Replies

Anyone who would misuse the judiciary through the threat or misuse of lawsuits, to force on the unwilling populace their point of view alone, to the exclusion of all others.

Well just damn. Can we say Scopes? Can we say the creationism laws in Arkansas, both of which were shot down? Can we say Dover?

Just what the hell gives theists the right to butt into science classes with religious stuff that can't even be examined by science? It reminds me a bit of the French, who have legal bodies devoted to defining what the French language can and cannot be.

Science is not done by lawyers or school boards. The findings of science are not subject to the whim of school boards run by people who can't even realize what a joke they are.

I differ somewhat from typical evilutionists. I want the confrontation. I look forward to it. I can't wait for some dumb as a brick school board to tries teaching "scientific alternatives to evolution." I will load up on popcorn.

Scopes was about making the teaching of evolution not illegal. Law making is the realm of the legislative branch of government.

Lawsuits weren't misused by creationists to force creation on an unwilling populace through the misuse of the judiciary. Creation was already being taught in the schools in those days.

Try again after you learn about the proper function of the different branches of government.

Science is not done by lawyers or school boards.

Then why are they making decisions about something outside their area of expertise? If that's the case, then they should keep their noses out of it and not capitulate to the demands of special interest groups who merely have an agenda to push, no matter how much of an expert those people claim to be.

I can't wait for some dumb as a brick school board to tries teaching "scientific alternatives to evolution."

Since evolutionists have already decided that there is no scientific alternative to the ToE, nothing anyone proposes will be accepted; it will immediately be blown off as *not scientific* thus relieving scientists of any responsibility of actually addressing the evidence and refuting it. How convenient.