Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

quote:

---

True, but that did not happen in this case. After the 14th Amendment was ratified, and the incorporation argument failed in the 1870s, no new relevant law was enacted. You are certainly correct that courts, including the Supreme Court, are not bound by their own previous decisions. But they do give those decisions great respect.

---

If you mean that the courts were NOT bound by previous decisions then you only help my case. Those previous decisions did not have the same power as legislation. On the other hand the Fourteenth Amendment WAS required.

quote:

---

Actually, many court decisions are retroactively enforced because retroactivity is required to render justice. It is only laws that add new penalties or liabilities (ex post facto laws) that are constitutionally excluded from retroactive enforcement. For example, laws applying criminal liability can be revoked retroactively although they sometimes are not.

---

Yet there would be a clear injustice in being hauled into court, facing all the costs of defence on the basis of a law that did not exist. The situation is as you describe not because my point is false, but because it is true.

quote:

---

When the Supreme Court decides, its ruling is the law even if others believe that the Court has overstepped or is completely wrong. In a very real legal sense, the Supreme Court is always correct even when they are wrong. Once the Court rules, there is no legal recourse other than getting the Supreme Court to rule again or passing another law. In this case, Congress did not act again after the Supreme Court refused to incorporate the Establishment Clause, but the Supreme Court did rule again. In 1947.

---

It is one thing to say that the Supreme Court may overstep its bounds. It is quite another to say that it has done so. And that is a case you have yet to try to make.Of course this is one of the places where principles really are important. It was principles that decided the Loving case, which few today would argue against.

quote:

---

If you mean that the courts were NOT bound by previous decisions then you only help my case. Those previous decisions did not have the same power as legislation. On the other hand the Fourteenth Amendment WAS required.

---

Not exactly the same effect, but Supreme Court decisions are just as binding on the lower courts as if they were legislation. In fact, they are more binding because the lower court is not free to substitute its own reasoning for that of the Supreme Court.I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Fourteenth Amendment WAS required, but it is clear that the Supreme Court did not interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states prior to 1890. Although I support incorporation, it is not clear to me that the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment requires it.

quote:

---

Yet there would be a clear injustice in being hauled into court, facing all the costs of defence on the basis of a law that did not exist. The situation is as you not because my point is false, but because it is true.

---

The same injustice results whether a court invalidates a statute or rules against its own precedent. You still have to defend yourself in court and bear the costs. There is no distinction between court precedent and legislation in this regard.And in fact that's exactly what happened in Everson v. Board of Education and Brown v. Board of Education. In those cases, the defendant was forced to defend itself in court in situations where the plaintiff was asking for a change in the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.Finally, I don't want to leave the impression that precedent is not binding.Lower courts ARE bound by precedent established in appellate courts, and all federal and state courts are bound by applicable precedent established in the Supreme Court (except, of course for the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court can of course rule against its own precedent, but it generally does not do so.

So based on your argument, if the genesis creation story is taught in school, the state position is that it is true? But then what happens to all those other religions whose creation stories are not taught? Does that make them false, leading to the establishment of a state religion, or would you have them all taught as 'true'?
Also you earlier suggested not teaching things which may contradict a religious teaching, the example given being a flat earth. Does that also go for two religions with conflicting views? Do you favour one religions views over another?At the end of the day, it's about teaching science. It's not about memorising a series of facts and blindly accepting them as truth. You are there to learn about the evidence available and how the conclusions are reached, and learn these skills so you can apply them yourself. However, this process is undermined when you are told to disregard evidence and the conclusions you make are contradicted by ad hoc assertions.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Fourteenth Amendment WAS required, but it is clear that the Supreme Court did not interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states prior to 1890. Although I support incorporation, it is not clear to me that the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment requires it.

---

It seems simple enough. There is no room for interpretation of a law that does not exist. The Supreme Court changing it's mind on that interpretation does not change that at all.

quote:

---

The same injustice results whether a court invalidates a statute or rules against its own precedent. You still have to defend yourself in court and bear the costs. There is no distinction between court precedent and legislation in this regard

---

On the contrary there, is a VERY important distinction, which goes directly to the point. The legislation must exist BEFORE anyone can be dragged into court. A court decision CANNOT exist until someone has been dragged into court. In the case of legislation then, the same injustice is not even possible.

quote:

---

And in fact that's exactly what happened in Everson v. Board of Education and Brown v. Board of Education. In those cases, the defendant was forced to defend itself in court in situations where the plaintiff was asking for a change in the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

---

Obviously it is NOT exactly what happened, since the 14th Amendment was passed before those cases were brought. Your claim could only be true if you ASSUME that court decisions are the whole of the law, which is precisely the point in dispute.

quote:

---

Finally, I don't want to leave the impression that precedent is not binding.

