[BroJoeK]

from post #371 quoting BJK: "That assumes an outdated definition of "evolution" as "forward" progress, aka "complexification".
In fact there are many examples of evolution backward ("devolution") and just sideways.
It's all evolution. . ."

Kalamata responds: "That is about the nuttiest thing I have read from someone pretending to be a science expert."

Nonsense, it's your complaint here which is "nutty".

Kalamata quoting Sutherland 1984: "If the concept is so generalized that it can explain any conceivable type of evidence, then it is of no value in science.
For example, if a theory can explain both dark and light coloration in moths, both the presence and absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, complex life forms either above or below in rock strata, etc., then it has no value in making predictions."

Nonsense, basic evolution theory makes any number of predictions which have never been falsified.
An example is the sequence of fossils found in the geological strata.

Kalamata:"Scientists have known all along that evolution was of no use to science.
But it is nice hearing it from straight from the evolution horse's mouth."

Nonsense since evolution theory is woven into every related science from biology & geology to animal breeding & medicine, even some computer algorithms.

Kalamata on "Dover": "Nonsense.
That was just another in a long line of well-orchestrated attacks by atheists at the ACLU and the NCSE against the Christian heritage of our nation."

Our nation also has a scientific heritage which voters want taught in schools, undiluted by theological interruptions.
Mandatory science in science class, voluntary theology in church.
That's what "Dover" illustrated.

Kalamata:"Says the fellow who uses innuendo to slander those who oppose his materialistic worldview."

Your reference, please?

Kalamata:"That is false by omission, Joey.
You never addressed the fact that this event would have NEVER happened if not for the collusion of the ACLU and the federal judiciary decades ago.
That said, the real culprit underlying all the anti-Christian bigotry is the "Devil's Chaplain," Charlie Darwin, who popularized the apes-to-man myth, which Charlie's disciples viciously defend to this day, despite the overwhelming evidence against it."

First, there's not even a shred of evidence "against" evolution theory, nor have you attempted to present any here.
Second, voter rebellion against the "Dover" school board's mandatory theology began with teachers & parents seeking redress in court, then ended with voters firing the theological school board.

Kalamata:"Why are you pretending ignorance again, Joey?
Haeckel's embryos had been exposed as fraudulent long before the time Miller and other modern authors included them in their Biology textbooks.
If Miller and the others didn't know about the fraud, they are far too incompetent to be writing textbooks for our children."

First, I notice you didn't answer the question of whether Haeckel's drawings were in earlier versions of Miller's textbook and then deleted from later editions.
Instead you assume an answer which is not yet in evidence.

As a young man many years ago I remember seeing something like Haeckel's drawings in biology class, but I never learned his famous hypothesis: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" until years later.
The point as I remember it, was simply that embryos in early stages resemble each other, regardless of species.
That point was valid then, is still valid.

Kalamata: "Mind-reading is your pretense, Joey.
History reveals Ken Miller to be one of the consummate enemies of our traditional Christian Heritage."

Nothing in our Christian Heritage requires us to teach theology in science classes, Danny boy.
As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in 1271:

"I don't see what one's interpretation of Aristotle [aka science] has to do with the teaching of the faith."

Kalamata: "That is what you and Miller do, Joey.
However, the thug Ken Miller takes an additional step by teaming up with the ACLU and corrupt judges, to force the American people to adopt his agenda using the power -- the sword -- of the State.
The "scientific orthodoxy" are using the same old tricks they used against Galileo to suppress those who question their interpretation of science.
That may be a wee bit over your head, Child."

But Danny boy, lies are never "over my head" and lies are what you're selling here, even though you well know the truth of this matter.
For examples, the rights of parents to seek redress in court from an out-of-control government school board is not disputed.
Neither is the judge's appointment by President Bush and the failure to appeal his ruling or to overturn it in another related case.
Neither is the citizens' solution of voting out the theological school board which tried to impose its religion on science classes.

But more important, you totally ignore the fact that "Dover" is just one of many such court rulings going back over 50 years, including:

1. 1968, Epperson v. Arkansas: "United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution.
   The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine."

2. 1981, Segraves v. State of California: Sacrimento Superior Court "found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its antidogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion.
   The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate cause", and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically.
   The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning evolution."

3. 1982, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education: "a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
   The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science".
   In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science.
   The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature.
   The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator."

4. 1987, Edwards v. Aguillard: "the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act".
   This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science".
   The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion.
   In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught."

5. 1990, Webster v. New Lenox School District, near Chicago: "the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum.
   The court upheld a district court finding that the school district had not violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited him from teaching "creation science", since it is a form of religious advocacy."

6. 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, near Los Angeles: "the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes.
   Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class."

7. 1997, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, Louisiana: "the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking".
   Noting that the policy singled out the theory of evolution for attention, that the only "concept" from which students were not to be "dissuaded" was "the Biblical concept of Creation", and that students were already encouraged to engage in critical thinking, the Court wrote that, "In mandating this disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to ... other religious views".
   Besides addressing disclaimer policies, the decision is noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science"."

8. 2000, Minnesota State District Court "Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. (Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]).
   High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for his right to teach 'evidence both for and against the theory' of evolution.
   The school district considered the content of what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which required the teaching of evolution.
   Given the large amount of case law requiring a teacher to teach the employing district's curriculum, the judge declared that LeVake did not have a free speech right to override the curriculum, nor was the district guilty of religious discrimination."

9. 2005, in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., Georgia: "U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that a evolution warning label required in Cobb County textbooks violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
   The disclaimer stickers stated, 'This textbook contains material on evolution.
   Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.
   This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.'
   After the district court's decision, the stickers were removed from Cobb’s textbooks.
   The school district, however, appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and in May 2006 the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court for clarification of the evidentiary record.
   On December 19, 2006, the lawsuit reached a settlement; the Cobb County School District agreed not to disclaim or denigrate evolution either orally or in written form."

10. 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, near York PA, "U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.
    The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design."
    Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.
    The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
    As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind".
    In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause".
    Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
    In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community".
    This was the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public school science classroom."

Near as I can tell, "Dover" is the most recent court case in a long list of similar cases all with the same outcome: ID/Creationism is religion and so cannot be taught in science classes.

I also notice these cases came from:

1. California -2
2. Louisiana - 2
3. Arkansas - 2
4. Illinois
5. Minnisota
6. Georgia
7. Pennsylvania

And, notice that two of these cases were decided by the US Supreme Court, two by state courts, four by Federal district and two by Federal appeals courts.

Kalamata:"That is very deceitful!
You completely dismissed the treachery of the ACLU, the NCSE, and the federal judiciary."

No, I completely dismiss your fantasies that something unusual or illegal happened at "Dover".

Kalamata:"I knew you would instantly revert to slander by innuendo.
Your hero -- the atheist, anti-God bigot, Michael Shermer -- taught you well, Child."

Danny boy, I'm currently reading three books:

1. "Of Pandas and People", the 1989 book at issue in "Dover".
2. "Spying on Whales", 2018, tons of fun about whale evolution, by Nick Pyenson.
3. "Why Evolution Matters", Shermer's 2006 book defending evolution.

And I knew that you would instantly deny the obvious truth -- that deniers are deniers regardless of the subject of their denials.
Both evolution and Holocaust deniers can, literally, spend all day in a museum and never see a shred of evidence.
They use identical Jedi mind tricks -- "these are not the evidence/droids we're looking for, nothing to see here, move along, move along."

Today, outside the domain of radical Islam, the old Holocaust deniers have mostly died off.
Evolution deniers are still with us, but even they seem to have done not-so-much since "Dover" in 2005.

Kalamata: "It has been falsified, about a gazillion times.
The anti-Christian evolution cult keeps moving the goal posts, that is, every time the theory is falsified, the cult followers slap a new fancy name on it and call the falsified part . . . (drum roll) . . . EVOLUTION!
Joey has done it himself in this very thread be claiming devolution is evolution.
That was pretty slick, Child. "

Danny boy, you just have to stop lying about this, it's bad for you.
The fact is that evidence which increases our understandings of evolutionary processes do not "falsify" the theory.
So your claim here that devolution somehow falsifies evolution is pure nonsense.
That's because by definition evolution is simply change, regardless of which "direction".

The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant, it's still evolution.

Kalamata:"Check out this funny video explaining the unfalsifiability of evolutonism, and how evolutionists use deception to cover it up:"

Just more nonsense.
By definitions, scientific explanations are natural processes while ID-Creationism is supernatural.
We learn natural explanations in science class, we learn supernatural explanations in church.
The task of reconciling the two is what makes us uniquely human.

Kalamata on defining "facts":"No. Try confirmed, repeatable, scientific observations."

Nonsense, because a one-time event which cannot be repeated can still be confirmed as observed fact.

Kalamata: "I see you are playing the misdirection game, again, Joey."

More nonsense, it was a perfectly valid point which you respond to by -- slavish obedience to Denier Rules, in this case #5, #7 & #12.

Kalamata:"False.
1) None of those are examples of evolution.
Speciation and adaptation are either genetically neutral, or result in the loss of genetic information, which is devolution, not evolution."

Danny boy, you just got to stop lying.
By definition, evolution is change, regardless of the "direction", "gain" or "loss" of "information".
You don't get to redefine it just because you don't like it.

Kalamata:"2) There is no confirmed evidence that descent with modification has ever occurred; not in the fossil record, not in real life, nor genetically."

The DNA evidence is observed & confirmed in every individual who has a DNA test.
Tests consistently show "descent with modifications", mutations, in every generation.
The fact that most such mutations prove harmless demonstrates that your claims about "no junk DNA" are highly suspect.

The fossil records show innumerable transition species, especially among human ancestors.

Kalamata:"3) The phrase "natural selection" is a much over-hyped, but relatively meaningless term that is used as recognition that organisms with certain characteristics survive better than those that lack those characteristics.
It doesn't possess the intelligence to "select" anything."

But Danny boy, there's no reason for you to lie about that, because you just admitted its true.
You just don't like the terms "natural selection" & "descent with modifications" so you lie & claim it doesn't happen before admitting it does?

Kalamata on "Pandas & People": "I am not surprised that you would attempt to slander those great scientists, Joey.
What else can we expect from someone who promotes the myth that man is a descendent of an ape, or a frog.
According to Joey's cult, if a frog turns into a prince, that is a fairy tale; but if a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, that is science. LOL!"

I suspect the writers of "Pandas & People" are pure scoundrels, but have not yet finished reading their book.
Will let you know if I can find a word of truth in it when I'm done reading.

Kalamata: "I am not kidding when I insinuate that evolutionists believe frogs are of the human ancestors.
This is Neil Shubin in Scientific American:"

Frogs are not human ancestors but there is enough similarity in frog & human biology to suggest common ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago.

[Kalamata]

>>Joey: "from post #371 quoting BJK: "That assumes an outdated definition of "evolution" as "forward" progress, aka "complexification". In fact there are many examples of evolution backward ("devolution") and just sideways. It's all evolution. . ."
>>Kalamata responds: "That is about the nuttiest thing I have read from someone pretending to be a science expert."
>>Joey: "Nonsense, it's your complaint here which is "nutty". >>Kalamata quoting Sutherland 1984: "If the concept is so generalized that it can explain any conceivable type of evidence, then it is of no value in science. For example, if a theory can explain both dark and light coloration in moths, both the presence and absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, complex life forms either above or below in rock strata, etc., then it has no value in making predictions."
>>Joey:Nonsense, basic evolution theory makes any number of predictions which have never been falsified. An example is the sequence of fossils found in the geological strata."

What Popper said (in Ernst Mayr's quote) was that if a theory can explain everything, it is not science. Regarding the fossil record, it supports special creation. Much extrapolation (or, rather, imagination) is required to make it fit the evolution model.

*************

>>Kalamata:"Scientists have known all along that evolution was of no use to science. But it is nice hearing it from straight from the evolution horse's mouth."
>>Joey: "Nonsense since evolution theory is woven into every related science from biology & geology to animal breeding & medicine, even some computer algorithms."

You have bought into the BIG LIE, Joey. First, animal breeding is an intelligently-designed process whereby new species within a family, such as dogs, are formed by selective breeding which breaks or eliminates existing genes. The loss of genetic information in those new species make them genetically "brittle," according to Michael Behe:

"In the Origin of Species Darwin argued that artificial selection—such as has produced various dog breeds—was an analogy for natural selection. He was more right than he knew: they both work predominantly by degrading genes. (As an aside, it seems reasonable to think that such a process may have a large, if indirect, role in extinction as well. The more genes that are degraded for short-term evolutionary adaptation, the fewer available for future adaptation, and the more brittle a species becomes. A further point is that the unexpected pattern of disparity preceding diversity seen in the fossil record—that is, new, higher categories of classification such as phylum and class preceding new, lower levels of classification such as order and family—comports much better with a mechanism of evolution by degradation of preexisting information than with a Darwinian mechanism, which predicts a pattern of diversity preceding disparity.)" [Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Devolves." HarperOne, 2019, Chap.7]

Your bold claim that the presence of evolution is found everywhere in science, is merely a cliche. The only time evolution is of any consequence is for those studying evolution (on the taxpayer dime.) It is useless in scientific and medical research, and in applied science (aka, engineering.)

