Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

That's just not what people mean when they talk of the Founders. They mean a small group of men. When Madison (who wrote the First Amendment) wrote of the separation of church and state, he did not find it necessary to enumerate every religious doctrine and every aspect of the state.Here's a quote from his "Memorial and Remonstrance": Now if you use taxpayer's money to teach creationism, a religious doctrine of certain religious sects, then that's Madison's three pence right there. Again, they had no intention to limit the states at all, and education was then and is principally now a state matter.This is why I keep referring you to the Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine. "Legitimate secular purpose", remember?In the same way, we can teach the facts of geology even though the Bible says that the Earth is supported by "pillars"; we can teach that thunder is caused by lightning even though the Bible says that it's God shouting; and we can teach that we think with our brains even though the Bible repeatedly and exclusively says that we think with our hearts. Well, no it isn't. The law does (according to judges) allow us to teach things contrary to the dogma of a religion or sect so long as there's a good reason to do so, such as it being true.

Yes, but it should be admitted that both of these decisions were wrong; unlike the Lemon Test, which seems to be bang on the mark.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But that is not what the law is.It is, bizarrely, what you would like the law to be. But it isn't what it actually is. I think you just called for the banning from classrooms of the teaching that the Earth is round.

I notice that only one of us has quoted James Madison, and it isn't you.James Madison was protesting against the idea that taxpayers should pay just three cents each towards the teaching of religious views.As a result, "the people through their delegates" passed the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, in which they declared it to be "sinful and tyrannical" to make taxpayers pay for the teaching of religious opinions, even those opinions that they themselves agreed with. It is far from impossible. Then as now, Christians were alert to the dangers of the State elevating one particular sectarian viewpoint over others.When the Arkansas legislature tried to get creationism into public schools, the plaintiffs opposing this move in the case of McClean v. Arkansas included:* Reverend William McLean, a United Methodist minister.
* Bishop Kenneth Hick, of the Arkansas Conferences of the United Methodist Church
* The Right Reverend Herbert A. Donovan of the Episcopal Diocese of Arkansas
* The Most Reverend Andrew Joseph McDonald, Catholic Bishop of Little Rock
* Bishop Frederick C. James of the African Methodist Episcopal Church or Arkansas
* The Reverend Nathan Porter
* The Reverend George W. Gunn, minister of the Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church in Little Rock
* Dr. Richard B. Hardie, Jr., minister of the Westover Hills Presbyterian Church in Little Rock
* The Reverend Earl B. Carter, minister of the United Methodist Church and program director of the North Arkansas Conference of the United Methodist Church
* The Reverend George Panner, minister of the United Methodist Church and program director of the Little Rock Conference of the United Methodist church.
* Dr. John P. Miles, minister of St. James United Methodist Church in Little Rock and vice-chair of Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Arkansas.
* Rev. Jerry Canada, minister of the United Methodist Church and editor of The Arkansas MethodistNow, will you tell me that it is "impossible" that these three bishops and other clergy were opposed to teaching creationism in public schools? Only it happened. And the reason why is obvious --- when the state begins elevating the dogmas of some sects over the dogmas of others, who knows where that's going to end?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No. No it doesn't. The case law is quite clear. You can teach anything, whether or not it conflicts with some daft religion, so long as there is a clear secular purpose in doing so. That is the law. Which it is perfectly entitled to do, because there is a secular purpose in doing so, namely teaching children what shape the earth actually is. That is the law.

Actually, what Madison wrote is what I quoted him as writing, not some stuff you've made up in your head. For the n^th time, because you're ignoring the concept of secular purpose.Do you really suppose it was Madison's intent that the existence of flat-earth sects should prevent (for example) the US Navy from using and publishing charts based on spherical geometry?If so, he could have said so, couldn't he? Can you quote me anything from any of the founders suggesting that it was their intent that religious folks should be able to play dog-in-the-manger in this way?

You are a liar.It is you who have repeatedly claimed that the law prohibits round-earth teaching.It is I who have said repeatedly that it does not.This crazy imaginary law exists only in your head.

The state can teach or endorse a view contrary to the dogma of any religion or sect so long as there is a clear secular purpose in doing so.This is the law. This is not the crazy imaginary law that you've made up in your head, but it is the actual law. No it doesn't. The crazy imaginary made-up law in your head demands that. The actual law does not.

But what the state also says is that its doctrine of neutrality does not preclude it using, endorsing, or teaching an idea which has a genuine secular purpose even if that idea does conflict with the religious dogmas of a crank.And the actions of the state are consistent with this position.They could not teach that the Earth is round just to spite a Flat-Earth sect, or to promote other sects, but they can teach it because it's useful to know.The state does not say that it can't say anything at all which has any bearing whatsoever on the religious opinions of anyone at all. That would be stupid.If the law did say this stupid thing, which it doesn't, then your argument would have some weight, which it doesn't.

As far as I can figure out, he doesn't think that that is what should happen, he thinks that this is what the current law says should happen, and offers this as a reductio ad absurdum of the law.Of course, that is not what the law says, as I have explained to him about a jillion times.

They can teach this --- if there's a secular purpose to it. The Bible says that the sun and moon exist, but that doesn't mean that teachers can't teach that this is so, even though it does confirm certain passages in Scripture. Creationism serves no secular purpose.

You might as well write: "The law says you can't practice CPR because this is the law they invoke to say you can't commit murder."Those would be different things. Kinda ... opposite things.You can (implicitly) teach that creationism is false, because it serves a secular purpose to do so. You can't teach that creationism is true, because it serves no secular purpose to do so.This is the law.

No they do not. Because the law they invoke is the actual law and not the crazy shit you've made up in your head.We have explained to you --- many times --- what the law actually is and why. Please stop lying.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That was not a "retreat" --- they have always done so. And you are, of course, lying. Yes it can. Obviously. Not saying something is true is eminently consistent with saying that it is false.

And yet one rarely sees sentences like the following: But it has. Which strongly suggests that it can.