David Paszkiewicz Letter to Editor

[Guest bewildered]

I wonder if any of the KHS students or parents have thought about which programs they would be willing to give up to pay a lawsuit. That would be the real result of Paszkiewicz's preaching in class.

[Guest Guest_Paul_*]

I wonder if any of the KHS students or parents have thought about which programs they would be willing to give up to pay a lawsuit.  That would be the real result of Paszkiewicz's preaching in class.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You stayed up all night to think up that one ??

[God Save Us From Christians]

I wonder if any of the KHS students or parents have thought about which programs they would be willing to give up to pay a lawsuit.  That would be the real result of Paszkiewicz's preaching in class.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or the save the district a lot of money and grief and just have this guy resign.

I'm sure the Westboro Baptist Church would love to have him.

[Guest Steve_C]

Scientists are more focused on actualities than possibilities, generally speaking.

It's like asking for an example of a tennis player who could play point guard in the NBA.  There might well be one, but as long as he's focused on tennis instead of basketball you'll never hear about it.

It might if you wait long enough.

Steady-state cosmology was all the rage in the early 20th century.

God did it is a perfect excuse for dismissing claims that it is "impossible" (which should at least encourage some qualification on the use of the term "impossible").

That was the topic, after all.

Did you want to talk about something different?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Let's talk about Mr. P believing there were tamed dinosaurs on an Ark.

Unless you want to endorse his view of world and just accept that "god" did it.

God did it does not make everything possible, it just makes people irrational.

[Strife767]

Right, and that was my point, which was clearer before you removed the words that followed.

I'm glad to hear you admit it.

Very sensible of you.  Now explain it to Leigh. 

Why? Unscientific/supernatural "explanations" can't be proven, and don't really explain anything. They are worthless hypotheses, and should be ignored by all scientists (at least). Not even worth considering, since they get us nowhere.

It would be clearer if you said there is no scientific explanation for an actuality of a relatively recent global flood.

No, any global flood. The entirety of the land on earth was never 'smoothed out' perfectly equally on the planet, and there just simply isn't enough water. Not to mention all of the other issues of geology etc. that clearly show no correlation at all between all pieces of land--if the whole earth was ever covered with water, we'd be able to tell.

And that still doesn't match up to a claim that such a flood is impossible in principle.

It's impossible in reality.

Actually, the problem is that it can be made to fit any set of facts.

But your implicit admission of a bias against miracles is noted. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A "miracle" is just what a religious (or ignorant) person calls an event that they don't understand (and the further you go back in time, the more things we used to consider miraculous, until we discovered the true causes through science). The concept of miracles is one giant fallacy of incredulity. To not believe in miracles is not bias--it's common sense.

[Bryan]

Why? Unscientific/supernatural "explanations" can't be proven, and don't really explain anything. They are worthless hypotheses, and should be ignored by all scientists (at least). Not even worth considering, since they get us nowhere.

Aren't you going to add that they are likewise "impossible"?

Or are you intent on changing the subject?

No, any global flood. The entirety of the land on earth was never 'smoothed out' perfectly equally on the planet, and there just simply isn't enough water.

It wouldn't need to be smoothed out, genius.

Consider what could be accomplished with gravitation alone, in terms of manipulating ocean topography.

Plus, I don't think that you know that the earth was never smoothed out anyway. You have a topographic map of Rodinia to go by?

Not to mention all of the other issues of geology etc. that clearly show no correlation at all between all pieces of land--if the whole earth was ever covered with water, we'd be able to tell.

How?

It's impossible in reality.

That's a suitably ambiguous statement.

It could be a statement about actuality or it could be a redundancy.

A "miracle" is just what a religious (or ignorant) person calls an event that they don't understand (and the further you go back in time, the more things we used to consider miraculous, until we discovered the true causes through science).

What's the cause of random (causeless) quantum particles, IYO?

The concept of miracles is one giant fallacy of incredulity. To not believe in miracles is not bias--it's common sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, so you've figured out what causes quantum particles to form.

There are a bunch of scientists who are eager for you to explain it to them, since they have come to the conclusion that they are random and uncaused.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/edis_22_4.htm

(scroll down about 15-20%)

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A10.html

Are you going to tell the scientists that they are committing the fallacy of incredulity, BTW?

Or maybe you're committing the fallacy of incredulity, by refusing to consider miracles?

[Bryan]

Yes. Let's talk about Mr. P believing there were tamed dinosaurs on an Ark.

Well, at least you're honest about wanting to change the subject from what it was.

Am I supposed to start on the dinosaur/ark thing, or were you going to elaborate?

Unless you want to endorse his view of world and just accept that "god" did it.

There are only so many cosmological options, and the traditional Judeo-Christian theistic option is a strong player in that group.

God did it does not make everything possible, it just makes people irrational.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Figures that you'd blame your regular commission of fallacies on God.

[Guest Tom3]

Welcome to Culture Wars... the new civil war in America where wedge issues are dividing us and making us enemies.

While Paszkiewicz is correct that the phrase "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution as amended, he is implying that there is no seperation.

There is. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." This means that a public school teacher, when on the job, cannot establish religion. Paszkiewicz broke that law.

