Remember, plate tectonics is no barrier to shallow seas and tropical climates.

Anyway, as I said before, perhaps this is better discussed at the BAUT forum.

Is that so? I suspect that actually hydroplate theory is ignored because as science it explains things less satisfactorily than plate tectonics (no “h”).

“I have found it neatly fits into the evolutionary theory. Actually, it works better than the plate techtonics theory when applied to fit the evolutionary model. Isn’t that odd?”

Yes, it’s odd. Would you care to provide us a link? Perhaps this is something better discussed at the BAUT Forum rather than here.

Yes, I’d be curious what is the creationist or ID take on the scientific plausibility of the Noah story, complete with an estimate of how many species of animals he would have been responsible for saving.

There have been several creationist attempts to estimate the size of the ark and the number of animals, etc. They make interesting reading, but sidestep many of the tougher questions, such as how a single family managed to feed and care for so many animals, how Noah could have stored enough food for those animals, and how he kept the carnivores from eating prey animals on board.

The question isn’t that did a flood happen but was Noah really able to load all those animals in that ship. The answer is no, but there have been great extinctions with no Noah and no boat.

Creationists, ID ers and the like forget that the world is a great deal larger than what the ancient hebrew scribes knew at the time they wrote the Old Testament.

Not sure what this posting is regarding, but Section 8, Clause 8 is meant to be the establishment of Patent laws and Copyrights.

Ed Said:
>Why is everyone so hung up on the flat earth theory? Just show any photo taken of the Earth from the moon and flat Earth goes down in flames.

And why should we believe those atheist scientists and their “pictures from the moon�? Satellites? Pah! It’s all part of the anti-Christian lies being spread to build the foundation for Satan’s Evilution. Pictures from space prove nothing!!

One has a certain dilemma to overcome. The Bible proclaims the Earth to be flat and describes it as effectively as the center of the Solar System (and thus universe – the two were not separate at the time). One approach is to hold to the inerrancy and literalness of the Bible. If so, then the Earth must be flat and the center of the universe, so heliocentrism and spherical Earth are lies. That’s a pretty stubborn and blatantly idiotic point of view to hold. Thus the alternative is to accept that the linguistic phrasings of the time are not meant to be an accurate scientific description of the world, any more than we would use the phrase “4 corners of the Earth� or “sunrise� and “sunset� today.

But if you are willing to accept that the descriptions of the Earth for the geocentric and flat portions are metaphoric and not literal, then why are you unwilling to accept that other portions of the Bible are also metaphoric and non-literal? Genesis is a poetical description of the origins of the Earth and humanity, and should not be expected to be a literal description. It’s just as metaphoric as describing standing on a tall mountain (or high place) and seeing the whole world at once. If you can accept that, you should realize that nothing in Genesis refutes Evolution, and Evolution is not really in conflict with Genesis (because Genesis isn’t a scientific description).

The same arguments you use to defend Creationism are used by the Geocentric crowd, in just the same way. You fully admit that the Geocentric folks are wrong. How can you not see it with Creationism?

Ed Said:
>True freedom as enumerated in our Constitution does not have to pass through my filter nor yours in order to be true freedom. True freedom is exactly that, true freedom. Either it exists, or it does not. If it exists it has to be cherished and protected. Whether I like it or not, that would have to include, the theory of evolution, flat earth and a number of other deeply held beliefs.
>Let me state that one more time, true freedom does not have to pass through any body else’s filter, or else it is not true freedom. This is something we all could learn, including the Supremes.

So you’re saying I should have the true freedom to smack you in the head with a big stick? No? What about falsely setting off a fire alarm in a high-rise office building? Shouting “Bomb!� in a crowded airport? That’s True Freedom, and it shouldn’t have to be filtered through anybody’s filter.

The truth is we have laws, which are enacted to codify behavior for the betterment of everybody. They are filters we all agree upon. The Constitution is itself just a big filter, telling what the government can (and in some cases cannot) do.

