Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012

So basically you're wondering why creationists haven't learned.

Well yes. But so long as they're handicapped by being cdesign proponentists, they're not going to turn in a good performance. Since no teaching qualifications or scientific knowledge are required to lie to children, parents can do that themselves. If only there was a competition for "dumbest question of the year", you could enter that in their creationist section. What other purpose it could conceivably serve is unclear.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There's nothing "special" about it. Mathematicians do get to decide what's taught in math class. Maybe there are politicians involved somewhere, but they defer to the mathematicians, 'cos of the mathematicians knowing about math. Same with languages, no-one ever took a vote on the first person singular present tense of comer, they let the people who actually speak Spanish get on with it.What is "special" is that in certain areas of the curriculum people who know nothing about the subject still want their unfounded opinions to be taught. Well, I don't see why we should make a special case for them, and the First Amendment makes it quite clear that, since they are motivated by being a bunch of ignorant religious zealots, they should not be a special case.

If the ID crowd had wanted to get Bertotism taught in schools, they could have tried. Instead they went with the formulation of ID produced by the guy who introduced the term ID into the discussion.That isn't the fault of evolutionists, we don't control creationists with magic psychic powers. If you want them to try to get Bertotism taught in the classroom, try explaining it to them, see if they can make head or tail of it.As they didn't do that, we scored a victory over the version of ID that cdesign proponentists actually put forward. It would be staggeringly irrational to blame us for the inadequacy of their formulation of ID, which I suppose explains why you do so.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"Tons of Lies, Obfuscation, and Propaganda".

Though strangely enough I don't remember any cartoons being put forward in evidence. For some reason they decided to discard this "most effective tool" in favor of the facts.

That was a special report from the alternate universe in marc9000's head. And now back to the real world for the weather.

That was ... bizarre. He did, in fact testify. Testifying in answer to questions asked by lawyers is in fact the normal way of testifying in a court of law. I'm not sure that there's actually any other way to do so. By what magical process does "the scientific community" "make money on abortions and birth control"? The novelist Aldous Huxley "developed modern evolutionary thought"? The Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky developed "a complete atheist world view"? The political journalist Christopher Hitchens was a "leading evolutionist"?Why do you talk about things you don't know anything about?

Well, he certainly never said that, that's why you had to make it up.

So, what relationship are you suggesting? Is it that being good at science makes one atheistic and liberal, or does being atheistic and liberal make one good at science, or what? Why is it that the people with the best grasp of how the universe works overwhelmingly don't see the hand of a creator in it? Is it because they're smarter than theists, or just better informed, or what? And is there some reason why theists and conservatives are bad at grasping reality --- or is it the other way round, and only people with a poor grasp on reality join the religious right?They are your figures, so let's hear your explanation. Why is there a correlation between scientific excellence and atheism? I think it might be time for you to consider the fact that the crackpot community is made up of humans rather inferior to the rest of us by virtue of being nuts, and shouldn’t be given a free pass to make important decisions about science without going through the scientific process like anyone else has to.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Just because politicians can meddle doesn't necessarily mean they should do so. Take this Andrew Koenig chap. He has a B.A. in Business Administration from Lindenwood University, which he attended on an athletics scholarship, he has worked as a life insurance salesman, in real estate redevelopment, and as co-owner of a paint company. And if he knows anything whatsoever about biology, he has shown absolutely no sign of it.So in all conscience what ought he to have to do with the conclusions of scientists concerning science? Just because he's capable of sticking his nose in, why should he? What can he possibly have to add to centuries of observation and experiment? What can he think he has to offer? His profound knowledge of how to sell life insurance?It is tolerable that politicians should vote on things like property taxes because (a) someone has to and (b) even a Republican probably knows what a tax is, what property is, and what a property tax is. But when it comes to the science curriculum then, by contrast, (a) it is not necessary for politicians to do anything with the results of scientists except rubber stamp them and (b) they are not competent to do anything else.So we should do a deal. Koenig can stop telling biologists how to do their jobs, and they won't run his paint company.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That was bizarrer.

The world has plenty of 'em, though that's by-the-by. Now, perhaps you could get back to being wrong about events in Missouri.

Well, of course none of this is true, but whatever the real reason is, science does actually work. While scientists (or, as you apparently prefer to call them, science/atheists) have come up with stuff like electricity and antibiotics and the silicon chip, theologians have done nothing but come up with a thousand different gods and a thousand excuses for killing each other over the difference.If you are going to claim that science is inextricably bound up with atheism, then what I say is, let's have more atheism. Because apparently it works.

Would you also like to teach the other chapters where he explains why the arguments in ch. 3 are insufficient to make him a theist, and why he considers atheism to be correct?Or do you consider that only his theistic arguments should be taught, the ones that he thinks aren't as good as his atheistic arguments?