*************

>>Kalamata on "Dover": "Nonsense. That was just another in a long line of well-orchestrated attacks by atheists at the ACLU and the NCSE against the Christian heritage of our nation."
>>Joey: "Our nation also has a scientific heritage which voters want taught in schools, undiluted by theological interruptions. Mandatory science in science class, voluntary theology in church. That's what "Dover" illustrated."

You are confusing science with the pseudo-science of evolutionism, Joey. The truth is, the religion of Christianity is excluded from our children's education, while evolutionism and other anti-Christian religions, such as Islam, are allowed.

*************

>>Kalamata:"Says the fellow who uses innuendo to slander those who oppose his materialistic worldview."
>>Joey: "Your reference, please?

Are you denying that you have used the innuendo of "holocaust denier," many times, to slander me, Joey?

*************

>>Kalamata:"That is false by omission, Joey. You never addressed the fact that this event would have NEVER happened if not for the collusion of the ACLU and the federal judiciary decades ago. That said, the real culprit underlying all the anti-Christian bigotry is the "Devil's Chaplain," Charlie Darwin, who popularized the apes-to-man myth, which Charlie's disciples viciously defend to this day, despite the overwhelming evidence against it."
>>Joey: "First, there's not even a shred of evidence "against" evolution theory, nor have you attempted to present any here."

Don't be silly, Joey. I have presented multiple lines of evidence completely refuting evolutionism, and you have rejected each and every one of them, typically with an accompanying ad hominem. You are not believable, Joey.

*************

>>Joey: "Second, voter rebellion against the "Dover" school board's mandatory theology began with teachers & parents seeking redress in court, then ended with voters firing the theological school board."

You are being deceptive by your omission of what actually transpired. But the mere fact that you would go to such lengths to defend the actions of a rogue judge, as well as the greatest enemy to our constitution in the history of our nation, the ACLU, leaves me no alternative but to deem the doctrine of your religion of evolutionism as superior to the Constitution and the future of our nation.

*************

>>Kalamata:"Why are you pretending ignorance again, Joey? Haeckel's embryos had been exposed as fraudulent long before the time Miller and other modern authors included them in their Biology textbooks. If Miller and the others didn't know about the fraud, they are far too incompetent to be writing textbooks for our children."
>>Joey: "First, I notice you didn't answer the question of whether Haeckel's drawings were in earlier versions of Miller's textbook and then deleted from later editions. Instead you assume an answer which is not yet in evidence.

Miller & Levine took them out of their 2000, 5th edition:

"British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy& Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours! So, what have we done? Well, we fixed it! In 1998 we rewrote page 283 of the 5th edition to better reflect the scientific evidence. Our books now contain accurate drawings of the embryos made from detailed photomicrographs (image below):" [Miller & Levine, "Haeckel and his Embryos: A Note on Textbooks." 1997]

*************

>>Joey: "As a young man many years ago I remember seeing something like Haeckel's drawings in biology class, but I never learned his famous hypothesis: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" until years later. The point as I remember it, was simply that embryos in early stages resemble each other, regardless of species. That point was valid then, is still valid."

They brainwashed you, Joey, like they did me. By the grace of God, I grew out of it. Maybe someday you will, too.

*************

>>Kalamata: "Mind-reading is your pretense, Joey. History reveals Ken Miller to be one of the consummate enemies of our traditional Christian Heritage."
>>Joey: "Nothing in our Christian Heritage requires us to teach theology in science classes, Danny boy.

The first 150 years of the United States illuminates your historical illiteracy, Joey. Practically every public school in the nation endorsed, and even taught Christianity, that is, until the communists of the ACLU came along and corrupted the original intent of the Constitution, with the assistance of a few rogue USSC judges.

*************

>>Joey: "As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in 1271: "I don't see what one's interpretation of Aristotle [aka science] has to do with the teaching of the faith."

I can't find that in the Constitution, Joey. I also cannot find anywhere in the Constitution where is says "scientists" can freely criticize God and Christians in the classrooms, but not Darwin.

*************

>>Kalamata: "That is what you and Miller do, Joey. However, the thug Ken Miller takes an additional step by teaming up with the ACLU and corrupt judges, to force the American people to adopt his agenda using the power -- the sword -- of the State. The "scientific orthodoxy" are using the same old tricks they used against Galileo to suppress those who question their interpretation of science. That may be a wee bit over your head, Child."
>>Joey: "But Danny boy, lies are never "over my head" and lies are what you're selling here, even though you well know the truth of this matter."

Calling me a liar doesn't shield you from your acceptance, as fact, the lies of the evolutionism cult.

Make note that evolution, as well as the big-bang, must be accepted and believed as a religion, since there is absolutely no supporting scientific evidence. A new article that came out a few days ago punctuated that fact:

"When challenged with falsifying data, an unbiased scientist is supposed to discard his theory. Don't count on it. Crazy people continue doing what fails. The venerable 'accretion' theory, born from Laplace's nebular model that had no need of the God hypothesis (as he famously told Napoleon), has been falsified by this planet. But astronomers are clever; they keep miracles in their back pockets.

We use simulations to demonstrate that the GJ 3512 planetary system challenges generally accepted formation theories, and that it puts constraints on the planet accretion and migration rates. Disk instabilities may be more efficient in forming planets than previously thought.

"And what is disk instability, you ask? It's basically a miracle. The one who came up with it called it heresy. Any secular heresy is better than the 'God' hypothesis, he figures. Disk instability is a myth that postulates that in a spinning disk of dust and gas, stuff may happen. A wad of stuff may suddenly become unstable, and collapse into a planet. Instant planets. Problem solved!

"Atheists call theists crazy as a premise. Theists call atheists crazy as a conclusion."

[David F. Coppedge, "Anti-Theism Makes Cosmologists Go Crazy." Creation Evolution Headlines, Sept 30, 2019]

*************

>>Joey: "For examples, the rights of parents to seek redress in court from an out-of-control government school board is not disputed."

They were not out of control, Joey. That was their job, and what they did was perfectly within their right as a school board.

*************

>>Joey: "Neither is the judge's appointment by President Bush and the failure to appeal his ruling or to overturn it in another related case."

Another red herring, Joey? Bush's appointment of a judge (GHWB's and Reagan's as well) has nothing to do with whether a judge will turn rogue, or not, as Jones did.

*************

>>Joey: "Neither is the citizens' solution of voting out the theological school board which tried to impose its religion on science classes."

Answer me this: would they have been voted out if not for the strong arm of the ACLU and the Federal Judiciary coming down on them? You cannot answer that, so you equivocate.

Where is your defense of the Constitution in all of this, Joey? Do you even understand the Constitution?

*************

>>Joey: "But more important, you totally ignore the fact that "Dover" is just one of many such court rulings going back over 50 years, including:

You forgot this unanimous and accurate opinion, Joey:

"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?" [Justice Brewer, the Opinion of the Court, in Authors Various, "Supreme Court 18920229: Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States." Justia, 143 U.S. 457, 1892]

And this rogue one:

"Our constitutional policy is exactly the opposite. It does not deny the value or the necessity for religious training, teaching or observance. Rather, it secures their free exercise. But, to that end, it does deny that the state can undertake or sustain them in any form or degree. For this reason, the sphere of religious activity, as distinguished from the secular intellectual liberties, has been given the two-fold protection, and, as the state cannot forbid, neither can it perform or aid in performing, the religious function. The dual prohibition makes that function altogether private. It cannot be made a public one by legislative act. This was the very heart of Madison's Remonstrance, as it is of the Amendment itself." [Hugo Black, "Supreme Court: Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1." Justia, 143 U.S. 457, 1947, Page 330 U. S. 52]

Which was "justified" by this usurpation:

"I cannot believe that the great author of those words, or the men who made them law, could have joined in this decision. Neither so high nor so impregnable today as yesterday is the wall raised between church and state by Virginia's great statute of religious freedom and the First Amendment, now made applicable to all the states by the Fourteenth. [Footnote 2/2] New Jersey's statute sustained is the first, if indeed it is not the second, breach to be made by this Court's action. That a third, and a fourth, and still others will be attempted we may be sure. For just as Cochran v. Board of Education, 281 U. S. 370, has opened the way by oblique ruling [Footnote 2/3] for this decision, so will the two make wider the breach for a third." [Ibid. Page 330 U. S. 29]

That is correct, a careful reading of the opinion of 1947 Supreme Court opinion reveals it used one usurpation of the Constitution, to justify another. Under the umbrella of the unconstitutional doctrine of "stare decisis," judicial usurpations, such as those by this court and "Judge" Jones, build on each other, gradually whittling away at our liberty until nothing is left:

"If powers be necessary, apparent danger is not a sufficient reason against conceding them. He has suggested that licentiousness has seldom produced the loss of liberty; but that the tyranny of rulers has almost always effected it. Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes." [James Madison, "Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention in Defense of the Constitution," June 6, 1788]

*************

>>Joey: "The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

What is wrong with that? Is it imperative that our children believe the heaven, earth and all its host came into existence by dumb luck, and that men are the posterity of apes?

