Bryan

I've read the transcript and argued the transcript. All you're doing is posting portions of the transcipt to imply that "It's obvious!" You don't have an argument. I see this type of thing from skeptics frequently. Especially atheists, since they tend to hate bearing a burden of proof. (reference material restored by Bryan) Thank you. May I assume that we're sticking with #1 from this assortment? Go figure. That's exactly the transcript I've been referring to frequently myself. I was going to respond to each of your non-argument arguments (the quotations, that is, but I think I'll do that after the board program automatically preserves the entirety of your own argument. It's the big blank before "Here you go," after we which get a summary that could be expressed as "It's obvious!" Now your silent arguments, in the order you gave them (me taking the burden of proof that you can't shoulder): Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith. Remember I confessed that at the beginning. My point is it takes more faith that something came from nothing, than God created something out of nothing. You understand? Which religion is it that thinks that it takes more faith to believe that something came from something rather than something came from nothing? Let's just imagine for a moment that the school were teaching the reverse--that it makes perfect sense that something came from nothing and that the alternative warrants no consideration. Would that be an establishment of religion? Why or why not? Both, in fact, are (basic) philosophical positions regarding cosmology (an apparently non-repeatable event, if you like Popperian criteria with your science). I look forward to your answer, however. Teacher: Cause this is what we're being told by - well, take the big bang theory. You would have never gotten me to believe this as a little boy cause common sense would tell me that this doesn't make sense. But as we get older, I began listening to people in white labcoats who have advanced degrees, the impossible all of a sudden becomes possible. The Big Bang Theory is there was nothing out there, there was no matter. But yet nothing exploded and created something. Let me give you a clue, guys, if there's nothing - it can't explode!! And that created order. It created all of the order in the universe. How many of you have ever looked at something explode? If you can't raise a hand, did you ever see a firecracker blow up, did you ever see a fireworks show? Ever see a gun fire? Did you see the Twin Towers collapse on TV? Did any of these explosions that you've seen in all of your young life ever create order? You know what, none has ever created order in all of human history. That's observation; nobody ever recorded an explosion making order, but yet we can make this assumption about an event that occured a billion years ago that created all the order that you see. That's not scientific. There's nothing scientific about it. It sounds cool on paper. But it defies human reason. LaClaire: Um, but you say that because you have faith, that the Bible, the things written in the Bible did occur. Does that mean that if I wanted to, I could say, I have faith, that the being or the force that created this universe - Teacher: It has to be a being. LaClaire: A being. Teacher: Cause it would require intelligence; it can't be a force. LaClaire: So gravity has - gravity is a being. Teacher: No, it's a force. LaClaire: So it can be a force. Teacher: But that's not the creator, is it? You understand, gravity, because it doesn't have intelligence, can't be responsible for everything that you see. In this case, I'd say that Paszkiewicz is being a bit dogmatic (were I in his shoes I'd frame the comparison in terms of probability rather than as an absolute it can't happen without intelligence. And, if I were his boss, I'd instruct him to start teaching that way--but proselytization? May we assume that Paszkiewicz would only attempt to convert people to his own religion? This is stuff that philosophers have talked about traditionally for ages--but today it's not allowed? How would it convert a person to Christianity to acknowledge an intelligent creator? Is Deism now impossible? Theistic agnosticism? How about an attempt to put these situations through the applicable legal tests? And let's reverse the situation again. What if a teacher said unequivocally that all of the order in the universe came from (an unintelligent) nothing. Is that an establishment of religion? Why or why not? Side note: I like how LaClair, out of left field, asserts that Paszkiewicz only believes that something comes from something, in principle, because of faith in the Bible. More of your non-argument argument: Teacher: No. No, it's a good argument. Ok, you guys are following and understand, right? Because what we've established - and some of you probably disagree with what I've put on the board; that's okay, you won't be tested on it, you understand, you'll be tested on populism, not [inaudible due to a cough]. But um, my assertion to you is that evolution is based faith and creation is based on faith. And here's the difference, and it may answer your question. What the evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what Christians call faith. Christian faith - Judeo-Christian faith is a reasoned faith. Take the scriptures - I'm not just saying that there was a God - who willed the universe into existence - actually, spoke it into existence, right? I'm not just saying that at the [start of the text??]. The text is full of biblical prophecy that comes to pass. Moses writes about events that take place before his time, he writes about the [Thelassians?]. But think about the order of the events. So we have God, he speaks. He creates light, and by the 6th day creates man, all by speaking. And he has the order correct, and this is 1440 BC; he has the order correct, he starts with light and end with higher lifeforms. Moses wrote in 1440 BC, not that the Earth was created then. You know where I'm going with this. Paszkiewicz is responding to a student's question, here. And is the point the advancement of a religion? On the contrary, the argument is that evolution, as a proposition invoking unintelligent origins (which isn't necessarily the way responsible scientists or teachers teach it, but it gets presented that way frequently) is a faith-based proposition. And he goes on to illustrate from Christianity. Why not use a different religion to illustrate? I'd suggest that familiarity with Christianity is greatest among his students, making Christianity the best illustrative case. Paskiewicz should be credited with teaching that science (what might be termed Scientism, though the term is out-of-vogue these days) has a foundation in faith-based presuppositions, and that a parallel is found in competing worldviews: "What the evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what Christians call faith." Not all students learn that in public school. They are taught methodological naturalism as the default epistemology. Is that an establishment of religion? Why or why not? Yet more of the non-argument argument (if quantity substitutes for quality, you're in great shape!): Teacher: I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell, but this is the answer to your question - and I believe that because there's no mention in Genesis through Revalations of a place called Purgatory - but this is the issue: God is not only for (love??inaudible) the way he describes himself in the scriptures, he is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept me, believe!" You're a (???), you belong here. I've discussed this instance in sufficient depth already: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...744entry39744 And the last of the non-argument argument: Teacher: You know, it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is your perogative. But the way I see it is this: he's done everything in his power, so much so, that he went to a cross that I should've been - it was my sin, he was innocent! But you saw the Mel Gibson portrayal? That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being beaten off of his back. God himself sent his only son to die for days (???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it really is, then to Hell with me. I created you, I ... Hmm. You think maybe LaClair's part of the exchange is relevant? See italics (added by me). LaClaire: But if he loved the child, he would not do that to the child no matter what he did. Teacher: You know, it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is your perogative. But the way I see it is this: he's done everything in his power, so much so, that he went to a cross that I should've been - it was my sin, he was innocent! But you saw the Mel Gibson portrayal? That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being beaten off of his back. God himself sent his only son to die for days (???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it really is, then to Hell with me. I created you, I ... LaClair is presenting a universalist account of god (for the sake of argument, anyway). Paszkiewicz is providing the counterpoint. Is his primary goal the advancement of his own religion, or is it to answer the question posed by the student?

