Replies

Your handle is on post 59 - did you have someone else typing for you when you said "My point, which I trust I made, is that there are legitimate criticisms of evolution, and that it should be examined critically... which is exactly what these stickers call for"?

Ah, I see the problem here. You think the pronoun "it" refers to the antecedent "criticisms"... which makes little sense, as the former is singular and the latter is plural. "It" refers to evolution, which should be examined critically, which is what the stickers call for.

There's debate about lots of things, and yet it's only this one thing that seems to be singled out for special treatment.

Gosh darn it, so many people have said this that I figured my copy of the Constitution must be flawed. So I went out and bought a brand spanking new one, and wouldn't you know it but the new one also lacks the "no special treatment of scientific theories" clause. Go figure! Could you tell me which article it's in? Maybe I'm just not seeing it.

Figuring out how the previous statement might apply to the Cobb County school board is left as an exercise for the reader.

Maybe I'm slow, but I just can't seem to complete the exercise. How "examine this material critically with an open mind" conflicts with any provision of the Constitution is beyond me. Please, enlighten me.

Not that I've seen - perhaps you'll be so good as to direct me to them.

The existence of universal traits that provide only a marginal reproductive advantage. The existence of systems for which at least a prima facie case can be made are irreducibly complex.

Now, people have answered some of these examples, and were this debate about the merits of evolution we could go a few rounds over them. But this thread is about whether cautioning students to keep an open and critical mind is unconstitutional.

A secondary effect of this thread, of course, has been to highlight a point I've made a couple of times: to many, evolution is a religion, to be defended at all costs, whose critics are to be ridiculed and scorned as heretics. I mean, look at yourselves. You're arguing -- with a straight face! -- that telling children to keep an open mind is unconstitutional! Do you even realize what you're advocating?

The First Amendment covers silly falsehoods as well as truthful statements.

It's funny... usually the First Amendment is invoked to encourage freedom of expression. Here you are using it to demand that telling kids to be critical is verboten.

I'd sure hate to see you in a jam like that, so perhaps you should consider whether your heretofore-unspecified difficulties are really what you think they are.

Your concern is appreciated, but you needn't worry. It's easy for me to verify the consistency of my own position by imagining such stickers on, say, a physics textbook. I wholeheartedly believe that the theory of relativity is true. If a school board were stickering physics textbooks, describing relativity as a theory and cautioning students to keep an open mind, I might think it was stupid... but I would never dare to desecrate the Constitution I revere so highly by suggesting that the stickers were unconstitutional.

This whole discussion reminds me of debates I had with liberals around the time of the Roberts nomination, when they were screaming about how Roberts upheld the detention by police of a young girl for eating french fries in a subway station. I had to explain to them -- very, very slowly -- that although the law mandating the girl's detention might have been extremely dumb, it was not unconstitutional, and it's not a judge's job to decide whether laws are dumb or not.

Ah, I see the problem here.

Based on your performance thus far, I'm sure you'll understand if I'm a bit skeptical. Nevertheless, to spell it out a simply as I think I can, in deference to you, you have asserted that there are "legitimate criticisms" of the theory of evolution, and that the theory should be "examined critically" - presumably in light of those "legitimate criticisms", else the whole thing makes no sense at all. After all, if there are no "legitimate criticisms", how exactly should one proceed critically? And what are those "legitimate criticisms"? Well, gosh darn if you just don't feel like talking about them right now. But they exist and they're real, you betcha - we'll just take your word for it.

Right. Did I leave anything out, or do you plan to cap this tapdance with something else?

There's debate about lots of things, and yet it's only this one thing that seems to be singled out for special treatment.

Gosh darn it, so many people have said this that I figured my copy of the Constitution must be flawed.

Gosh darn, it's Jubilation T. Cornpone hisself. When you're done patting yourself on the back for what I assume you consider to be witty repartee, perhaps you'll be good enough to go back and try reading my previous posts for comprehension. Did I mention the Constitution in that question? Of course not. Will referring to the Constitution provide you with an answer to the question of why this theory is being singled out above all others? Seems doubtful, as you appear to note upon your reading of it, although given your ability to read my posts I'm rather doubtful you had much better luck parsing your way through the Constitution.

So, now that that silliness is properly disposed of, perhaps you'd like to answer the question as asked. Although I'm sure nobody will blame you for continuing to duck it, as a serious answer is likely to be an even bigger disaster for you than your current lambada routine is so far.

Maybe I'm slow, but I just can't seem to complete the exercise.

At this point, I'm inclined to accept your self-characterization. Shall I proceed monosyllabically, or do you think you can keep up with the current format?

How "examine this material critically with an open mind" conflicts with any provision of the Constitution is beyond me.

The answer, of course, lies in the question that you are ducking, thus far rather inartfully. Why this theory, and no others? Take as much time as you need.

