Thoughts in a Haystack

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God

2012-02-07T15:04:00.000-05:00

The three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 decision, has upheld the District Court's decision that California's Proposition 8, denying the designation "marriage" to same sex couples, was unconstitutional. It's a long decision but here is the summary prepared by the Court's staff:

The panel majority affirmed the judgment of the district court and held that Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to eliminate the previously guaranteed right of same-sex couples to marry, violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The panel majority held that by using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause.

The panel majority held that in this particular case it did not need to decide whether under the United States Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry because under California’s statutory law pertaining to “domestic partnerships” same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status. Proposition 8’s only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation of “marriage,” previously recognized by the California Supreme Court, while leaving in place all of its incidents.

The panel majority determined that in taking away the designation of “marriage,” while leaving in place all the substantive rights and responsibilities of same-sex partners, Proposition 8 could not have reasonably been enacted to promote childrearing by biological parents, to encourage responsible procreation, to proceed with caution in social change, to protect religious liberty, or to control the education of schoolchildren. The panel majority concluded that Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The panel majority determined that it need not and did not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lesbians must do so.

The panel held that proponents of Proposition 8 had standing to bring this appeal on behalf of the state. The panel accepted the determination of the California Supreme Court that the official proponents of an initiative have the authority to assert the State’s interest in defending the constitutionality of that initiative, where the state officials who would ordinarily assume that responsibility choose not to do so.

The panel affirmed the denial of the motion by the proponents of Proposition 8 to vacate the judgment entered by former Chief Judge Walker, on the basis of his purported interest in being allowed to marry his same-sex partner. The panel held that Chief Judge Ware did not abuse his discretion by finding that Chief Judge Walker was not obligated to recuse himself on the basis that he could be affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

Judge N.R. Smith concurred in part and dissented in part from the majority opinion. Judge Smith agreed with the majority’s analysis that proponents had standing to bring this appeal and that the motion to vacate the judgment should be denied. Judge Smith dissented from the majority’s analysis regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8. He wrote that he was not convinced that Proposition 8’s withdrawal from same-sex couples of the right to access the designation of marriage was not rationally related to furthering the interests of promoting responsible procreation and optimal parenting.

Out of Touch?

2012-02-04T19:11:00.001-05:00

I already mentioned the dufus Superintendent of the Mount Vernon (Indiana) Community School district, William Riggs, who apparently thinks its hunky dory to teach creationism alongside evolution in public school biology classes.

It may be that he is just a dufus who doesn't know what is going on in his school.

According to Bruce Kendall, who chaired the science department at Mount Vernon High School for 35 years before stepping down last summer:

We do not have creationism in our curriculum. But students bring it up whenever you talk about natural selection, and you have to be prepared to respond to them. How can a science teacher go into the classroom and talk about the origins of life and the origins of the universe and not be ready to deal with their questions? ...

[W]hen they hear about natural selection, some of them wonder, 'Does that mean my entire religion is wrong?' That's a tough situation to be in for a high school student. ...

You never try to impose your beliefs on a kid. And you never want to attack their faith. I tell my teachers, 'Please don't kill God just to make your point.'

Broadly, that is a correct approach for a public school teacher. They should teach the science, no matter what effect the students may think that has on their religious beliefs, but neither should they attack those beliefs.

The devil, of course, is in the details.

Kendall calls himself "a Jesus man" and perhaps he's trying to cover for Riggs. But one can at least hope the teachers in Mount Vernon are better than their superintendent.
.

Not For Long

2012-02-02T16:29:00.005-05:00

Well, there's one benefit of the Indiana State Senate's passage of their creationist bill. It's flushed out at least a couple of toe marksmen.

In an article in the Indianapolis Star, the bill's sponsor, Sen. Dennis Kruse, admitted that he knew the law is unconstitutional:

“I believe in creation,” Kruse said, “and I believe it deserves to be taught in our public schools.” ...

Creation science was specifically ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1987 case in which the court voided a Louisiana law that required creation science to be taught alongside evolution in science class. The court found the law violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution because it was designed to advance religion.