Are you quite certain you have your facts right? What's your source for that information? Here we go again. Individuals do not violate the First Amendment. Governments may. The teacher bears no personal culpability under the law. His comments were not illegal, and it should be debated whether or not the comments were inappropriate. Read the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment one right after the other and type that again. "[E]xpressly forbids." Sheesh. Man, I missed my chance to be a hero by exposing all the teachers in my past who disparaged religion. Right? Yeah, definitely read through the First Amendment and try to figure out how it "expressly forbids" speech like that used by Paszkiewicz. Allow me to help, in fact: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." They could erode completely yet still refuse to crumble? You should admit that's impressive. I guess we don't need our old religions anymore now that we have you. Tell us, O Great One, how the First Amendment forbids speech of the type uttered by Mr. Paszkiewicz. Or should we just take it on faith?

Thanks for misrepresenting my position; I love that. I've attended schools where professors suggested that various religious claims were bunk. Is that neutral? Should I have tape-recorded their lectures and sought their dismissal? I dealt with your claim that Mr. Paszkiewicz had broken the law and he should be punished for it--there simply isn't any such law. You got thumped on that topic so now you're creating an altered version of the issue to try to save face. Classy. The loophole for Paszkiewicz, if there is one, is that he was not proselytizing at all. The claim that he directed the deserving of hell statement at a student or group of students seems patently false to me after considering the evidence. He gave a standard explanation of Christianity's solution to the problem of evil to a student who asked for the explanation, after giving his personal opinion that he believed in both heaven and hell but not purgatory. Put the situation through the standard legal tests and I don't see it as a problem. Run the situation past a bunch of hypersensitive secularists and of course it's a problem.

What's the objective proof supporting that belief of yours? What do you mean by "accurate"? True? Or just reasonably applied by skeptics in conversation? If the former, you're guilty of a logical fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam, if you want to look it up). Okay; looks like the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, then. Excellent job of describing reality via a fallacy, Strife. That's baloney. Are you familiar with the "faith" chapter in 1 Corinthians? There's a list of folks mentioned in the Bible who are icons of faith. In absolutely every case, the person exercising faith had reason to expect a given outcome, based on trust in the god they has seen acting in their lives. The Bible conception of faith is, quite simply, trust. The notion of faith as "belief without evidence" only recently popular, given a substantial push by skeptics who enjoy using that description of faith as part of their effort to illicitly discredit the opposition. Think about it for a minute. If "faith" means "belief without evidence" then isn't "blind faith" a redundancy? That's would be a decent analogy if we include the fact that you're using "bastard" of a child whose parentage you simply do not know. Do you do that often? Why should we (including you) trust that it is matter of fact when your reasoning is fallacious? Wouldn't you be wise to move to agnosticism? He just nailed you on the fact that you were committing the appeal to ignorance fallacy (of the form "I know of no proof that God exists, therefore God does not exist"). He committed no fallacy, so don't even pretend otherwise. Why isn't "God doesn't exist" (for example) an X, other than via special pleading (another fallacy)? If you realize that it's a fallacy to take the lack of disproof for something as an indication of its existence, then what's stopping you from realizing that lack of proof of something is no barrier to its existence? You're committing exactly the same fallacy (by name) as the person you ridiculed. Maybe I should contact somebody to take you to task over it as harshly as you did to somebody else? Who seriously advocates the existence of any of the above? Do you take the differences in the character of the claims into account at all? Now you're just working the party line. You're not serious. When you know people who actually believe in any of the things you mentioned, it gives you a reason to believe, depending on your trust in the veracity and judgment of the believer. When a trusted friend tells you sincerely that he believes in a flying spaghetti monster, and you lack belief in the flying spaghetti monster, it is not merely an absence of belief but an active skepticism touching the veracity of your friend. You believe that the spaghetti monster does not exist; you believe that your friend is mistaken. If he is your friend and you trust him, you cannot take that as the default position in response to his claim. Why couldn't he have an absence of belief in the inferiority of your lack of faith? Likewise, why couldn't he have an absence of belief in the comparable quality of other beliefs? How can you be so arrogant as to assume otherwise, given your own declared position on the existence of god? Including your children? Or are they off-limits from your attempts to mold their beliefs on penalty of jail time for Strifey? Answer that one, please. We want to see if you're a hypocrite or not. It is not logically fallacious to prove a negative, nor to ask for proof of a negative. http://www.bloomu.edu/departments/philosop...eanegative.html Perhaps the best way to illustrate the flaw in the claim that asking for proof of a negative is fallacious is to point out that the claim itself is a negative claim (there is no proof of a negative, therefore a negative cannot be proved). Where is the proof that there is no proof of a negative? The claim is self-stultifying. Some able philosophers like Ted Drange try to offer the hard proof by demonstrating contradictions in specific conceptions of god. You find that ridiculous, too? The claim that the claim that God exists is extraordinary seems like an extraordinary claim. Do you have any?

Good point. Fire all of them. Paszkiewicz is being taken out of context in the 9-14 transcript. Are there reliable examples apart from 9-14? Based on the evidence I've seen, their immediate reaction (not doing much, if anything) was appropriate. Why do you think the teacher was proselytizing? Can you provide a definition (URL is fine) and compile evidence from Paszkiewicz's words (in context) to support the argument?

My thanks to the board administrators for expanding the utility of the quotation tags. Or at least I think it's been done--sometimes the preview shows the html tags instead of the quotation boxes, so it's hard to tell. Strife767, on Dec 26 2006, 12:08 PM, wrote: Baloney, if you're talking about the 9-14 recording. You're inferring proselytization where Paszkiewicz describes a generic Christian response to the question LaClair posed. Okay, then nothing is proselytization (your lack of argumentation in favor of bald assertion is duly noted). The sound quality for the recordings is poor, as I understand it, and I haven't located a sound file that will download for me smoothly. I've read the transcript for Sept 14, which is mentioned as apparently among the most sensational examples of egregious behavior by Mr. Paszkiewicz. It stands as a tribute to the hypersensitivity and illogic of the secularists, AFAICT. I have no evidence that he lied except for the testimony of the LaClair family. Is it unreasonable to think that they may have provided an inaccurate account, minus a corroborating version of the conversation? As for remorse, you're taking for granted that he proselytized without providing any argument in favor (I'm fully expecting the tried and true "It's obvious!" argument, if anything). Was that comment supposed to remedy the situation? Heh. You could at least say "It's obvious!" Heh. Maybe you should go talk to a Army chaplain about that one. Seriously, he wasn't preaching (and you've yet to argue otherwise beyond bald assertion), if the 9-14 recording is representative. You said that Paskewicz broke the law. You provided non-parallel cases in support of your claim. Paskiewicz can't be the first to talk about god in the classroom, can he? Find a real parallel case, champ. Yes, and? Feel free to point out the statute that makes it a crime for government employees to talk about religion while on the job. Beware arguing in a circle from the First Amendment. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said you knew more about the law than I did. Must be time to clean out the ol' earwax. And it's obviously the case that you are not the sovereign ruler of the United States, so what you say doesn't really carry much weight without some reference to the law. Why not? Have you issued a sovereign decree? 1) I don't claim that he only violated employment practice. I said that he violated the conditions of his employment at worst (along with possibly increasing the school district's chances of enduring a lawsuit). 2) I'm not claiming he should still keep his job, either. I'm just pointing out where your arguments stink. I don't know all the facts; it's possible that he did enough to warrant being fired--but I haven't seen it yet. Don't forget to have your court advisers affix your royal seal to the instruction you'll be sending to the school board. I disagree because Paszkiewicz's 9-14 words are best described as an exposition of Christian doctrine in answer to a student's question in the context of a history discussion rather than as proselytization (as I have argued in this forum), and you apparently have no argument for your position other than to insist on your conclusion--which isn't really an argument.