---

Of course it ISN'T binding in most cases. By my understanding the only binding precedent must come from a higher court in the same "chain of command".

What's the relevance? I'm completely missing your point.

quote:

---

Obviously it is NOT exactly what happened, since the 14th Amendment was passed before those cases were brought. Your claim could only be true if you ASSUME that court decisions are the whole of the law, which is precisely the point in dispute.

---

You are simply wrong on this point. What I described is exactly what happened.The Supreme Court's interpretation of a statute or amendment is the law. See Marbury v. Madison. If you cannot convince the legislature to change the law or the Supreme Court to change its collective mind, then you are out of luck if you are on the wrong side of the SC's previous opinion.In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court overruled the "separate but equal" interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause established in Plessy v. Ferguson. No relevant legislative changes occurred between Plessy and Brown. In fact, Congress was powerless to overrule Supreme Court's interpretation by any means other than amendment to the Constitution, something that did not happen.What happened instead was the passage of time and a hearing before a completely different set of Supreme Court Justices. In effect, Brown was able to sue and win against the Kansas Board of Education despite the fact that the law was on the Board's side.Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown successful civil rights cases against states relied on establishing that states did not provide separate but equal provisions for all. After Brown v. Board of Education, separate but equal was no longer the law.The effect was exactly the same as if a new amendment were ratified overruling separate but equal.Similarly, prior to ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. No surprise there, I think.Even after the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court held in US v. Cruishank that the First and Second Amendments were not incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment. I've also mentioned the Slaughter House cases of 1873 which read the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. That interpretation continues even today to be the state of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.No application of the Bill of Rights was the state of the law until the Supreme Court changed its position in a piecemeal fashion beginning in the late 19th century and continuing up through 2010. True, but on U.S. Constitutional issues, every federal and state court is in the Supreme Court's 'chain of command'. Situations not involving the Supreme Court are not relevant to our discussion.

quote:

---

What's the relevance? I'm completely missing your point.

---

The relevance is that you cannot be dragged into court on the basis of a law that does not exist, because the law must be passed by the legislature first !

quote:

---

You are simply wrong on this point.

---

For me to be wrong it must be the case that the 14th Amendment was not passed until after the case had been brought. As you accept that is not true. Perhaps you could argue that the interpretation in Brown was invalid but you haven't tried to argue that either. So you literally have no case.

quote:

---

True, but on U.S. Constitutional issues, every federal and state court is in the Supreme Court's 'chain of command'. Situations not involving the Supreme Court are not relevant to our discussion.

---

Which is very different from the assertion that "precedents are binding".You are also wrong to assert that cases where the Supreme Court is not involved are irrelevant. Cases never start in the Supreme Court, and a case may stop for reasons unrelated to the merits, before reaching the Supreme Court. Thus on your view it is entirely possible for a lower court to make up a law out of thin air. I obviously disagree.

That's incorrect. Law does not have to be passed by the legislature first. There are plenty of examples of civil and criminal common law either do not have a statutory basis or were codified into statutes long after the laws were used to support criminal and civil offenses. For example, laws against embezzlement, arson, and larceny were common law offenses.Among civil offenses, trespass, assault, battery, and conversion were common law offenses that later became statutory law in most jurisdictions.But more to the importantly, I don't see how your point is relevant. When a court changes its interpretation of a statute or provisional of law, then we have to deal with new law. Show me the relevance to this discussion. Aren't we discussing cases that did end up before the Supreme Court? Of what relevance is it to this discussion that Alabama courts are not bound by decisions made by the New York Court of Appeals? Or that one district court in California is not by by the decisions of another district court in the same state?Supreme Court precedent is always binding precedent for every other court. With the exception of the Scopes case which did not get a favorable result, I don't believe we've discussed any cases that did not end up before the Supreme Court.

quote:

---

That's incorrect. Law does not have to be passed by the legislature first. There are plenty of examples of civil and criminal common law either do not have a statutory basis or were codified into statutes long after the laws were used to support criminal and civil offenses. For example, laws against embezzlement, arson, and larceny were common law offenses.

---

Common law, however is not a valid counter-argument because it is based on precedent. No precedent, no common law. You still haven't got an example of a court inventing an entirely new law there.

quote:

---

But more to the importantly, I don't see how your point is relevant. When a court changes its interpretation of a statute or provisional of law, then we have to deal with new law.

---

The relevance is that it proves my position correct. The courts do not simply make up new laws out of thin air - as you admit, they INTERPRET the existing laws, as passed by the legislature.

quote:

---

how me the relevance to this discussion. Aren't we discussing cases that did end up before the Supreme Court? Of what relevance is it to this discussion that Alabama courts are not bound by decisions made by the New York Court of Appeals? Or that one district court in California is not by by the decisions of another district court in the same state?