Paszkiewicz claims that he has a right to proselytize his Religious Right beliefs in a public schoolroom because of the Freedom of Religion Clause, which says the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Paszkiewicz can express his religious views on his free time, but that stops when he walks through that classroom door and puts on his cheap clip-on tie. And this does not just apply to school teachers, but any public official. While you represent the government at work, you keep your religion to yourself. That's the law.

It is unfortunate that our Religious Right brethren have a poor understanding of these two essential clauses that protect their right to practice their religion as they please....but keep them from indoctrinating others on the taxpayer's dime.

[Strife767]

Aren't you going to add that they are likewise "impossible"?

I did later in the post--a global flood is impossible by any means known to science.

Or are you intent on changing the subject?

It wouldn't need to be smoothed out, genius.

Consider what could be accomplished with gravitation alone, in terms of manipulating ocean topography.

Plus, I don't think that you know that the earth was never smoothed out anyway.  You have a topographic map of Rodinia to go by?

Gravity can't create more water, so I'm not sure where you're going with that 'consideration.'

What's the cause of random (causeless) quantum particles, IYO?

I don't know--but at least you'll never see me squawking "God did it." Personal incredulity does not in the least suggest that.

Okay, so you've figured out what causes quantum particles to form.

Non-sequitur

Are you going to tell the scientists that they are committing the fallacy of incredulity, BTW?

No, because they do not conclude on a supernatural cause just because they themselves don't know what the cause is.

Or maybe you're committing the fallacy of incredulity, by refusing to consider miracles?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, no.

[Strife767]

There are only so many cosmological options, and the traditional Judeo-Christian theistic option is a strong player in that group.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah...I think you're a lost cause. When you're at the point where you state that "the traditional Judeo-Christian theistic option is a strong player in" COSMOLOGY, I don't think there's any hope for you--you have no understanding of what is and isn't science.

I'm done with you--you're obviously way too out there to convince, and unwilling to learn. I'm sure you have much better luck convincing uneducated slobs with your smooth talk, but it's not working here. Your time would be better spent elsewhere.

[Bryan]

I did later in the post--a global flood is impossible by any means known to science.

I provided a counterexample to that claim (gravitation).

Gravity can't create more water, so I'm not sure where you're going with that 'consideration.'

Suppose you had a supercontinent in one hemisphere and a strong gravitational attraction perpendicular to that continent.

The effect is "more water" in that hemisphere.

Now do you see where it's going?

I don't know--but at least you'll never see me squawking "God did it." Personal incredulity does not in the least suggest that.

We were talking about miracles, IIRC, and how you said it was the explanation of the ignorant.

You've just admitted that you don't know how random quantum particles form (making you self-admittedly ignorant of the cause). You have no scientific explanation, and you are unwilling to call it a miracle.

That's good evidence of a bias against miracles on your part--despite the fact that quantum particle formation seems to meet every qualification for being "supernatural."

The concept of miracles is one giant fallacy of incredulity. To not believe in miracles is not bias--it's common sense.

Okay, so you've figured out what causes quantum particles to form.

Non-sequitur

Oh, really?

How do you define "miracle" such that it does not logically follow?

No, because they do not conclude on a supernatural cause just because they themselves don't know what the cause is.

No, it's not that simple.

The scientists say that the particles are uncaused, not that they do not know what the cause is.

Explain how that's not supernatural.

Uh, no.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Too hard for you to believe, eh?

lol

[Bryan]

Yeah...I think you're a lost cause. When you're at the point where you state that "the traditional Judeo-Christian theistic option is a strong player in" COSMOLOGY, I don't think there's any hope for you--you have no understanding of what is and isn't science.

I'm certainly willing to defend my statement--but you're probably wise to bow out now because you very probably don't have sufficient knowledge to begin to debate me on it.

And, btw, I have a good understanding of science.

Very probably better than yours, that is.

I'm done with you--you're obviously way too out there to convince, and unwilling to learn.

On the contrary, I'm eager to learn how science would rule out an intelligent first cause in favor of an unintelligent first cause.

Or alternatively, get your explanation as to how an uncaused universe is not miraculous in the normal sense of the term.

The truth is that you just don't have the ability to handle this topic. You could try using Web sites to give yourself a crash course, but you'd just end up making an embarrassing mistake somewhere along the line ...

I'm sure you have much better luck convincing uneducated slobs with your smooth talk, but it's not working here. Your time would be better spent elsewhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IOW:

"Run away! Run away!"

[Guest Guest]

Paszkiewicz claims that he has a right to proselytize his Religious Right beliefs in a public schoolroom because of the Freedom of Religion Clause, which says the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pazkiewicz claims? Can you quote his words? Did he say anything to you personally? If he did please let us all know.

[Stixx3969]

Welcome to Culture Wars... the new civil war in America where wedge issues are dividing us and making us enemies.

While Paszkiewicz is correct that the phrase "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution as amended, he is implying that there is no seperation.

There is.  The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."  This means that a public school teacher, when on the job, cannot establish religion.  Paszkiewicz broke that law.