A Christian, on Dec 26 2006, 02:32 PM, wrote: How ironic that over the holiest of days we have all these anti-God atheists flooding KOTW with their vitriolic hate speech. There's been too much of that from both sides. Nobody should be threatening the LaClairs regardless of how misguided their actions might be. It's as if Lucifer has unleashed the dogs of hell on Mr. P. That's a bit hyperbolic (though so is the secularist reaction to this situation). I'm here to say that many people in Kearny and elsewhere support Mr. P. He commited no crime. That's correct. At worst, he violated the conditions of his employment and caused his school district to risk a lawsuit by secularists by making it appear (at least to some) guilty of violating the establishment clause. Many students in that classroom believe in Mr. P and support him, they know the goodness that lives in his heart and soul. I don't know the guy, but I suppose you may be right. And yes, we're all aware of the "separation of church and state" issues involved here. But keep in mind that rules made up by liberal courts do not carry the authority of God and Mr. P is following the laws of God as a christian. He's also well within the understanding of the First Amendment that ruled until the courts began expanding the reach of secularism via application of the Fourteenth Amendment. I urge the Bd of Ed to take no disciplinary action against Mr. P. Assuming that nothing more serious comes to light than what appears on the 9/14 transcript, and assuming that Pieszkiewicz did not go against the specific conditions of his employment, I fully agree. I recognize we need to placate the "Dogs of Hell" in Kearny so I would suggest Mr. P refrain from any talk of religion in the future. Huh? Placate, schmacate. The secularists will keep pushing until you go right out the door unless you stand fast.

Strife767, on Dec 25 2006, 03:11 PM, wrote: I fixed your tagging--you know, a closing bold tag needs an opening one. Your merit badge is in the mail. I'd have fixed it myself, given editing privileges. That would be because you've already proven just how little working knowledge you have of the First Amendment. Really. None of it would need to be repealed or reinterpreted. The First Amendment gives people the freedom to practice religion, not to tell people what to believe. That includes children. Did you skip your government classes, or what? The Constitution doesn't give out freedoms. The Constitution give the government the responsibility for preserving inherent freedoms while restricting the government from infringing on those freedoms. When you have a kid, you can get him to believe about Santa Claus, and the government cannot throw you in jail for it--not until your don't getting the First Amendment reinterpreted your way. After that, maybe they can lock you up for spreading tales about a jolly old elf (to children!). People under the age of majority should not have to deal with indoctrination from their parents or any other figures of authority--if they want to believe in some religion or another, they can make that decision on their own once they are old enough to: 1. Realize that there are more religions out there than one's parents' (most parents will quite happily make their children feel like it's either their religion or no religion--in fact, I've seen several Christian fundamentalists equate all other religions with atheism!). 2. Make an informed, responsible decision about what they want to believe. The fact that people like you like to pretend that atheism/agnosticism/secular humanism is a religion (likely because being religious, it's hard to imagine people who aren't religious at all, so the mind tends to want to assign them a religion, even if it isn't there--the same kind of thinking that assigns genders to inanimate objects) is irrelevant. Tell me how you define religion, and I'll have you agreeing with me after about three more exchanges (assuming that you can shake your earlier habit of dodging questions). Children should not be forced to participate in their parents' religious rituals, and they _especially_ should not be led to believe that _any_ religion has any kind of factual foundation--I hate it when people pretend their beliefs are not beliefs, but irrefutable fact. Is it an irrefutable fact that the beliefs of others are not irrefutable fact? Or is that just a belief of yours that you want the government to enforce? You see, I wouldn't have a problem with parents telling their kids (still against forcing them to participate or be present at rituals etc., though) about their religions, if only they would keep things in the proper context. But it is rarely the case that a parent tells a child "this is what I believe" when they explain their religion. A child is much more likely to hear "this is what is." That is damaging to the impressionable child's developing sense of reality, especially when they eventually are taught something in school that directly contradicts some teaching or another of the religious "facts" they've been taught at home. Why put a child through that? Because it is unavoidable in practical terms. That's why. Solipsism, for example, is unfalsifiable. You think you can bring up a child without discouraging his budding belief in solipsism? This is my opinion, Yeah, that's what I thought it was. but I dare say that religious indoctrination does to a child's developing sense of reality what adult/child sex does to a child's developing sexuality. Put your torches down, I am not drawing a parallel with child molestation--it's a metaphor. Religious indoctrination does the same kind of damage to a different part of the child. And you have placed your mountain of evidence where? Oh, that's right--it's your opinion. Your opinion that you want the government to enforce by keeping opinions contrary from yours away from the precious children. No hypocrisy there, no. In conclusion, I realize that parents would like to see their kids 'follow in their footsteps' in matters of faith. Parents also often want their kids to grow up into either their careers, or 'high-end' careers they unsuccessfully aspired to. But just because you want it, doesn't mean you have the right to impose it on your child. He/she is an individual and a human being, not a crafts project for you to mold however you like. Explain again how the First Amendment prevents me from imposing my belief in, say, the existence of an external reality apart from my child's mind (for example)? (your sarcasm is terrible) You probably would have ignored it if it didn't connect. Listen, I realize just how precious child indoctrination is to fundies--without it, your numbers would shrivel up to negligible amounts within a generation or two. Tell that to the Soviet Union. Don't think I don't know how you guys work--I was born and raised on the inside of that 'little' scheme (I wish it was merely "little"). There's still time for you to start reading Plantinga and such and realize the error of your ways. As much as I'm used to counter-arguments to this like "well, it's MY kid!" my answer is always the same: ethically, and morally, if not legally (yet), there are just some things that are just NOT in the best interest of the child. Forcing your religious beliefs onto them is one of them, imho. Simple as that. You've refuted your own argument, simple as that. Earlier, you assured me that no reinterpretation of the Constitution was needed to make indoctrinating children against the Constitution. Now you're admitting that it's not illegal ("yet"). Why didn't you just wave the white flag at the beginning instead of wasting all those words?