The existence of universal traits that provide only a marginal reproductive advantage.

What on earth does that mean? Surely a "marginal" reproductive advantage is better than no reproductive advantage, don't you think? How, pray tell, do you imagine such a concept indicts the theory of evolution as it is currently understood? Be sure to refer to specific examples of such traits where appropriate.

The existence of systems for which at least a prima facie case can be made are irreducibly complex.

Ignoring, of course, the problem that the whole notion of "irreducible complexity" is garbage, soup to nuts. Disagree if you must, and I'll hold your hand and walk you through why that's so.

This is it? These are the "legitimate criticisms" you have in mind? Please say it's not so - please tell me you have more arrows in that mighty rhetorical quiver of yours.

Sheesh.

Now, people have answered some of these examples, and were this debate about the merits of evolution we could go a few rounds over them.

This debate, at least in part, is about the merits of evolution, or the lack thereof, as claimed by you - not especially successfully, but there you go - and by those who would promote the stickers. I rather understand why you don't wish to discuss that subject, as it's tolerably obvious it's not one you're particularly well-prepared for.

Phew. Pretty heady stuff you've got there. Mind your fingers, that you don't cut yourself on the razor's edge. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for these wild-eyed radicals you have in mind here, although I guess I should warn you that they're really pretty thin on the ground in these parts. Practically thin enough to be a figment of your imagination, as a matter of fact.

You're arguing -- with a straight face! -- that telling children to keep an open mind is unconstitutional!

Sigh. About the best I can do on your behalf here is allow that you actually believe that. Sorry. It's the best I can do.

It's easy for me to verify the consistency of my own position by imagining such stickers on, say, a physics textbook.

Of course, that's the problem - all you can do is imagine such a thing, since there's no serious proposal to do anything of the sort. Indeed, to do that would defeat the purpose of the stickers as they currently exist, which is, naturally, to portray the theory of evolution as being somehow different from, and inferior to, other scientific theories.

This whole discussion reminds me of debates I had with liberals...

No doubt. In the interests of full disclosure, your argument here is hardly novel - it's been done to death on these threads long before you graced them with your presence. Do try to think up something original. Perhaps some more witty repartee - it's not exactly reasoned discourse, but it may allow you to distract from that with a little comedy routine.

[There's debate about lots of things, and yet it's only this one thing that seems to be singled out for special treatment.]

Gosh darn it, so many people have said this that I figured my copy of the Constitution must be flawed. So I went out and bought a brand spanking new one, and wouldn't you know it but the new one also lacks the "no special treatment of scientific theories" clause. Go figure! Could you tell me which article it's in? Maybe I'm just not seeing it.

If you had bothered to *think* for a moment about why he considered this a relevant point for you to ponder, instead of just jumping on it as a cheap excuse to be flippantly sarcastic, then you might have been in a position to better hold up your end of the discussion.

Hint: The fact that only a single topic in the science books is being singled out by the sticker-people gives important insights into their actual agenda, motivations, and goals -- which have far less to do with "encouraging critical thinking" than they do with the desire to inject their religious views into the schools.

[Figuring out how the previous statement might apply to the Cobb County school board is left as an exercise for the reader.]

Maybe I'm slow, but I just can't seem to complete the exercise.

Obviously, despite the big hints he left for you.

How "examine this material critically with an open mind" conflicts with any provision of the Constitution is beyond me. Please, enlighten me.

Look, you're obviously a newcomer to this issue, so your lack of background excuses you from being able to come up to speed immediately. It does *not*, however, excuse your supercilious attitude on a number of your posts. You might want to consider toning that down a bit, and raising your awareness that maybe, just maybe, you don't already know everything there is to know on this issue, and maybe, just maybe, the people you're being sarcastic to might have reasons for their position that don't deserve being ridiculed by you, and that you might actually manage to learn something from.

The existence of universal traits that provide only a marginal reproductive advantage.

Okay, I'll bite -- this is a "legitimate criticisms of evolution" *how*, exactly?

The existence of systems for which at least a prima facie case can be made are irreducibly complex.

Sigh... I'm sorry to have to be the one to inform you of this, but you've been reading too many creationist pamphlets and not enough science journals. This is not a "legitimate criticisms of evolution". It's an *illegitimate* one. It's a dog-and-pony show, crafted to sound impressive to the crowd with a patina of scientific-sounding buzzwords and all the trappings, but is instead fundamentally and fatally flawed.

What else ya got?

Now, people have answered some of these examples, and were this debate about the merits of evolution we could go a few rounds over them.

Oh, let's *do*... Because ultimately, the stickers are about trying to undermine students' confidence in evolutionary biology, and if evolutionary biology isn't as shaky as the label-makers contend, it hardly deserves a "special" label giving that impression. Furthermore, advocates of ensuring that evolutionary biology is "critically considered" should first have an idea of what, exactly, they intend to present as part of a curriculum "critically considering" it.