Paszkiewicz claims that he has a right to proselytize his Religious Right beliefs in a public schoolroom because of the Freedom of Religion Clause, which says the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Paszkiewicz can express his religious views on his free time, but that stops when he walks through that classroom door and puts on his cheap clip-on tie.  And this does not just apply to school teachers, but any public official.  While you represent the government at work, you keep your religion to yourself.  That's the law.

It is unfortunate that our Religious Right brethren have a poor understanding of these two essential clauses that protect their right to practice their religion as they please....but keep them from indoctrinating others on the taxpayer's dime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tom,

You are right on target but be careful 'cause this swamp is full of gators waiting to snap off a limb or two .

[Stixx3969]

Isn't the real controversy not of evolution or intelligent design, but more of the bible itself and how it says we came to be?

[Strife767]

I have a good understanding of science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No you don't. You think theism is science.

That about sums you up (which is why I made this short post)--you fail at science.

[Guest Tom]

Pazkiewicz claims? Can you quote his words? Did he say anything to you personally? If he did please let us all know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bubblehead, read his letter in the Observer last week. That's exactly what he was saying, and he also said it in class, which is what got him in trouble in the first place.

[Calybos]

No, it's not that simple.

The scientists say that the particles are uncaused, not that they do not know what the cause is.

Explain how that's not supernatural.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's easy; "Uncaused events are not the same as magic." Ask any physicist whether the existence of uncaused events should be taken as proof of supernatural entities... see how hard he laughs.

Now, YOU may choose to believe that uncaused events are automatically supernatural; heck, in the Bronze Age people believed that lightning was a supernatural event! Now, of course, we know better.

And if you're saying "come up with a better explanation," you're falling into the God of the Gaps Fallacy: Anything not currently understood and 100% explained must be because of God. Which is a very shaky territory to defend, because it means your god gets smaller and smaller the more we learn. It winds up pitting you against all advancement of knowledge in order to defend your faith.

In some cases, it puts you on high-school faculties preaching instead of teaching, in direct violation of the Constitution. Personally, I wouldn't recommend it.

[Guest Guest]

I did later in the post--a global flood is impossible by any means known to science.

Gravity can't create more water, so I'm not sure where you're going with that 'consideration.'

I don't know--but at least you'll never see me squawking "God did it." Personal incredulity does not in the least suggest that.

Non-sequitur

No, because they do not conclude on a supernatural cause just because they themselves don't know what the cause is.

Uh, no.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gravity can't create water but it sure can move it around.

[Bryan]

That's easy; "Uncaused events are not the same as magic." Ask any physicist whether the existence of uncaused events should be taken as proof of supernatural entities... see how hard he laughs.

Why should I ask him that question when it seems to have nothing to do with whether or not causelessness perfectly fits the definition of "supernatural"?

Now, YOU may choose to believe that uncaused events are automatically supernatural; heck, in the Bronze Age people believed that lightning was a supernatural event! Now, of course, we know better.

Have you ever looked up the definition of "natural" or "naturalism"?

Quite simply, if you "know better" that causeless events are natural you have succeeded in believing in a contradiction.

And if you're saying "come up with a better explanation," you're falling into the God of the Gaps Fallacy: Anything not currently understood and 100% explained must be because of God.

That's two straw men so far.

How many have you got?

The issue is simple--we don't even need to bring God into it.

Does a random, causeless event perfectly fit the normal definition of "supernatural"?

There's nothing at all to do with a "god of the gaps"--that's just you trying to answer an argument that has caught your pre-programmed thinking by surprise.

Which is a very shaky territory to defend, because it means your god gets smaller and smaller the more we learn. It winds up pitting you against all advancement of knowledge in order to defend your faith.

So you're saying that scientists and physicists are wrong to say that certain quantum particles are random or uncaused?

In some cases, it puts you on high-school faculties preaching instead of teaching, in direct violation of the Constitution. Personally, I wouldn't recommend it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd recommend that you come back to the topic that I've reminded you of, above.

Why isn't "causeless" an appropriate stand-in for "supernatural"?

[Bryan]

No you don't. You think theism is science.

I do?

What did I write that gave you that idea?

Be specific.

That about sums you up (which is why I made this short post)--you fail at science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Either that or it will serve as a good example of how you can' keep yourself from writing things that are not true.

Let's see that quotation. Good luck, 'cause you'll need it.

[Guest Guest]

Bubblehead, read his letter in the Observer last week. That's exactly what he was saying, and he also said it in class, which is what got him in trouble in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you are the one who needs to read! He didn't claim anything!

[Guest Guest]

Bubblehead, read his letter in the Observer last week. That's exactly what he was saying, and he also said it in class, which is what got him in trouble in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

quotation please!

[Strife767]

I do?

What did I write that gave you that idea?

Be specific.

There are only so many cosmological options, and the traditional Judeo-Christian theistic option is a strong player in that group.

[Strife767]

Gravity can't create water but it sure can move it around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can't overflow a glass on all sides (a.k.a. 'flood' it) when it is 75% full, no matter how you move the water around.

Likewise, there is simply not enough water on the planet to cover all the land. Not only that, but even if it _was_ possible, the fact remains that there is zero evidence of such an event ever having happened.