Free Expression (as guaranteed in the First Amendment) is not a blank check to say anything you want at any time you want. It is a limitation on the government to protect against restriction of governmental criticism and freedom of conscience. Teaching Evolution in school is not a violation of the Establishment Clause or the Free Expression clause, because Evolution is not religion – and it is not a declaration of atheism – any more than the Bohr atomic model, Newton’s laws of motion, or Relativity. ID *is* a violation if taught as advocated because it is founded on the belief in and advocacy of a supreme intelligence – god by any other name. Public schools are state agents, acting on behalf of the government in some respects. Government advocacy of any religion is a clear violation of the words and intent of the First Amendment.

Science class is the place for discussion of the findings, methods, and practices of science. It is not the place for advocating religion (either generally or specifics) or non-religion.

This is no reason to get it backwards of course, but that’s how it happened. Since it was a rather fragile balance at best, it’s certainly still a cause for concern, but can you imagine if it would have been, say, Miers/Roberts instead of Brennan/Powell? There’d be no reason to even debate if we’re screwed, it’d be a slam dunk.

Nice. The point you make about “which god” was particularly good. (I wasn’t meaning the one from the Bible… my own beliefs are not able to be held in any one of those books.)

I have a lot of things to say on that issue, some of which I touched on… but they’re actually off the topic of this new justice nominee so I’ll re-direct.

It’s really hard to say what this lady’s gonna do if she gets into the Supreme Court. That worries me. With no track record in the courtroom, how can anyone guess what she’ll do?

There are people who do not see Holocaust denial as a fraud, and nor is it any more falsifiable than creationism. I am only using your rules for Holocaust denial and applying it to creationism in the exact same way. They are equally wrong, that is a fact whether you want to admit it or not.

And the fact that it is not falsifiable is one of the main problems. If you cannot prove something wrong, it is not science.

“Why is everyone so hung up on the flat earth theory? Just show any photo taken of the Earth from the moon and flat Earth goes down in flames.”

Just show someone a fossil, or DNA, or a bat and human skeleton side-by-side, or a picture from a telescope, or the grand canyon and creationism goes down in flames. That doesn’t prevent people from believing in it. The “scientific” arguments used in support of creationism are no better than those used in support of flat Earth. And once again flat Earth is no more falsifiable than creationism, you cannot disprove anything involving an omnipotent diety.

“True freedom as enumerated in our Constitution does not have to pass through my filter nor yours in order to be true freedom. True freedom is exactly that, true freedom. Either it exists, or it does not. If it exists it has to be cherished and protected. Whether I like it or not, that would have to include, the theory of evolution, flat earth and a number of other deeply held beliefs.
Let me state that one more time, true freedom does not have to pass through any body else’s filter, or else it is not true freedom. This is something we all could learn, including the Supremes. ”

In the US we don’t HAVE “true freedom”. “True freedom” is allowing people to do whatever they want. It is the abuse of the weak by the strong. It is the abuse of the minority by the majority. We don’t live in a society of “true freedom”. True freedom is anarchy, violence, and chaos. We live in a constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, there are limits on what people can do. In a constitutional republic, we give up some of our rights so that nobody can take our other rights away. One of those limits is that the government cannot support religion in any way, as stated by Thomas Jefferson. This is to protect people of minority religions from oppression by the majority religion. Creationism is a religious belief. As such, the government can not push that belief on people. It is part of the limits we put on the government immediately after it was formed. This is not some left-wing athiest conspiracy, this a fundamental part of our government created explicitly by the founding fathers for the protection of the people. This is not a filter of truth. This is a filter of law. The law is clear, it was set up for a very specific purpose, and teaching creationism is a clear violation of the law and a clear violation of the rights that the constitution provides us. It is clear abuse of power by those who control the government. It is illegal to teach creationism, regardless of whether it is true or not. Doing such would be “establishing” a state religion.

Let me ask you a simple question: If teaching a certain religious belief as fact to all children in state-run schools is not the establishment of a state religion, what is? I personally cannot think of a clearer example of the establishment of a state religion than teaching all children that religion is correct.

And I find it a bit hypocritical that you think it is okay to pass holocaust denial, a belif you disagree with, through your own “filter of truth”, when you refuse to allow creationism, a belief you agree with, to pass through the same filter using the exact same rules you yourself applied.

For one thing, I’m Australian, so discussion of the US Constitution is a bit alien to me.