oneellama, on Dec 25 2006, 08:42 PM, wrote: Outrageous! Unbelievable! To the contrary, I think his argument is astoundingly weak, and got massively weaker with each post on this thread. You're going to leave your opinion as a stand-in for the reasoning behind the opinion? From any logical point of view, he opened the door with his last statement to being checkmated on his own argument. How would the statement about the "loony left" open the door to a checkmate of the argument, specifically? I am distressed and dismayed at your response. Where do YOU think the teacher's comments fall, on a spectrum from simply "mentioning you're going to have your son baptized" through a multi-day, full-class-period, proselytizing effort? How aware were YOU that students have known about these goings on for years, and some have alleged he has been repeatedly warned about it, including written warnings? We're going to judge the case on hearsay? What's the source of the allegations regarding written warnings? How can you possibly lend support to a post that compares the Establishment Clause to discussing a Super Bowl game??? Huh? Get serious. The post did not compare those two things. Can it possibly be true that you are really a board of education member??? Can it be you do not recognize that an argument based on saying you can't "forbid all conversations outside the lesson plan" is light-years away from what transpired in that classroom??? Is it? Review this post by a helpful person posting as "Guest." http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...pic=3316&st=20# I have tried on this blog to be a vote for patience and rational thinking, and I have been unsettled by the confrontational aspects of many of the posts. I reserved opinion on whether Mr. LaClair should file a First Amendment lawsuit, assuming that the Board would be reading the arguments presented here and elsewhere, and recognize the seriousness of the allegations and the importance of a reasoned response. But if your post is a reflection of the thinking of the Board, forget patience. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. LaClair should file the papers tomorrow. You are an embarassment to your office! And if the community majority is of the same mind and does not condemn your level of inanity, then -- that's EXACTLY why we have the Establishment Clause, EXACTLY why we have the courts, and EXACTLY why I would give Mr. LaClair my full support in calling you, the teacher, and the rest of the administration to account. Just a moment ago, you were making the ridiculous statement that 2smart's post compared casual conversation to the Establishment Clause. Take some time to regain your perspective.

Strife767, on Dec 25 2006, 03:23 PM, wrote: The recordings are publicly available. Anyone who would seriously suggest an "out of context" argument in light of that deserves some ridicule ("attacked?" come on, now) and parody. You're saying that since recordings are publicly available, therefore nobody making comments on these discussion boards could have taken Paszkiewicz's statements out of context? Are you serious, or was your initial "lol" meant to convey the hilarity of what you wrote subsequently? He brought it on himself (if he's really a lawyer, then all the more reason to make fun of his incompetence ) by broadcasting his ignorance of the situation. Heh. You really don't think that anyone has taken Paszkiewicz's statements out of context, then?

Guest, on Dec 26 2006, 09:36 AM, wrote: The teacher, David Paszkiewicz, has missed an opportunity to deliver perhaps the finest spiritual lesson of his life. Instead, he has given a lesson in all the things a true follower of God --- in any faith tradition, including atheism, where God might be defined as the highest good --- should not do. When the student informed his bosses about his conduct, he should have told the truth, and humbly recognized the integrity of the student's conduct. Instead, he tried to blame the student, thinking the other students in the class would side with him. Moral failure number one. So, you're familiar with the specifics of the conversation that took place in the administrative offices? Or are you just accepting the LaClair account at face value without corroboration? When the student called him to account for his own words at a meeting in the principal's office, he denied that he had said what he obviously said. In short, he lied, and he tried to intimidate and bully the student with his power and position to have his way. He had no concern for a student who was only doing the right thing, or for the truth. Moral failure number two. You were in office, then? When the student was threatened and attacked by fellow students and members of the community, Paszkiewicz had a moral obligation to speak out on his behalf, telling his followers that he would not have this student attacked in his name. Instead, he remained silent while this student carried his sins for him. This sounds very much like a story we've all heard from the Christian narrative. Moral failure number three. So, you've kept close tabs on Paszkiewicz such that you confirm his continued silence regarding death threats and whatnot directed at LaClair? Somehow, I doubt it.

Funny stuff, there, "Guest." You might as well be saying that your mind's made up and you can't be bothered with the evidence. The Constitution does not forbid the expression of religious opinions in class. If it did, then you should be promptly asking yourself what constitutes a "religious" opinion (good luck pinning that down). Not a bad question to ask yourself in any case.

Guest (aka Paul LaClair?), on Dec 24 2006, 03:03 AM, wrote: While you may have spent years studying theology, evidently you haven't spent any time studying science, or you wouldn't have made the statements above. Non sequitur. I'm precisely right, and the Evo-wiki site link I provided (they're evolutionists) backs me (as did post #135 by Glen Tarr ("anything could be considered the center of the universe"). And I could draw on plenty more. What about you? "[A]nything" includes supposedly accelerating objects. Without a non-relative stationary point, your argument is futile (so good luck with that). Position is relative, but non-uniform motion is not. Says who? If position is relative, then two objects whose position in relation to one another changes in a non-uniform manner may still be described in terms of either object being the fixed stationary point. And as long as we're talking about whether the sun is revolving around the earth or not, we are talking about non-uniform motion since acceleration is involved. In this case, science can (and has) absolutely prove by experiments that the earth is moving and is not stationary. That's utter baloney, and you're wise to post it anonymously (Paul?). And by the way to get more technical, it's not that the Earth is moving around the Sun, it's that both the Sun and the Earth is moving around the center of gravity between the sun and the earth. Can you think of any reason why it should have been necessary to tell me that? Sift through my every post and you'll find nothing that says otherwise. I simply correctly noted that the choice between the paradigms of the past (geocentrism v. heliocentrism) was decided according to the principle of parsimony, with the simpler explanation the one preferred. And of course you'd also need to add into consideration all the other planets and other celestial bodies. It gets very complex very quickly, but the essence is this: scientists did not pick the current view of the universe over the Earth-centric belief out of "parsimony" but becuase it offers the best explanation of the empirical data. You're nothing if not stubborn. See page 8. http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~dla/occam'...final_draft.pdf Your quote of an article from something called "Creationwiki" to try to prove a scientific point is laughable. That's like quoting Anne Coulter on Evolution. You didn't bother to notice that they affirmed agreement with Talk.origins on the point, eh? You do not recognize Fred Hoyle as a proper authority on the dynamics of motion? Granted, I intended to choose a source toward which you would be partial, but that's little excuse for your apparent laziness. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH910.html "All local frames of reference are equally valid – there is no way to choose a class of preferred frames of reference with which to formulate the laws of nature." http://www.physics.smu.edu/~kehoe/1301S06/Ch4Relativity.pdf

Strife767 wrote: Remind me again--was it an atheist or a Christian who was condemning high school students to hell? Neither, but thanks for the fallacy of the false dilemma. What attacks? Calling for his dismissal and calling his words proselytization without the benefit of a strong supporting argument, for example. Wow, how amazingly ignorant can one be? We see your demonstration below. "It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)("[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all"); see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-94, 598-602 (1989); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961). Please read up on these cases at least before you make more of a fool of yourself. Wallace v Jaffree: Ruled a state law unconstitutional. What New Jersey law is unconstitutional in this case? County of Allegheny v ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter: Enjoined a county government from a specific practice. What government practice is to be enjoined in this case and why (feel free to try an application of the Lemon test)? Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock: Found a state law unconstitutional. What New Jersey law is unconstitutional in this case? Torcaso v. Watkins: Found a test for office administered by the state of Maryland unconstitutional (the test was in Maryland's constitution). What aspect of New Jersey's law is unconstitutional in this case? You couldn't find a truly similar case, eh? As you can see in the court cases above, it obviously does not take something as grand as a Congress-passed law to violate the First Amendment. And doesn't that strike you as the least bit strange, given the wording of the First Amendment? The Fourteenth Amendment broadens the application of the Constitutional to other levels of government (as I've already mentioned elsewhere). At what level do you find Paszkiewicz? Actually, it's just you that needs to inform yourself. Because you're too lazy to even try? You offered me a bunch of examples of government breaking the first amendment through practice (a religion-specific creche) and legislation. The creche case had the Lemon test applied to it. You haven't lifted a finger (AFAICT) to apply the tines of the Lemon test to this case. Have you? So, you're dodging the question while supposing that you need to educate me about stuff I already know. Why don't you just answer the question, instead? Religious preaching is not allowed in governmental institutions nor by governmental employees while they are "on the clock." End of story--it's a shame that a 22 year-old who hates legalese understands the law better than you do. It is very improbable that you know that law better than I do. Religious preaching is not allowed in government institutions nor by governmental employees, but the prohibition is not by statute. In other words, there's no law against it. It's an employment practice that government employers engage in so that the government will not risk lawsuit. Paszkiewicz didn't break the law. End of story. What's ironic is the fact that, had the teacher been atheist and the student Christian, the reaction by people like you would be exactly opposite. That is, it would be ironic (to me), did I not already know how fundies and their apologists work. Huh. You dodged another question. Is that how you customarily work? Religious preaching is not allowed in governmental institutions nor by governmental employees while they are "on the clock." End of story--it's a shame that a 22 year-old who hates legalese understands the law better than you do. Don't confuse the employee handbook with the law of the land. They're not the same thing. Oh man, this is cute. *laughs* What exactly are you trying to do with this statement, make it sound like the First Amendment isn't a law? Just trying to illustrate to you that an individual cannot break the First Amendment, thus individuals are not legally culpable for violations church/state separation (among other things). The way you dodge questions, however, I'm having to spell out the answers letter-by-letter for you instead of allowing you to figure it out for yourself. Answer: First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause. Bzzt. Wrong answer. Only because of your astonishing ignorance to the law. You should read the First Amendment sometime. Maybe it will begin to open your eyes about a few things. Now a question for you--why exactly have you ignored all of the successful court cases against similar actions and avoided realizing just how obvious this violation is? Be specific. Because nobody had presented any until this answer by you--and still nobody has shown a similar case (an individual's words breaking the law where the words were not somehow mandated by government action), nor how an individual can break the law in terms of the First Amendment. See, that's how you answer a question. Try it sometime.

ElneClare, on Dec 24 2006, 12:22 PM,wrote: That someone raised to think for oneself would take their side against Mr. Paskiewicz seems to upset more of his defenders, then those who defend the Separation of Church and State are over their Right to Believe in God. May there never be a conflict between those rights. Time after time it is made clear that one has a right to belie[ve] anything one wants, but one does not have a right to use a government position, to try to preach their beliefs on others. Agreed. It is a reasonable employment policy (including government agencies) to prohibit proselytizing--but it should never be against the law. Those who are claiming that the teacher broke the law seem a bit unhinged on that point. The portions of the transcripts I've seen so far (particularly the Sept 14 transcript) do not appear to me to constitute proselytization. It is appropriate for the LaClairs to complain about anything they wish, however, including an emphasis on religious talk, but that doesn't necessarily mean that proselytizing took place. It's up to the school board to make that determination and set policy. It's up to the local voter (not me, in this case) to encourage or discourage the actions of the school board. Because they felt that having in the U.S.A. Freedom of Religion, our founding fathers carefully worded the Constitution to keep the government from endorsing any religion over another. What gets me is the constancy of illogical posts made for Free Speech. In defending Mr. Paskiewicz right to say anything at all in his classroom, they forget that while we all have a right to voice our beliefs, the courts have place limits on where speaking out is not allow. The classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a theater. They can't see how talking about one beliefs in the class room by an teacher, could have a negative effect on students who need to attend the class to fulfil legal requirements for a High School Diploma. Yelling "Fire!" in a theater falls under the "clear and present danger" test. Good luck establishing that legal principle against Paszkiewicz's actions. Just a hint: Bribe the judges with an offer they can't refuse if you want to win that one. http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~drechsel/j...gs/Briefing.pdf No matter how many holes, one finds in their arguments, they keep coming back and use the same Logical Fallacies, time after time. What would you call the fallacy of using the wrong legal justification for forbidding the teacher's actions in this case? Some how I have a feeling many of these posters would tell a victim of Bullying on the playground, to "Be a Man" and "Learn to live with it." Never realizing the long term effects to the victim, that later in life may affect their mental health and adding to the cost of medical care in this country. Uh, you're not saying that LaClair is a bullying victim, are you? Exactly what type of victim is he? His right of _______ has been abridged? Some of the worst posts I read are listed under Guest and neither side can take the high ground when it comes to the attacks made by anonymous posts. Why I can understand not wanting to take the time to fill in the name or sign in every time one posts, one can also expect to have others discount one's views for doing so. Fair enough. I've posted a couple of times as "Guest" by failing to log in. I've noticed that Paul LaClair has had that happen at least once as well. OTOH, I wasn't attacking others so much as making arguments.

Strife767, on Dec 23 2006, 11:36 PM wrote I look forward to the day when everyone realizes they don't need to create a God to believe in to make life worth living. ...I also look forward to the day when the cycle of brainwashing stops (compare the # of new Christians (just an example) who "join" the religion because their parents raised them into it vs. the # of born-agains--there is quite a difference). I think it's abusive to, whether or not one realizes it, attack an impressionable child's sense of reality and critical thinking by injecting all of these illogical and unfounded ideas about God and such into their heads before they've really gotten a chance to experience reality. I think it harms them--I don't think "freedom of religion" should excuse that, and that it should be as illegal as spanking one's child. That would be the biggest step, I think, toward removing this useless mysticism and superstition from the lives of modern human beings of the 21st century. I just can't see why anyone would cling to millenia-old superstitions like that... Sorry, just a little rant. *chuckles*[/b] Sounds like you're prepared to repeal part of the First Amendment (or at least get it reinterpreted to the point that it utterly fails to resemble what the authors seem to have intended it to mean. Way to stand up for the Constitution, there!

Manhattanite, on Dec 20 2006, 05:45 AM, wrote: Thank you Paul and Matt for standing up for what is right. This country has been overrun by religious zealotry for far too long. It's unbelievable that in 2006 that we're still debating issues like this. Are we heading back to the days of the Scopes Monkey Trial? What do you know about the Scopes trial, other than what you remember from "Inherit the Wind"? And to all of Matt's detractors- What Mr. P. did was a direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Given that Paszkiewicz is not Congress, and given that the First Amendment does little more touching religion than restrict Congress from passing legislation that either prohibits the exercise of religion or establishing a religion, how can Paskiewicz directly violate the First Amendment? Judging from some of the ridiculously juvenile personal attacks that I've seen on this discussion board that may[ ]be too difficult for you to understand. So I'll make it a bit more simple- Mr. P. broke the law. And he should be made to answer for his actions. What's the standard penalty for breaking the First Amendment, assuming that's the law to which you refer?

Guest, on Dec 24 2006, 03:29 AM, wrote: As usual, the christofundies are completely missing the point. Mmmm. Feel the love. The most direct point of comparison seemed to be the idea of mob mentality. No? The personal religious beliefs of Mathews and Rosa are totally irrelevant. The point is that both Mathew and Rosa stood up to protect the Consitution against attacks from christofundy and racist mobs respectively. The attacks on Paszkiewicz are okay, though. Right? When the so-called teacher preached to a roomful of captive students inside a public school classroom funded by the government during work hours paid for by the government, he violated the First Amendment. How, exactly? The First Amendment bars Congress from passing laws that restrict the practice of religion, or from passing laws that would establish a religion. If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation. Evidently you see the First Amendment as a law against Paskiewicz' ability to practice free speech in combination with his religion in the context of his job. Isn't that a bit ironic? When Jim Crow laws forced Rosa to give up her seat to a White passenger, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. So yes, the parallel is obvious. Except that there is a law in question in the case of Rosa Parks, while in the present instance it is alleged that Paszkiewicz' actions somehow violate the First Amendment. What's the standard jail time for breaking the First Amendment, BTW? And no, Mathew (as far as I can tell) and I do not have a problem with god. What we do have a problem with is people breaking the law. Get it? Maybe I've missed the answer, but I've asked for someone to specify the law that Paskiewicz supposed broke. I've yet to see an answer. Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment. So, what law was it? Be specific.

Lawyer Bob made the good point that accusations should stem from a thorough knowledge of the situation (and he had the impression, rightly or wrongly, that some did not have all of the details). Lawyer Bob was perfectly respectful with his point, in my humble opinion. If you want to see the type of thing people for some reason today call "hatred" just have a look at the responses to Lawyer Bob, where he is ridiculed, attacked, and unfairly parodied.

oneellama, on Dec 24 2006, 04:21 AM, wrote (i've put it in green):

What law did the teacher break, please? Be as specific as you are able.

Guest (aka Paul LaClair), on Dec 23 2006, 11:07 AM, wrote: [Paul] Here we go again. The tired old free speech argument on behalf of a teacher. It does not apply. He is an employee hired to do a job. Rewind, there, kiddo. You asked in what situations that language would be appropriate in an apparently open-ended way. I took it that you were removing consideration of the Kearny context and replied accordingly. I was building my point. Based on your acceptance of free speech (you failed to affirm your belief in it, for some reason), we have a good basic argument that this type of speech is appropriate. My argument had nothing to do with justifying the teacher's actions in the classroom. I was simply answering the broad issue as you had presented it. Straw man argument, counselor. The law is that he must not express his religious opinions in a public school. No, the law is that the government may not pass a law establishing religion. Unless the state of New Jersey has some really bizarre laws. Can I trust you to cite the statute to which you refer? Others have stated the reasons for this many times throughout these topics. As an attorney, I can't start spouting my political opinions during a trial. That's not a violation of my free speech; it goes with the job. I expect you want to avoid being cited for contempt of court--and your client might be concerned if you appear to lose your focus on his or her case. Your analogy is strained absent the statute that the teacher is supposedly flaunting; as for the school, of course they should be interested in the way Mr. Paszkiewicz conducts his class (but let's not beg the question). I had written: "So maybe you question whether it is moral/ethical to use such language? Well, if it were true, would it be appropriate? If it were true of a point-of-view that was illustrated, would it be appropriate? If there were circumstances that might alter the way the phrase was understood, such as within an understanding of Christian theology where God does no will that anyone should experience hell, but that state would be necessary because of a rejection of Jesus, would that be appropriate?" It's the same thing dressed up in fancier language. It's equally inappropriate. No, it's exactly the same language dressed up in different circumstances, in answer to your query about what circumstances would be appropriate (and, indeed, offered in the form of questions for your consideration--but apparently you misunderstood a bit). Morality and ethics are relative to context. However, they are grounded in the nature of being human. If you define your term, I can better answer your question. Don't let me stop you from providing an explanation in standard terms with your concern over my term (because it's not really my term). http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/relativi.htm The 9/14 transcript, available at several places on line, is not partial. Great, because that's the one that I read. Here's what you wrote (apparently in reference to the 9-14 discussion?): "To be clear, the statement was that if you do not accept Jesus, then you belong in hell. By hell, the teacher meant a place or state of eternal and unremitting torment in a fire that burns but never consumes. (This was made clear during the in-class discussion.)" Here's a link to the transcript: http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html Here's the way the transcript reads (with some context): Teacher: I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell, but this is the answer to your question - and I believe that because there's no mention in Genesis through Revalations of a place called Purgatory - but this is the issue: God is not only for (love??inaudible) the way he describes himself in the scriptures, he is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept me, believe!" You're a (???), you belong here. LaClaire: But would you still do that to your child? If your child disagreed with you, if your child let's say, lied to you about something very important, and you were very angry at them for the moment. Would you throw your child in a burning oven for eternity? Teacher: No I wouldn't, but neither does God. Because we disagree with God on many issues, and we're treated like we're all his children, and he does things to try and draw us back. But we can't disagree with him on salvation. Either he paid the price or he didn't - if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong. It's a pity we've got a "(???)" at such a critical point, isn't it? It looks like he's factually describing Christian doctrine (an aspect of history) rather than directing the comment at any individual (plural "you" in keeping with the preceding "we"). So, Paul, you said that the comment about belonging in hell was ethically and morally wrong. Why? Again, it appears that Paszkiewicz presented a perspective--potentially relevant to a history course--on Christian doctrine, and the latter portion, at the very least, was in response to a student's participation in the discussion. You're right. My mistake was in making too categorical a statement. Just as this culture promotes theism, we could become a culture that discourages it. Some steps have been taken to move the culture toward rejection of theism. Is it wrong for theists to resist those steps, in principle? To that extent he, did, but it's still a violation of law. Engel v. Vitale specifically holds that the students' consent does not matter. They are a captive audience, and many may feel reluctant to object. Agree or disagree, that is the law. Engel v. Vitale concerned the enactment of a state law mandating the reading of a prayer composed by state officials. The law was held unconstitutional (and could only be found so according to the First Amendment in light of the Fourteenth Amendment). The teacher in this case is not a law that may be found unconstitutional. In many other ways, he was not respectful at all. Given that there were many ways that he was not respectful at all, you should have an easy time pointing to one specific example (best if it's from an easily verifiable source, like the Sept 14 transcript). In addition, he was dogmatic, and he interrupted to students to push his views as the authority figure, on matters completely outside the curriculum and intensely personal. There was nothing respectful about that. You have the transcript available. Match some quotations to your claims, because I think your case is thin. What has saved us, I think, is our respect for other points of view and our willingness to put religion aside in the public square. If we respect other points of view, why then do we put aside religion in the public square? It's almost as though religious points of view cannot be respected, therefore they are not welcome in the public square. The barren public square is hostile to religion, is it not? Why isn't a civil public square sufficient to secure freedom and democracy? The Framers gave us perhaps the most brilliant and enduring document in human history, and for quite a long while we have followed it, not perfectly, but in the main. Paszkiewicz and tens of millions of others who share the hard-line theistic viewpoint are trying to destroy that. Paul, the U.S. Constitution was constructed based on the presumption that basic morality was common to all religions (atheism wasn't a serious idea in their time, FWIW). They took what was held in common (spelled out in the Declaration of Independence) and crafted the constitution in light of that understanding, since it represented the path to unity. Today, it has become apparent that formerly self-evident truths are no longer self-evident. You can't respect every view equally where views have little in common with one another. Chaos results. Historically, it has been the willingness of theists (including deists) to focus on what they held in common to achieve national unity--a basis for uniting the states. Take away the common ground and you place the whole experiment at risk. If they succeed, they will destroy our democracy. They might destroy the a multicultural democracy that you have in mind, but that democracy is not the historical U.S. democracy. The historical U.S. democracy grew out of specifically theistic roots, touching their understanding of universal morality. The society welcomed (at its best) any who were willing to work within those parameters, so that's why Roman Catholics and Jews found emigration to the U.S., on balance, a good experience (both groups experienced significant mistreatment at times). When a nation welcomes its ideological enemies (doing nothing to perpetuate the common ground), it sows the seeds of its own destruction. They don't. The courts have been very careful to watch that line. No, they haven't, and Roe v. Wade is an excellent example contrary to your claim. There was insufficient popular support for legalizing abortion-on-demand, so the court crafted the law it wanted by finding it (surprise!) in the Constitution. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has criticized the legal reasoning behind that decision. Obviously, I am not a moral relativist as you define that term. It is appropriate where there are good grounds to believe it is true. If you were a sadomasoschist, wouldn't you be morally obligated to give others a good beating based on the Golden Rule? IOW, it's not obvious that you're not a moral relativist. There are hints that you're inconsistent, but that's common to moral relativists (not that I necessarily believe that you see yourself as a moral relativist).