Kruse said he is aware of the precedent but isn’t sure it would survive today.

“This is a different Supreme Court,” he said. “This Supreme Court could rule differently.”

Umm ... you took an oath to uphold the law. What the Supreme Court ruled before is still the law ... and you, senator, are an oath breaker.

But even worse is one school administrator. In discussing the possibility that Krause's bill is intended to allow the state to fund the defense of any school board sued for teaching creationism, there was this:

Technically, a school district could teach creationism now — and some do.

“As far as I know,” said Mount Vernon Community School Corporation Superintendent William Riggs, “we’ve always been allowed to do that.”

Riggs said Mount Vernon High School’s biology class already teaches creationism alongside evolution. “We’ve been doing this for years.”

Riggs said the school teaches them as “two theories of the origins of life” and said that in literature classes students often learn about the Bible and the Quran. “The idea is to get kids to think.”

Let me exercise my mysterious powers of prognostication and say, "Not for long!"

It is, of course, (at least potentially, depending on what is being taught) permissible to use the Bible and Quran in a literature course. But teaching creationism in a biology class is not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitutional. The only way Mount Vernon has gotten away with it so far is that no one has complained.

But going out and boldly proclaiming your contempt for the Constitution has a way of pissing people off enough to try to stop it. Not to mention attracting the attention of the state department of education.

_________________________________

Update: The bleeding feet have been noticed:

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said he has not made a final determination on whether Senate Bill 89 will get a hearing and vote, but said he believes the General Assembly should not mandate what's taught in science classrooms.

"Delving into an issue that the United States Supreme Court has, on at least on one occasion, said is not compliant with the Constitution may be a side issue and someplace we don't need to go," Bosma said. "Parents, families have a choice on where their children go to school; it's an increasing choice now due to the legislation we passed last year [i.e. "vouchers"]."

You can also bet that Governor Mitch Daniels is furiously twisting arms to make sure he doesn't have to face the Scylla and Charybdis of either vetoing this favorite law of the Righteous Right or having his reputation as a rational, technocratic Republican trashed.
.

Big and Small

2012-02-02T12:16:00.002-05:00

The state senate of Indiana has already secured its place among the ignoratti. But they do not toil alone. The Kiel (Wisconsin) Area School District has its own band of merry troglodytes working to lower the IQ of the local children ... Patty and Randy Kubetz.

Pattie wrote the school board last fall asking why only evolution is presented to freshmen science students. The obvious answer ... that evolution is the only scientific theory about how and why life has changed over time, apparently eluded her. Not that she's going to let that stop her!

The letter no doubt got at least one friendly hearing, since her husband Randy is a member of the school board. The interesting thing is that the Kubetzs home school their children.

Anyway, Pattie has prepared a statement she wants to be read to future Kiel freshmen:

Evolution, as a theory of the origin of life, is only one of many theories you may have heard of. Some of the most widely believed include evolution, intelligent design, creationism or the theory that life began as a series of catastrophic events, namely the Big Bang. We are studying evolution.

Pattie is aware of the Kitzmiller case:

I don’t think the case in Pennsylvania has anything to do with this. I’ve worded it very carefully so we’re not trying to teach it. It is my personal belief that we have a creator (but) I am not looking for that to be taught in the school system. That’s for parochial schools, people who choose to home school.

Worded it very carefully? Let's compare that with the language used at Dover:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. ...

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

Now Pattie hasn't repeated the Dover dummies' inclusion of a reference for ID "research" but everything else is there and a little more ... the equivalence of ID as a scientific theory to evolution (even throwing in "creationism" and a badly mangled "Big Bang") and the implication that evolution is only being taught because the state is making them do it.

But you can be sure that Pattie's plan has nothing to do with religion because ... well ... she tells us so:

Though she acknowledges her family’s strong Christian background, Kubetz said her interest in having this statement read is independent of her religious faith and doesn’t believe it would violate the Constitution.

Because, after all, if you say it isn't about religion often enough and loudly enough, that makes it constitutional.

Unfortunately, the real message keeps leaking through:

My concern is we’re only teaching evolution, we’re not teaching any of the other ideas of the origin of life out there that are common. People believe different things. All I’m asking is that you mention them; I’m not asking they be taught. Maybe it’ll get some kids thinking, ‘Why do I agree, why do I disagree?'

None of those other ideas are scientific. By all means, set up a comparative religion class and feel free to teach about the ideas of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology, the way the Indiana Senate recommends, so the kids can decide if they agree or disagree.

But be careful what you wish for. The Bhagavad Gītā is a hell of a lot more interesting than Genesis.
.

Creative Legislation

2012-01-29T10:31:00.001-05:00

The supporters of Indiana's truly bizarre "creation science" bill once again demonstrate that they know their own:

In committee debate Wednesday, Sen. Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, said there are legitimate questions about the theory of evolution and that many scientists agree with the concept of intelligent design, the theory that life on Earth is so complex it was guided by an intelligent higher power.

"What are we afraid of? Allowing an option for students including creation science as opposed to limiting their exposure?" Schneider said.

Right! Intelligent Design Creationism is just "creation science" in sheep's clothing, attempting to slide it pass the courts ... as anyone familiar with cdesign proponentsists already knows.

But it's nice to have confirmation that creationists realize it too.
.

Modern Myths

2012-01-28T07:20:00.002-05:00

Jason Rosenhouse is one of the more considered of the (newly acceptable) "New Atheists." But I think he misses the mark at several points in his "Another Round on Adam and Eve."

First of all, as is necessary in all such discussions, I have to state explicitly that I am not "defending" Peter Enns or his interpretation of the Bible or his Evangelical beliefs. But it's only fair, while Jason is criticizing Enns, to look at Jason's arguments as well.

Briefly, Enns, who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, argues that the "creation stories" of Genesis were never intended as literal truth by their authors:

Ancient peoples assumed that somewhere in the distant past, near the beginning of time, the gods made the first humans from scratch -- an understandable conclusion to draw. They wrote stories about "the beginning," however, not to lecture their people on the abstract question "Where do humans come from?" They were storytellers, drawing on cultural traditions, writing about the religious -- and often political -- beliefs of the people of their own time.

Their creation stories were more like a warm-up to get to the main event: them. Their stories were all about who they were, where they came from, what their gods thought of them and, therefore, what made them better than other peoples.

Jason's reply is, to say the least ... well ... strange:

It is strange to speak of the purpose for which the Genesis stories were designed, since it seems clear they were not designed at all. They began as part of an oral tradition, presumably evolved a bit through frequent retellings, and gradually assumed tremendous importance to the ancients simply by virtue of having been repeated so often.

Huh?

The Iliad wasn't designed? Homer was a singer of songs in an oral tradition but he had no design in mind? The people who repeated, and, perhaps, changed the songs, had no purpose either?

But then Jason says:

More to the point, to judge from the stories themselves it just seems wrong to suggest that the specifics of how humans appeared were just throwaway details irrelevant to the main purposes of the story. For example, the historicity of Adam and his actions in the Garden of Eden are given explicitly as the factual basis for the need of Jesus' sacrifice.

Is it wrong to suggest that the specifics of how Achilles dragged Hector's body about the walls of Troy were just throwaway details irrelevant to the main purposes of the story? Probably not. But does that mean that Homer and his listeners didn't know it was a story?

And to say "the historicity of Adam and his actions in the Garden of Eden are given explicitly as the factual basis for the need of Jesus' sacrifice" is simply a non sequitur ... unless Jason wants to admit that the purpose of the authors of the Genesis stories was to prefigure Christ.

Jason is right that: "The story of Eve's creation from Adam's rib is given as the explicit basis for proper gender relations in marriage" ... for the storytellers ... but Enns' point is that Evangelicals need not take those storytellers as ... well ... Gospel.

Jason's parting shot:

A final point is that nothing Enns says about the purposes of these stories implies that the ancients thought the stories were fictional.

... seems to me to fly in the face of human psychology.

We are Homo storytellis. We spin and harken to stories even when we know they are not true ... or else Shakespeare and a thousand thousand other storytellers would not hold our ears.