But in Australia, the curriculum is set by the Departments of Education in the various states and territories (and as we have only 6 states and 2 territories, that’s somewhat easier than in the USA). In all cases, the science curriculum is based on current scientific knowledge, within the limits required to produce new text books based on recent discoveries.

But science goes a little beyond simply explaining scientific knowledge. The process of *doing science* is also taught. Therefore, after doing an experiment, we were taught how to write up the experiment and its results, and to explain what we’d found.

We were occasionally taught a bit of the history of science. The bits which come to mind were the development of theories about the structure of atoms, and how the theory of phlogiston was discarded in favour of oxygen.

At no point was any religious story introduced into the science class room, except perhaps in the context of early explanations for some phenomenon or other.

Ed replied: “Why not? Why are you singling that one out to exclude? Would it be permissible to teach the others? Hmmmm. I see no constitutional way to exclude them. I may not like it either, but I see no grounds to ban them.�

G’day Ed. I’m not singling out the Judeo-Christian story of creation. I’m saying that it, along with all other creation myths, has no place in the science classroom, due to their lack of science content.

I also said: “I have no problem with the Genesis story being discussed in religious education classes, but not in science classes. It has no science behind it. It belongs in science classes as much as Holocaust Denial belongs in the history class.�

And Ed replied: “It belongs in a science class when the subject of origins is being explained. To exclude it would be a violation of the first amendment. The free exercise thereof part. It would be making a law prohibiting the free expression of its concepts and ideas. It would be a violation of the freedom of speech as well.�

But how broadly should that part of the constitution be interpreted? If you think that the Judeo-Christian creation story should be raised when discussing origins, you can’t exclude ALL other creation stories. You also can’t exclude ALL explanations for ALL other phenomena. For example, should kids be taught maths using Roman numerals? Greek numerals? Maya numerals? The result of this would be classes where you didn’t actually get time to learn much except for different ways of explaining phenomena.

“The science class is not just your private domain. It belongs to all of us. I do think that Holocaust denial does belong in the history class, where it can be completely discredited and shown for the fraud that it is. I have been to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, and my wife lost a Great Uncle in the Holocaust. Oh yes. Sadly it did happen. And we should never let it be forgotten.�

I’m sorry for what happened to your wife’s great uncle, and I agree that Holocaust Denial should be exposed for the fraud it is.

But if you apply the same rules of evidence used to determine the falsity of Holocaust Denial, you will also see that the Judeo-Christian story of creation has no reality behind it. It’s a wonderful story, and an integral part of our Western heritage, but nothing more.

I like black cats, one lives with me. You really don’t own them after all.
*********************************************************
Alright, then every school child will get one class a year where the science teacher explains creationism and intelligent design, then explains exactly why creationism and intelligent design are completely, totally, and utterly wrong. Then creationism “can be completely discredited and shown for the fraud that it is.
********************************
Obviously I disagree with you on this. I do not see it as fraud, nor falsifiable.
*********************************************
Same thing you suggest they do with the Holocaust deniers. Is that acceptable to you?
*********************************************
Clearly not.
**********************************
Creationism and ID are just as wrong as Holocaust denial. Teachers already do that with flat Earth theory and the geocentric model of the universe. ID and creationism are just as wrong as those ideas, too.
***********************************
Why is everyone so hung up on the flat earth theory? Just show any photo taken of the Earth from the moon and flat Earth goes down in flames.
***********************************
Incidentally, there are religious fundamentelists who are pushing for the acceptance that the world is flat and the center of the universe. They think they children should be taught what they believe too. Wouldn’t preventing people from learning about how the world is really flat also “be a violation of the first amendment. The free exercise thereof part. It would be making a law prohibiting the free expression of its concepts and ideas. It would be a violation of the freedom of speech as well.� You say “The science class is not just your private domain. It belongs to all of us.� Shouldn’t it belong to flat-Earther’s, too?
**************************************
True freedom as enumerated in our Constitution does not have to pass through my filter nor yours in order to be true freedom. True freedom is exactly that, true freedom. Either it exists, or it does not. If it exists it has to be cherished and protected. Whether I like it or not, that would have to include, the theory of evolution, flat earth and a number of other deeply held beliefs.
Let me state that one more time, true freedom does not have to pass through any body else’s filter, or else it is not true freedom. This is something we all could learn, including the Supremes.