Glen Tarr, on Dec 23 2006, 01:14 PM, wrote: And what do you think that metaphysical foundation is? Metaphysical naturalism, as I mentioned in the post to which you replied ("In practice the metaphysics get discussed in science class, but to the exclusion of everything that does not contribute to science (that is, metaphysical naturalism)"). This doesn’t make linguistic sense to me. Are you saying the criticisms assume the Bible passages are literally true but colored by the culture in which they were written? Not exactly. I'd say that modern criticism provides the tools for more accurate literal interpretation. Bible criticism doesn't go for making broad assumptions, though the principle of according the author the benefit of the doubt might count as a type of assumption. Bellarmine thought that the earth established a stationary reference frame according to which everything revolved around the earth. Copernicus (and Gallileo and Newton) threw out the idea of the earth as the center of the universe, but kept the objectively verifiable reference frame. Einstein showed that there is no such objectively verifiable frame, so anything could be considered the center of the universe. Copernicus was more correct than Bellarmine, and Einstein was more correct than Copernicus. That’s science, and scientific progress. You've made a play at answering my question, but it seems you evaded it in favor of making a separate point. Though you didn't evade it to the extent Paul did, so I guess I should be thankful. Intelligence can be demonstrated (depending on how it’s defined), it just can’t yet be completely explained. I'd be completely delighted if you would share at least one instance of intelligence demonstrated scientifically. Neither can religion explain it. Why do you say that? Appeal to silence, or appeal to some hitherto unknown principle? If the latter, please share. As for whether Paszkiewicz had a choice, he did to the extent that anyone does. He knew or should have known he was acting illegally and unethically, and he did so anyway. Do you realize the absurdity of saying "should have" in a causally determined universe, Glen? It’s likely his decision was determined, at least in part, by the assumption that he wouldn’t be caught, or that he could lie his way out of it if he were caught, or that nothing would happen to him even if he couldn’t lie his way out. If that asumption is shown to be false, then he and others like him are less likely to have their actions swayed by it in the future. Death penalty, then? You've missed the point (perhaps intentionally?) about causal determinism, it seems. I had written: "Why is there a "science" class that (supposedly) excludes the metaphysical notions not required for science, but no class to discuss the metaphysical notions? In practice the metaphysics get discussed in science class, but to the exclusion of everything that does not contribute to science (that is, metaphysical naturalism). Is that a proper education?" True. Many people also don’t bother to distinguish between microgravity (which makes apples fall) and macrogravity (which guides the motions of planets and stars). Metaphysical naturalism is the idea that everything is governed by natural laws and nothing can be beyond such laws. Methodological naturalism is the idea that science should proceed in its methods by assuming a phenomenon is produced by natural laws, unless there is evidence to the contrary. What makes you think high school science classes teach the former rather than the latter? There can be no evidence to the contrary, Glen. Modern science refuses to countenance contrary evidence. The metaphysical framework doesn't change. If Uri Gellar were to really bend spoons with his mind, science would work to explain the phenomenon using natural law (keeping to a framework of metaphysical naturalism). Barring an examination of the metaphysical underpinnings of science (and a comparison with the metaphysical alternatives), the teaching of methodological naturalism becomes an implicit indoctrination in metaphysical naturalism. I can’t speak for Paul, but I’d argue that Constitutionally and ethically (under an ethical system based on the Golden Rule) it’s bad for the government to treat some citizens as privileged just because of their religious beliefs. 1) Is an ethical system based on the Golden Rule a religious belief, or no? 2) Who is being privileged in this case owing to his religious beliefs? I also think that many with “hard-line theistic modes of thought” often don’t agree with that. Hence the need for discussion. Should the "Golden Rule" be the government's standard of justice? Isn't that an establishment of religion, disrespecting LaVey Satanists (among others)? Obviously there are problems on both sides of the fence. Discussions such as this can help with that too. We can hope.

Guest, on Dec 23 2006, 10:44 AM wrote: It defines truth from an epistemological standpoint, which is perfectly appropriate. What does it mean to define truth from an epistemological standpoint, other than to say that truth is spoken of probabilistically rather than as an epistemic certainty? It is the definition most consistent with the scientific method. Okay, but why is that significant given that theological truth is perfectly compatible with epistemic certainty or a probabilitistic acceptance of truth? Paul was trying to establish some sort of contrast, wasn't he? Is it too much to assume that he has trying to make a point? Perhaps neither of us should. It can begin with either observation or hypothesis. Try to offer a hypothesis without any initial observation sometime. http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/.../AppendixE.html http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Not...000000000000000 Many argue, with good reason, that theism begins with a wish. And what is that good reason(s)? I had written: "Science itself (as Mr. Paszkiewicz correctly pointed out) rests on a metaphysical foundation that is itself beyond its ability to test." There is a grain of truth in this argument, but only a grain as Paszkiewicz presented it. Science has produced a vast body of data and applications, which have created a completely different way of living, including our ability to communicate with each other via this medium. Paszkiewicz was talking to high schoolers. In that context he did a nice job, I think. It's not just a grain of truth, either. Naturalistic presupposition is not necessary to the advancement of science and technology. Postmodernists who don't even bother with a firm idea of "truth" will prove adept enough at advancing technology regardless of the presuppositions of traditional science. The suggestion that science is limited to metaphysics, as theology is, is just wrong. That observation might be relevant if you could identify who made the claim and how. Science has a metaphysical foundation. That is inarguable (though I'll enjoy it if you try). It might uncover an absolute truth, and then again (in specific instances) it might not. The problem with what Paszkiewicz did is not that there isn't a grain of truth in it anywhere, but that it is so skewed toward his desired end as to be not only pedagogically valueless, but harmful. Can you describe the alleged harm? I was referring to the entire argument of the hard-line theist. Okay, so you must be Paul posting without having logged in first. That entire theology is based on a premise of knowing "for sure" the ultimate and definitive answers to questions that reasonable people realize we cannot definitively answer. I've studied Christianity and religion for years and I've never heard of such a thing (or perhaps I just have an unclear idea of what you're talking about). Who advocates that theology (quotations or citations would be nice)? We've ignored a lot. How long a post would you like me to write? Enough to avoid the appearance of a false dichotomy? I was taking you seriously until now. You're suggesting that it can't be proved that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Of course it can, and it has been. You've been snookered if you believe that. You must not understand the nature of science. Position in the universe is relative, Paul. That means, in practice, you can take any point in the universe and call it the center with all of the movements taking place around that arbitrary point. That includes the planet we're on. As I mentioned previously, we prefer to center the movements around the greater masses (such as the sun) because it is more parsimonious--but no suggested center of movement can be falsified by science. Bank it. http://creationwiki.org/Relativity_shows_geocentrism_is_true Good science is not taught as dogma. When was the last time you took a science class?? Good science begins with the underlying premise that science is a constant process of learning, and that even the most widely accepted theories are subject to change as we gain more information. Your ah-ha! moment overlooks the nature of science. Newsflash, Paul: Science instructors routinely overlook the idealized science you've got in mind. Based on the data we have, however, and the many applications of that data in fields like medicine, giving students anything less than a thorough grounding in evolutionary theory would be irresponsible. Who has suggested otherwise? Perhaps you should say specifically what you understand "grounding" to mean. Yes I am. They are rigid and are essentially unconcerned with reality. That seems like a rigid view for you to take. Does it accord with reality? They are essentially grounded in wishes, which are then projected out as ultimate reality. That is a very harmful mode of thinking, and the results of it are demonostrably disastrous. So when do we get the merest shred of demonstration?

That's a topic that interests me as well. All truth is eternal, whether religious or scientific. Calling a truth "provisional" simply makes "truth" mean something different than it normally means. Put simply, a scientific "truth" such as Haeckel's recapitulation idea is the equivalent of a falsehood (unless it surprises everyone by turning out to be true after all). Science begins with observation (otherwise there's nothing about which to hypothesize), but I suppose I shouldn't quibble. Theism begins with philosophy, otherwise there's no foundation for the doctrines and dogmas. One should expect theism to differ from science, since theism touches issues that science cannot address. Science itself (as Mr. Paszkiewicz correctly pointed out) rests on a metaphysical foundation that is itself beyond its ability to test. To that extent, science is based on faith. I remember hearing about a book that described how some of science's greatest achievements came from scientists who ran afoul of the scientific method in that manner. If only we could have stopped them sooner! Suffice it to say the scientific method isn't so rigid as some believe. It has hardly any rules that cannot be broken. It is recognized that every Popperian criterion has exceptions in real science. Well, there's a parallel in theology. Roman Catholic doctrines certainly develop over time, and the Trinitarian dogma developed after the time of Jesus. Well, if somebody was right about everything from the start, we should grant, there's not much point in growing. Is it too much to hope for a specific example of a "hard-line theistic argument" that illustrates your description? Paul, you've completely ignored about a full century of textual criticism that takes the Bible literally while also taking various aspects of the text such as genre. Copernicus' idea is unfalsifiable, by the way. Science cannot prove that the relationship is not the reverse. It is the principle of parsimony that encourages us to prefer the simpler explanation. Is that science? For me, the interesting thing is that intelligence is something that cannot be demonstrated by the type of science you affirm, Paul. That's why those such as Dennett end up partial to using causal determinism to explain human thought. Clarence Darrow grasped that issue firmly and used it very successfully in his defense of accused murderers. I wonder how you see it in your law practice? Is it silly to prosecute people for doing what cannot help doing? You act like Paszkiewicz has a choice in the way he teaches ... are you sure you wish to recommend Dennett's book? http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/...cus/Elbows.html Many people do not bother to distinguish between "evolution" as the reproductive isolation of subspecies and "evolution" as common descent, either. Most people take "proof" in the hard sense of undeniability rather than in the looser sense of supported by substantial evidence. Why is there a "science" class that (supposedly) excludes the metaphysical notions not required for science, but no class to discuss the metaphysical notions? In practice the metaphysics get discussed in science class, but to the exclusion of everything that does not contribute to science (that is, metaphysical naturalism). Is that a proper education? So! You admit that evolution could be false! No? What the hey! Let's teach it like a dogma anyway! But you're not saying that the "hard-line theistic modes of thought" are bad, are you? Because we should question in what types of circumstances a statement like that could be ethically/morally uttered ... right? It's those religious people, right? Just say it. We know that's what you're thinking. They are so bigoted, aren't they? I read a post earlier today by a self-described atheist who suggested that American Christians should be lobotomized. Probably a Christian pretending to be an atheist, you think? Seriously, Paul, most lawyers and folks with degrees & such don't have time for discussion boards like this. What exactly do you expect? It's like talk radio. You're not reading the broad scope of opinion here.