Additionally, defenders of printing up special stickers flatly declaring that evolutionary biology is "not fact" should be sure that they can actually support such a bold statement, and aren't just talking out of their collective asses.

So again, what else ya got that might actually be a "legitimate criticism" of evolutionary biology?

But this thread is about whether cautioning students to keep an open and critical mind is unconstitutional.

...and the *answer* to that question depends heavily upon the goals, agenda, and motivations of the people doing the "cautioning"... Thus the point you keep sidestepping.

Look, by itself entirely in isolation, I agree that the Georgia sticker seems a pretty trivial thing for people to get into a huff about (on *either* side), or for any court to rule as being an intrusion of religious proselytizing

But the point you're missing is that it *doesn't* exist in isolation. Not by a long shot. I don't have the time or inclination to bring you up to speed on over 80 years of legal/political/religious/scientific wrangling over this issue, but suffice to say that anyone who has followed it for long (and I've been studying it for over thirty years myself) does not long remain so naive as to think that this latest "sticker movement" is *just* about stickers or *just* about "encouraging students to think". It isn't, and most of the time not even the sticker-pushers bother to pretend that it is. Except when they know they're being put on the record for court purposes, their religious goals are plain and open.

The Wedge Document and other publications make their intentions (of getting God "back into the classroom") explicit, and taking action (and court action) in order to trigger "academic debates" introducing creationism into school settings is part of that agenda. Again, there's vastly more than I have time or space to go into here. In the recent Dover trial, wherein a similar "sticker" was being pushed (with even more explicit ties to ID/creationism -- they sort of jumped the gun there, but it shows the common theme in these recent "sticker movements"), there were several *days* of good testimony by experts laying out the clear interwoven whole of creationism/ID/"teach the controversy"/"encourage critical examination"/blah blah blah, mostly from the writings and words of the proponents of the movement itself.

These stickers *are* all very intentionally about getting the "camel's nose under the tent" -- about getting creationism's foot into the door of the classroom, and then squeezing the rest of it in piecemeal over time.

This is a frequently made charge, but it's just as goofy every time. Passion about a topic hardly makes it a "religion", as you strangely seem to think. People are equally -- if not more so -- passionate about liberty, which is "to be defended at all costs", and whose critics are "to be ridiculed and scorned" (and rightly so), but that doesn't make a love of liberty a "religion" either, nor its detractors "heretics".

There are many good reasons to defend science from misguided attacks, and many reasons to be passionate about it, but none of them magically make science or respect for science a "religion". That's just bizarre. Do you even understand what a religion actually is? You don't seem to. It's not just something that can raise passions. If that were so, NFL Football would be a religion...

Get a grip.

I mean, look at yourselves. You're arguing -- with a straight face! -- that telling children to keep an open mind is unconstitutional!

No, we're not. Your failure to understand the full scope of the issue is not a failing on *our* part. *We* ourselves will cheerfully tell people (children included) to keep and open mind, nor will we ever be so stupid as to say that doing so is unconstitutional. Nor would we ever wish it to be.

Do you even realize what you're advocating?

Yes, we do, but it's clear that you don't realize what we're actually advocating, or why.

It's funny... usually the First Amendment is invoked to encourage freedom of expression. Here you are using it to demand that telling kids to be critical is verboten.

Horse manure. We're not saying that at all, and personally I resent you believing such an insulting and stupid thing like that about us.

It's easy for me to verify the consistency of my own position by imagining such stickers on, say, a physics textbook. I wholeheartedly believe that the theory of relativity is true. If a school board were stickering physics textbooks, describing relativity as a theory and cautioning students to keep an open mind, I might think it was stupid... but I would never dare to desecrate the Constitution I revere so highly by suggesting that the stickers were unconstitutional.

Nor would we. Your analogy is a poor one for the current situation. Imagine instead that, say, Islamics in America found something in the physics textbooks insulting to their religion, and/or a perceived impediment to the wider acceptance of their religion. In an openly stated move to undermine this "infidel physics" and its (perceived) anti-Islam influence, they tried to introduce an oh-so-mildly worded sticker into physics textbooks around the country which, under the guise of "encouraging critical thought", purposely raised doubts in students' minds about the material in the physics books, and purposely served as a talking point for students (including Muslim students) who might want to "discuss the controversy" in the classrooms?

Now, would you consider *that* to be questionable under the First Amendment's establishment clause?

This whole discussion reminds me of debates I had with liberals around the time of the Roberts nomination,

...because you fail to grasp this one. The situations are not comparable. In the Roberts case, the liberals were the ones missing the point and not seeing the bigger picture. In this discussion, it's you.