Facts get in the way of baloney.

He's probably on another retreat now.

Don't confuse Billnewbie with facts, GFan.

billnewbie, your sentence that begins with "The history....." is indeed a false claim that justifies my sentence:

"billnewbie, your claim that the truth of evolution came from a desire to justify atheism is an outright lie."

To claim that "....history......shows...." is only a matter of your opinion is outrageous -it is a witting or unwitting way of confessing that your claim is false -it is a weaselly-worded way of trying to talk yourself out of a bind! Is it really possibly that you are incapable of understanding what you've done?!

Your use of the word "history" demands that your claim goes beyond mere personal opinion. Your effort to claim that "The history...." is merely your opinion has been downgraded from laughable to tragic.

Did I claim that the “truth” of evolution came from a desire to justify atheism? No, what I wrote is as follows, “The history of the development of evolutionary theory shows that the theory of evolution was developed largely by atheists to strengthen their belief that there is no God.” My statement is not exclusive. Furthermore it is an expression of my opinion which I believe to be true. Others can claim that they’ve discredited my “false premises” but that also is an expression of opinion. To call me a liar for stating my opinion is just so much self-indulgent sanctimony, the kind one expects from arrogant cynics. Anyone who thinks such tactics can dissuade me from continuing to post my opinions as I see fit do indeed suffer from self-deception.

Expect billnewbie to be scrounging around dogmatically selecting out-of-context quotes and hyperlinks for the purpose of justifying his lie.

Shame on billnewbie!!!

SHAME!!!

;~(

"billnewbie, your claim that the truth of evolution came from a desire to justify atheism is an outright lie."

GFan, Billnewbie knows that's a lie. He incorrectly assumes that we have forgotten having previously discredited his false premises, such as the one above, elsewhere in GazetteXtra comments. Deep denial is an essential characteristic of blind dogmatism in every form.

"...acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts" -- Barbara Tuchman, on the nature of self-deception.

billnewbie, your claim that the truth of evolution came from a desire to justify atheism is an outright lie.

Your lie on this matter is consistent with the big lie with which you attempt and fail to justify the folderol of scripture.

States are not the same as the nation. The nation is a representative republic...no matter what each state does on its own that does not change the way the federal level operates. Read the constitution it might help you understand...

RAF, so our country hasn't changed in how it seeks to represent the citizens of this nation? Although, federally we are a republic certain states allow for direct referendums so they would in fact also be democratic. This is interesting considering the crazy right seems to see polls as the messiah, though at one time they were quick to dismiss such polls. Once again, you leave out certain facts that disagree with your myopic ideology.

Haynes' argument seems to be based on the premise that there is no political or religious influence in science. That premise is false. The history of the development of evolutionary theory shows that the theory of evolution was developed largely by atheists to strengthen their belief that there is no God. The current scandal among climatologists that support the theory that human activity is causing global warming also shows how politics negatively influences science. The premise that scientists and the science they discover are free of religious and political influences are just so much baloney.

That said, our public school systems are political systems run by people either directly elected to their jobs or appointed by elected officials. Therefore, their constituents have a right to demand that their schools reflect their prevailing opinions of how and what students should be taught. Haynes seems to be of the opinion as so many in the minority in this debate in Texas do, that since he thinks his preferences are superior, students should be taught as he thinks is appropriate regardless of what the duly elected officials and their constituents in Texas think is appropriate.

Haynes is right about one thing, though not the way he thinks he is. We should refrain from imposing political and religious agendas on the public school curriculum, both atheistic or theistic, both politically left or right. Schools are for teaching, not for indoctrinating, whether the subject is science, history or some of the more controversial subjects such as sex ed.

I found this quote from the story above to be quite revealing. "Surely Kentucky politicians know that passing a bill that would permit teachers to critique scientific theories using “other instructional materials” beyond the approved textbooks and materials opens the door to all kinds of religious claims masquerading as science. With all due respect, most legislators and school board members are not qualified to tell the difference." So if one agrees with Haynes view, only then is one is qualified to know the difference. Apparently Haynes believes that students must be shielded from whatever Haynes believes is masquerading as science and that we should just trust him and those who are like minded to decide these things for us. Whether we live in a republic or as some believe, a democracy, that's just not how things are done under majority rule. Besides, aren't the teachers who are free to present such “other instructional materials” qualified to know the difference by the state that certifies them to teach? Of course they are.

Man-made global warming hasn't been proven by any stretch of the imagination. In fact there isn't any real good evidence for it so perhaps they should stop trying to frighten school children with these tales and stop wasting research money that could otherwise be put to good use, like, say, cancer research....Saying people "evolved from a lower life form" ISN'T science, either.

" refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others."
-
How is that true? The school board did not ban teaching the constitution and bill of rights. The topic is covered in the first amendment...

"The Board struck the word “democratic” from the description of the U.S. government, instead terming it a “constitutional republic."
-
Wow, the truth is finally going to be in a text book for kids in a public school? The worst part of this, most people think our country was founded as a democratic republic...it was not, and is not today. It will be good for the education system to teach the truth.

Unfortunately, it's not just limited to science, but history and social studies. Here's a list of recent changes the Texas Board of Education have made to textbooks.

– To avoid exposing students to “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the Board struck the curriculum’s reference to “sex and gender as social constructs.”

– The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”

– The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”

– The Board struck the word “democratic” from the description of the U.S. government, instead terming it a “constitutional republic.”

If you think this would be limited to Texas textbooks, think again. As the second-largest textbook market, publishers will mold their books for all based on what Texas wants.

More at

http://thinkprogress.org/