---

I already explained it. And you're simply wrong to say that we're only talking about specific cases. We're talking about the general situation.

I'm saying this is just a retreat of the courts under logical attacks like I do here.
Yet it changes nothing.
The great claim to censor creationism(s0 in schools is that it breaks a constitutional dictate.
There can be no support of the state for religious conclusions as true.
No establishment of religion is the words.
Well.
then i say they are in fact breaking this very law.
for in origin subjects they are teaching religious doctrines are untrue and banning creationism is a second point of the state saying these doctrines are untrue.They want to talk about religious truth in the schools and then ban rebuttal.
My point of logic here is that if religious doctrines accuracy are being discussed then the state is making a opinion on those religious doctrines by the two ways.
They are making a establishment of religion by saying some religious ideas are false.The great idea is that there is to be a separation of church and state. This is the line used against my side all the time.
to be separate one must be separate.
If your talking about conclusions touching on religious doctrines then your not SEPARATE. Your joined intimately.Its like they are saying my sides ideas are illegal in schools but in no way is the state giving a opinion on their accuracy.
Hogwash.
The state is not neutral.Then other posters say AMEN the state ain't neutral but its okay.Still the evolution side here needs to make up its mind which it is.Can the state force a opinion upon students as the truth of christian doctrines.
YES OR NO!

So, if worldly reality conflicts with someones religious belief, then we must not teach about that worldly reality?Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

​

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

quote:

---

I'm saying this is just a retreat of the courts under logical attacks like I do here.

---

Saying it doesn't make it true.It was the position adopted by a court ruling against polygamy. So it certainly wasn't invented to stop Creationism in schools. And there are obvious sensible reasons to adopt it. Allowing anything just because somebody says it is part of their religion is obviously silly - and amounts to giving religions special privileges which is ALSO arguably against the First Amendment.

quote:

---

Yet it changes nothing.

---

It means that your interpretation of the law is not that adopted by the courts. It means that your claim that the ruling was invented in the mid-1900s to keep creationism out of schools is false. If you want to say that it was invented to ban Mormon polygamy in the late 1800s you'd have a much better case ! But your position would be far from logically certain even then.

quote:

---

The great claim to censor creationism(s0 in schools is that it breaks a constitutional dictate.

---

There is no censorship. Just a prohibition against teachers using science lessons to sabotage their pupil's science lessons by teaching them anti-scientific religious propaganda.

quote:

---

There can be no support of the state for religious conclusions as true.
No establishment of religion is the words.
Well.
then i say they are in fact breaking this very law.

---

And you are wrong. By the Constitution the courts have the responsibility of interpreting the law. The courts interpretation of the law allows the government to hinder or advance religion as the incidental effect of a law or policy adopted for a purely secular purpose - and therefore that is what the law says. If you disagree, you are wrong and that is all there is to it.

quote:

---

They are making a establishment of religion by saying some religious ideas are false.

---

So I guess we ought to teach that Piltdown Man was real to avoid upsetting the Scientologists ? Or do you think we can contradict their religion ?

quote:

---

The great idea is that there is to be a separation of church and state. This is the line used against my side all the time. to be separate one must be separate.

---

And they are. That's why your religion doesn't get the special support you are asking for.

quote:

---

Can the state force a opinion upon students as the truth of christian doctrines.
YES OR NO!

---

Of course it cannot (not that creationism is an essential doctrine of Christianity) . It can, however teach established science no matter how many religions it contradicts - which is not the same thing. Those who are prepared to learn the material can get trough the system without believing it.

The state is neutral. If your creation myth is taught then every other creation myth must be taught. That is what the ban is about. Do you realize how long it would take to teach 999 creation myths?
Creation myths are taught in schools, in the right places ie:
Ancient History when studying the ancient peoples or in a course on comparative religions.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

I understand you picked up on a point. yet its way off my points.I'm saying their was never any intent at all for schools to be controlled on origin issues.
They never had intent to censor God or Genesis or evolution . it was not on their minds and they would leave these things to legislatures.
YES they meant to not allow religious doctrines to be state dictated.Yet in origin issues there is boundary crossing. Conclusions are taught to kids that reject Cristian doctrines. The state is engaged in religion.
It can't say religion can't be engaged but the state can be engaged in religion. Its all based on a nuetral concept of church and state.

My insistence is that the legislature determines these matters of school teachings.
However they invoke constitutional law to censor creationism and so I strive to show this is impossible but showing that in origin subjects it can't be avoided that conclusions are made about religious ideas.
The state can't say its neutral on religion and then teach its false.
I'm destroying the legal presumptions behind the censorship.

So? They also reject Hindu doctrine, are you proposing we teach the creation myths of every religion?

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor