’t.

Richard B. Hoppe said: The ACLU has weighed in.

I suspect the NCSE will have their inputs as well, if they haven’t already.

I was amused: “Ohio’s Board of Education has said state standards do not prohibit schools from teaching creationism and allow individual districts to make that decision.”

Translated as I hear it: “If local school boards want to douse themselves with lighter fluid and then strike a match, we’re not going to stop them.”

Read more: http://www.wlwt.com/news/28766224/d[…]xzz1UBeFL41B

Robert Byers said:

“I’m always saying banning religious conclusions on subjects proclaiming conclusions in schools etc is therefore the state declaring religious conclusions to be false.”

Yes, ad nauseum, I might add … Your logic seems to go: “the government bans teaching false conclusions; they ban teaching religious conclusions; therefore they believe religious conclusions are false.” That’s like saying “parents ban children from touching hot things; they ban children from touching knives; therefore they believe knives are hot”. It’s called “affirming the consequent”. To correct the logical error, you would need to change the first premise to “the only reason the government bans teaching something is because they believe it’s false”. That fixes the logic, but now the premise is false.

The reason for banning Genesis (and the Vedas and the Aggañña Sutta and the creation stories of other religions) from science classes has been clearly stated by the courts: it violates the First Amendment because the primary purpose in teaching it is to advance a particular religious belief and teaching it serves no valid secular purpose - a fancy way of saying it’s only being taught in order to use the schools for proselytizing your religious beliefs to other peoples’ children; not to educate them for any secular purpose. In most of the court cases that have dealt with the issue, the judges have been careful to note that they do not pass judgment on the validity of the belief. For example, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which invalidated the teaching of Intelligent Design, the judge said “we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position [emphasis mine], ID is not science.”

John_S said:

Robert Byers said:

“I’m always saying banning religious conclusions on subjects proclaiming conclusions in schools etc is therefore the state declaring religious conclusions to be false.”

Yes, ad nauseum, I might add … Your logic seems to go: “the government bans teaching false conclusions; they ban teaching religious conclusions; therefore they believe religious conclusions are false.” That’s like saying “parents ban children from touching hot things; they ban children from touching knives; therefore they believe knives are hot”. It’s called “affirming the consequent”. To correct the logical error, you would need to change the first premise to “the only reason the government bans teaching something is because they believe it’s false”. That fixes the logic, but now the premise is false.

The reason for banning Genesis (and the Vedas and the Aggañña Sutta and the creation stories of other religions) from science classes has been clearly stated by the courts: it violates the First Amendment because the primary purpose in teaching it is to advance a particular religious belief and teaching it serves no valid secular purpose - a fancy way of saying it’s only being taught in order to use the schools for proselytizing your religious beliefs to other peoples’ children; not to educate them for any secular purpose. In most of the court cases that have dealt with the issue, the judges have been careful to note that they do not pass judgment on the validity of the belief. For example, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which invalidated the teaching of Intelligent Design, the judge said “we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position [emphasis mine], ID is not science.”

As Judge Jones has stated on several occasions, both sides asked him to rule on whether, based on the evidence presented, ID was a scientific proposition. This is something that the IDiots always neglect to inform their readers when they castigate the judge for having the temerity to pronounce ID not science. They asked for it and they got it, just not what they asked for.

The Jumbuck said:

Gee, what about the foreign policy wing of your government?

You mean the one that sends soldiers into foreign countries armed with Bibles to hand out to everyone there whether they want them or not? What about it?

What about your courts?

You mean the ones that often decide who is worthy of parenting, being given their freedom, or credibility on the stand based on whether they are sufficiently religious? The ones who allow religious groups to get away with evading justice while their members molest children? What about them?

What about your uber-hateful, over-the-top evolutionist movement?

That exists only in your fevered imagination.

While its true that Christians tend to be more overt in your country than in most places, the same is true of American evolutionists.

When was the last time you heard an athlete thank evolution for aiding his victory, or a politician swear fealty to Darwin? Again you confuse imagination for reality.

While Jesus tends to be praised more in your country, it is more than negated by all the folks who spit on him.

Au Contrare, many of us find him somewhat admirable, similar to the way we feel about King Arthur and Captain Kirk. It’s the people who constantly push ignorant, destructive agendas in his name that we’d like to spit on.

The decisions of your courts against the rights of Christians have been cited as precedents by Christ-haters all over the world including Down Under.

The only “right” Christians have been denied is the “right” to force others to behave as though they believed as you do, which isn’t a right at all.

SLC said: As Judge Jones has stated on several occasions, both sides asked him to rule on whether, based on the evidence presented, ID was a scientific proposition. This is something that the IDiots always neglect to inform their readers when they castigate the judge for having the temerity to pronounce ID not science. They asked for it and they got it, just not what they asked for.

The whole point to the ID scam was to get around the court rulings by claiming that intelligent design was science and could be taught in the public schools. The ID scam was supposed to be different from the creation science boondoggle that had turned out to be no science worth teaching at all, but they have reverted to the creation scientist’s obfuscation ploy where they have taken nearly all their negative arguments against evolution from the scientific creationists for their switch scam. The switch scam is the only scam that IDiot rubes ever get to teach from the ID perps when they want to teach the ID science. They just get a bunch of nay saying that can’t even mention that ID ever existed or that ID is part of any controversy that they want to teach. The IDiots asked Jones to rule on whether ID was science or not because if ID is science then no matter what religion it might support you can’t keep it from being taught in the science class. We don’t have globes in the classroom to denegrate the beliefs of the flat earth creationists, and all the solar system mobiles hanging from classroom ceilings isn’t to support the heliocentric creationists against the geocentric creationists. You have to teach the science in science class.

It turned out that the ID perps knew that they never had the science to teach. Philip Johnson finally admitted that fact after the IDiot loss in Dover. Johnson is credited with getting the ID scam rolling in the 1990s, but he took no credit for that when he came clean. He only pointed the finger at the ID perp science team (Meyer, Behe, Dembski, Minnich et al) for never coming up with the ID science that would have made the ID scam legit. All IDiots should take this Johnson quote to heart every time they have the bait and switch run on them by the scam artists that sold them the science of intelligent design. If the ID perps that sold the ID scam really had the ID science, why only give the rubes a scam that doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed when some IDiot like Michele Bachmann pops up and claims to want to teach the science of intelligent design? In all the years that the ID perps have been selling the ID scam, has anyone ever seen a public school lesson plan for teaching intelligent design from the Discovery Institute ID perps?

If they really have the ID science, why haven’t they ever demonstrated that by writing a simple lesson plan on what ID science they would teach? Johnson knew why.

I also don t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

Johnson made this admission in 2006 after the IDiot loss in Dover and as far as I know hasn’t supported teaching intelligent design in the public schools since. The old links to the article that this quote comes from is broken, but you can still access the article. http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/r[…]spring-2006/ Page 33.

“Federal law simply says that it is illegal to require the teaching of creationism,” Kohls said last week. “We’re not talking about that; we’re talking about adding it as a supplement to curriculum.”

Is that not what they tried to do at Dover ?

Ian Derthal said: Is that not what they tried to do at Dover ?

Oh, some trick or other in futile hopes of sneaking in under the radar.

I think this thread has run its course, folks. Thanks for participating.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on August 1, 2011 6:15 PM.

Evolution cheats, or how to get an old enzyme to do new tricks was the previous entry in this blog.

Happy birthday to the first evolutionary biologist 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 4.37

Site Meter