*************

>>Joey: "The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind".

What is wrong with teaching children to have an open mind, Joey? Are you afraid they will learn the truth about evolutionism? Do you want them to grow up to be like you? I don't.

*************

>>Joey: "In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause".

Spare us the drama from the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Joey.

*************

>>Joey: "Near as I can tell, "Dover" is the most recent court case in a long list of similar cases all with the same outcome: ID/Creationism is religion and so cannot be taught in science classes.

If the Constitution was still in effect, evolutionism would not be taught in any classroom, by the will of the states and of the people.

The ACLU is a very powerful FAR LEFT organization, with deep political ties, and with very deep pockets, including yours and mine. They can sue, and lose, and still get reimbursed. Why Joey is not spending every waking minute despising them, like a true friend of the Constitution, is a mystery.

*************

>>Kalamata:"That is very deceitful! You completely dismissed the treachery of the ACLU, the NCSE, and the federal judiciary."
>>Joey: "No, I completely dismiss your fantasies that something unusual or illegal happened at "Dover".

I cannot imagine you would ever say that in public with a straight face.

*************

>>Kalamata:"I knew you would instantly revert to slander by innuendo. Your hero -- the atheist, anti-God bigot, Michael Shermer -- taught you well, Child."
>>Joey: "Danny boy, I'm currently reading three books: "Of Pandas and People", the 1989 book at issue in "Dover".

Of Panda's and People is an excellent book, Joey boy.

*************

>>Joey: "Spying on Whales", 2018, tons of fun about whale evolution, by Nick Pyenson."

LOL. That is quite the novel, but it is not a science book. For example, this paragraph repeats the just-so story of whale evolution:

"So much for the hows of fossil whales with legs. But why? What led whales to return to the water from land in the first place? That question takes us to the gap between the first and second phases of whale evolution, the gap that remains in the family tree between the branches leading to Maiacetus and Basilosaurus. In about ten million years, whales went from looking like the four-legged Pakicetus to something closer to Basilosaurus. Sometime during that interval (and probably in the last half of it), whales ambled and swam equal amounts, with shorter hind limbs and blowholes migrating backward along their snouts. And then, at some point, a generation of whales never emerged out of the water back onto land, and their descendants begat blue whales, humpbacks, sperm whales, dolphins, and every other living whale species (along with many extinct ones, like Kellogg's finds from the Miocene)." [Nick Pyenson, "Spying on Whales." Viking Penguin, 2018, Chap.3]

LOL! That is one the most far-fetched stories I have ever heard. Notice the author name-drops the Basilosaurus, which probably was an extinct whale, but then tries to smuggle in the Pakicetus, whose skeleton shows that of a fast running animal similar to a Tapir, which incidentally has not a single one of the 8 characteristics a whale was supposed to have, according to the whale expert, paleontologist Hans Thewissen, whose team discovered the first recognizable Pakicetus skeleton.

Now to the next in the so-called Whale Evolution "line" -- the Ambulocetus:

"In 1994 the discovery of Ambulocetus clarified this picture, showing that the earliest whales had weight-bearing fore and hind limbs, with separate phalanges perhaps connected in life by webbing. Relatively large feet in Ambulocetus were a clue about its swimming style, which likely involved flexing its spinal column along with its broad feet, in one motion. Mechanically this style is somewhere between paddling with hands and feet (using drag for forward motion) and employing a hydrofoil, as modern whales do with their tail fluke (using lift, instead of drag). Our pelvis is rigidly connected to our backbone, whereas in Maiacetus, the pelvis was only partially connected to the backbone, permitting a lot of flexibility for the whole spinal column to undulate up and down. The shape of a few tail vertebrae can reveal a lot about locomotion—in Ambulocetus the fact that the tail vertebrae are longer than they are tall tells us that these early whales had long, thickened tails, although we still don't have enough bones to know what direction these powerful tails might have moved." [Nick Pyenson, "Spying on Whales." Viking Penguin, 2018, Chap.2]

The Ambulocetus is another imaginary whale transitional fossil that doesn't have a single one of the characteristics that identify whales.

The scientific data tells us that, unless there are some unbelievable discoveries, there is no such thing as whale evolution from land animals. It is a fairy tale for immature grownups.

*************

>>Joey: "Why Evolution Matters", Shermer's 2006 book defending evolution."

I wasn't aware that Shermer wrote a book by that name. I have one by him titled "Why Darwin Matters,' published in 2006. The Prologue is titled "Why Evolution Matters." Perhaps he wrote another book as a spin-off using that name, with the goal of first convincing the public that consensus is science, and quickly switching gears with an, "Aw shucks, I was just kiddin'," followed by another tired cliche pretending there is an astonishing quantity of evidence for evolution (which no one has ever seen):

"It does not matter whether 99 percent or just 1 percent of the public (or politicians) accepts a scientific theory—the theory stands or falls on the evidence, and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution." [Michael Shermer, "Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design." Times Books, 2006, Prologue, pp.xix-xx]

LOL! If you think that is funny, try this one:

"This is what bothers people about evolutionary theory, not the technical details of the science. Most folks don't give one whit about adaptive radiation, allopatric speciation, phenotypic variation, assortative mating, allometry and heterochrony, adaptation and exaptation, gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, and the like. What they do care about is whether teaching evolution will make their kids reject God, allow criminals and sinners to blame their genes for their actions, and generally cause society to fall apart." [Michael Shermer, "Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design." Times Books, 2006, p.24

Did you get that? Shermer spews out a long list of scientifically-sounding, but nonsensical names -- adaptive radiation, allopatric speciation, phenotypic variation, assortative mating, allometry and heterochrony, adaptation and exaptation, gradualism and punctuated equilibrium -- none of which have ever provided the slightest bit of evidence for evolution. But the names certainly look impressive, don't they?

But his theme was accurate, at least in that paragraph: folks do care about the destruction of western civilization by the false, anti-God doctrines of Darwin and Lyell.

The bottom line is, you will not find any thing in that book to demonstrate why Darwin matters. But you will find meaningless statistics, special pleading, appeals to authority and consensus, and other fallacies in an attempt to trick the people into "accepting" evolution, when all it would take is a wee bit of scientific evidence. Perhaps scientific evidence doesn't sell books; or perhaps there is none. I choose the latter.

*************

>>Joey: "And I knew that you would instantly deny the obvious truth -- that deniers are deniers regardless of the subject of their denials."

It is okay to be an evolution denier, Joey; but it not okay to pretend evolution is supported by scientific evidence.

*************

>>Joey: "Both evolution and Holocaust deniers can, literally, spend all day in a museum and never see a shred of evidence. They use identical Jedi mind tricks -- "these are not the evidence/droids we're looking for, nothing to see here, move along, move along." Today, outside the domain of radical Islam, the old Holocaust deniers have mostly died off. Evolution deniers are still with us, but even they seem to have done not-so-much since "Dover" in 2005."

I have never met a holocaust denier, and I am certain Joey hasn't either. He learned the debating trick of using smear tactics to shut down debate from his anti-God, Far-Left, Climate-Change pushing hero, Michael Shermer. Joey didn't realize that by slandering me, he made me even more determined to expose him as the fraud he truly is.

*************

>>Kalamata: "It has been falsified, about a gazillion times. The anti-Christian evolution cult keeps moving the goal posts, that is, every time the theory is falsified, the cult followers slap a new fancy name on it and call the falsified part . . . (drum roll) . . . EVOLUTION! Joey has done it himself in this very thread be claiming devolution is evolution. That was pretty slick, Child. "
>>Joey: "Danny boy, you just have to stop lying about this, it's bad for you.

Why would I lie about something that you wrote in this very thread, Joey boy? In #468 you wrote,

[Joey] "That assumes an outdated definition of "evolution" as "forward" progress, aka "complexification". In fact there are many examples of evolution backward ("devolution") and just sideways. It's all evolution. . ."

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. LOL! Let me let you in on a little secret, Joey: evolution requires a gain in genetic information. That is G-A-I-N. . . GAIN!

I have no doubt that many claims like Joey's will be popping up in the literature, because, let's face it: evolutionists have ran out of excuses for the lack of evidence necessary to prop up Darwin's stupid theory. Now that professor Michael Behe has exposed common descent as a myth, evolutionists have no choice but to invent new schemes to deceive the nations if they expect to cling to power -- this time using the pretense that devolution was evolution all along! LOL!

Charlie was a bitter, pitiful little man who, with all his family privilege, had nothing better to do than to try to destroy to moral fabric of Western Civilization. Perhaps he was bitter about being rejected by other Christians, or perhaps by the death of his young daughter; but there is no doubt he was an evil genius. He reminds me of this fellow:

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;" -- Isa 14:12-16 KJV

*************

>>Joey: "The fact is that evidence which increases our understandings of evolutionary processes do not "falsify" the theory. So your claim here that devolution somehow falsifies evolution is pure nonsense. That's because by definition evolution is simply change, regardless of which "direction". The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant, it's still evolution."

Just when I thought you couldn't say anything dumber, you come up with that nonsense. Why not simply rename evolution as "wind", Joey; or "water." Perhaps, as Ian Juby implies, "water" might be the more appropriate name for evolution, since water, like evolution, conforms to fit any container it is poured into.

If you think that is science, Joey, you have a pitiful understanding.

*************

>>Kalamata: "Check out this funny video explaining the unfalsifiability of evolutonism, and how evolutionists use deception to cover it up:"
>>Joey: "Just more nonsense.

What is wrong with that video, Joey? Ian Juby is very funny, as well as being scientifically informative. He is, after all, a Mensa genius. Here it is again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB0cjZMVjOo

*************

>>Kalamata: "By definitions, scientific explanations are natural processes while ID-Creationism is supernatural. We learn natural explanations in science class, we learn supernatural explanations in church. The task of reconciling the two is what makes us uniquely human."

All evolutionists have left is that stupid, selective definition.

*************

>>Kalamata on defining "facts":"No. Try confirmed, repeatable, scientific observations."
>>Joey: "Nonsense, because a one-time event which cannot be repeated can still be confirmed as observed fact."

LOL! Joey must have slept though that science class. My science classes taught me that a one-time event cannot be tested, and is therefore, unfalsifiable. Science requires falsification.

*************

>>Kalamata: "I see you are playing the misdirection game, again, Joey."
>>Joey: "More nonsense, it was a perfectly valid point which you respond to by -- slavish obedience to Denier Rules, in this case #5, #7 & #12."

The Child and his silly Rules of Desperation . . .

*************

>>Kalamata:"False. 1) None of those are examples of evolution. Speciation and adaptation are either genetically neutral, or result in the loss of genetic information, which is devolution, not evolution."
>>Joey: "Danny boy, you just got to stop lying. By definition, evolution is change, regardless of the "direction", "gain" or "loss" of "information". You don't get to redefine it just because you don't like it."

You are embarrassing yourself, Child.

*************

>>Kalamata:"2) There is no confirmed evidence that descent with modification has ever occurred; not in the fossil record, not in real life, nor genetically."
>>Joey: "The DNA evidence is observed & confirmed in every individual who has a DNA test. Tests consistently show "descent with modifications", mutations, in every generation."

You are lying, Joey.

*************

>>Joey: "The fact that most such mutations prove harmless demonstrates that your claims about "no junk DNA" are highly suspect.

Now you are speaking from ignorance, Joey.

*************

>>Joey: "The fossil records show innumerable transition species, especially among human ancestors."

There are no transitional fossil lines, Joey. Not one.

*************

>>Kalamata:"3) The phrase "natural selection" is a much over-hyped, but relatively meaningless term that is used as recognition that organisms with certain characteristics survive better than those that lack those characteristics. It doesn't possess the intelligence to "select" anything."
>>Joey: "But Danny boy, there's no reason for you to lie about that, because you just admitted its true."

What are you talking about, Joey?

*************

>>Joey: "You just don't like the terms "natural selection" & "descent with modifications" so you lie & claim it doesn't happen before admitting it does?"

That is just plain loony, Joey. Perhaps you need a good rest. Descent with modification has never occurred, except in text books and scientifically-challenged papers; and natural selection has no creative power whatsoever. Evolutionists pretend that it does, but it is only make believe.

*************

>>Kalamata on "Pandas & People": "I am not surprised that you would attempt to slander those great scientists, Joey. What else can we expect from someone who promotes the myth that man is a descendent of an ape, or a frog. According to Joey's cult, if a frog turns into a prince, that is a fairy tale; but if a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, that is science. LOL!"
>>Joey: "I suspect the writers of "Pandas & People" are pure scoundrels, but have not yet finished reading their book. Will let you know if I can find a word of truth in it when I'm done reading."

I am certain they would deem you a scoundrel, Joey. This is Professor Dean Kenyon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=uJDa9QLP4aE

This lists some of the books by Percival William Davis (I have several by him, including two Biology texts):

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/106227.Percival_William_Davis

Perhaps you are jealous of their education and skill-set, Joey.

*************

>>Kalamata: "I am not kidding when I insinuate that evolutionists believe frogs are of the human ancestors. This is Neil Shubin in Scientific American:"
>>Joey: Frogs are not human ancestors but there is enough similarity in frog & human biology to suggest common ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago.

LOL! Now you have really lost it, Joey.

Mr. Kalamata