Which is not to say Enns has an easy task to convince his co-religionists that the old tales are not literally true. When stories are widely shared enough, it's so much easier to sit by the fire and hear the song ... than it is to think.
.

Projection Machine

2012-01-23T22:22:00.002-05:00

Heh! You know how ID advocates like to say "Darwinism" (i.e. modern evolutionary theory) is "a 19th century theory ... taught dogmatically to 21st century students"?

Well, projection is a well known concept and the IDers are admitting that ID is far older than Darwin.

In their zeal to deny that the detection of alien life, even slime, would be a triumph for "Darwinism," Evolution News and Views says:

If the European discovery of human inhabitants in the New World didn't defeat the argument for design, then neither will the discovery of inhabitants on New Worlds.

But that means the IDers are now admitting that their "science" is a "theory" older than Columbus.

Of course, it is far older than that but it's nice to know they are now admitting that their's is a 15th century theory that they are trying to teach dogmatically to 21st century students.
.

Moron Missouri

2012-01-22T11:08:00.001-05:00

The Missouri creationist bill, that I previously gave a flyby, and which seeks to revive the "equal treatment" ploy that the Supreme Court slapped down in Edwards v. Aguillard, is being "defended" by its sponsors:

Rick Brattin, the primary sponsor, told the St. Louis Beacon, in "Darwin vs. design — if one is taught, should the other be required?":

"Some of the folks on the evolution side of things say this is not science and doesn't need to be in the classroom," he said. "But there are other sides of the debate. We're trying to say intelligent design is a very viable theory, much like evolution. I believe it makes good science to have both points of view in the classroom and allow the students to decide for themselves, to conduct their own research and come up with their own hypothesis for what happened.

"We don't know what happened 10 million years ago. We don't know what happened 100 million years ago. It's all theory."

Well, of course, by that standard, we don't know what happened last week, much less back when "written history" began. It gets worse:

Brattin, who operates a drywall firm, acknowledges no advanced scientific expertise or training, and he says the bill has already drawn sharp criticism from those who do. But he recalls his own skepticism when he learned about Darwin in school, and he wants Missouri to further the debate.

"I thought there were so many holes in what was being taught to me as fact," he said. "I even got into arguments with my science teacher. That's what sparked my enthusiasm."

"No advanced scientific expertise or training" is an understatement. His page at the Missouri Legislature site summarizes his education as "a 1999 graduate of Lee's Summit High School."

Cosponsor Rep. Sue Allen, is not much better:

"Do I believe that everything that is said to be scientifically sound is scientifically sound?" she asked. "No. Could our beings come about solely that way and no other way? I don't agree with that. I'm not saying evolution shouldn't be taught. I'm saying it's a theory. It's like Freud or any of those other social science theories.

"You don't have to throw out Darwin if you do creation. Darwin and creation according to Genesis don't totally match up. But I think Darwin could have some explanation about how that direction happened."

Although that is mostly gobbledygook, one thing is clear: the law is intended to advance creationism in clear violation of the Constitution.

Fortunately for the taxpayers of Missouri, the sponsors acknowledge that the bill is not likely to win passage in the General Assembly.

_____________________________________

Via the NCSE.
.

How Low Can You Go?

2012-01-19T20:03:00.002-05:00

How bad is it getting in Republican politics when they start booing anyone who invokes Jesus?

I've been convinced for a while that America is destined to be a Second World country on its way to the Third World.

Now I'm beginning to think that's a good thing.

___________________________________

Via Stephen Law.

The God of Football

2012-01-16T23:53:00.003-05:00

[Boggle]

Among the 70% of Americans who say they know of [Tim] Tebow's success, here's how people by political affiliation responded to this question: "Do believe that any of Tim Tebow's success can be attributed to Divine Intervention?"

– Republicans: 54% yes, 32% no, and 14% no opinion.

– Democrats: 38% yes, 48% no, 14% no opinion.

– Independents: 35% yes, 49% no, 16% no opinion.

Overall, the national average response (as reported yesterday): 43% yes, 42% no, 14% no opinion.

I guess Tom Brady is more righteous in the eyes of the Lord.
.