ID is the Gremlins in the engine – it explains nothing and has no evidence to support it, it’s contrary to facts we do know (fuel gauge, gas fumes), but some people prefer Gremlins.

That points up an important part of the whole debate that tends to be overlooked–there’s an important practical side to science. The findings of science are used to build things–earthquake-resistant buildings, more efficient automobiles, spacecraft, etc. Evolution as a science builds on other sciences (geology, astronomy, et al.). ID and creationism try to pull certain disciplines outside the realm of science, to artificially divorce them from other studies of naturalistic phenomenon.

An excellent (if somewhat strongly worded) essay about the practical side of the evolution vs. creationism debate is at http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/science.html.

Agreed.

>I do happen to agree that Science is not Anti-God… but the really “faithful� don’t see it that way. Unfortunately, Science has, perhaps, gotten a bit entrenched in its position (maybe rightly so) that not enough of them want to talk about God’s role in the development of the universe.

Which God’s role in the development of the universe? Zeus? Odin? Quetazlcoatl? Krishna and Vishnu? There are gods too numerous to mention, and each religion has it’s own creation story, where their god/gods played the key role in the origin of the world/universe. Well, these are mutually exclusive, they can’t all be right. However, they *can* all be *wrong*. Yours too.

The point is that any role gods played is either buried in the structure and rules that we are already studying, in which we will be finding out how anyway, or else it is not included in the results, so it can’t be studied. Saying “Jehovah did it” does nothing to explain the process, so it is irrelevant to science class – it has no place there.

>I read a terrific article in the college that I teach at’s local newspaper. They were saying that Science is talking simply about the “how� and religion and ID is talking about the “why�. The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

The “non-overlapping magesteria” premise is debatable, but ID is not. Again, people have a misconception about ID. ID is not just religious belief. It is not just the premise that God (I mean an unnamed intelligent creator) is working behind the scenes. ID is the specific premise that the processes discovered and described by science so far are not sufficient to explain the results determined by science – from evolution to astronomy. ID proceeds to attempt to identify the so-called tell-tale marks of intelligent intervention. This is where ID crosses the bounds from mere religious belief to statements about how the world works. It is these statements that are being evaluated by scientists as *possible* science, and being found lacking of merit.

Mechanisms proposed by ID so far include Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity. Note that both terms use the word “complexity”, but they do so in completely different meanings. Both have been shown to be flawed – flawed assumptions, flawed interpretation, flawed premises.

ID also fails to offer positive evidence on its own behalf. It relies on a logical fallacy – it couldn’t be your explanation, therefore is has to be mine. They pick some small point not fully explained by evolution (details not yet worked out, things not studied yet) and on that basis declare the whole of Evolution wrong and throw it out, to be replaced in whole by a different “explanation” that has no evidence, an “explanation” which explains nothing.

Here’s an analogy of ID: “My car sputtered and died, the fuel gauge reads E. I must be out of gas.” “No, I opened the tank and I smelled gas, so you can’t be out of gas. It must be Gremlins in the engine.”

1. Why does smelling gas prove gas is still there, and not just vapors, or dregs of fuel that can’t get pumped out?
2. Why ignore the fuel gauge reading?
3. What are Gremlins, how did they get in the engine, how did they shut off the engine, why did they shut off the engine, and what can be done to get the engine running again?

ID is the Gremlins in the engine – it explains nothing and has no evidence to support it, it’s contrary to facts we do know (fuel gauge, gas fumes), but some people prefer Gremlins.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is the full text of the First amendment of the United States Constitution.
I do not see any words here like; Separation of Church and State, intellectual freedom, progress, or any other number of terms from left wing secular humanistic philosophy.�

True, those words aren’t in the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court has interpreted it that way on more than one occasion. From EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) the Court wrote:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State’.”

This quote in this ruling specifically relates back to Reynolds v United States 98 U.S. 145 (1878) where the Court stated “Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions.

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a “Memorial and Remonstrance,” which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated “that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,” was not within the cognizance of civil government. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, “for establishing religious freedom,” drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. In the preamble of this act religious freedom is defined; and after a recital “that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,” it is declared “that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.” In these two sentences is found the true distinetion between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State…..

At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account to noneother for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, — I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.”

Any questions?