Submitted by Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Feigning that some controversy actually exists over the fact of evolution, the Rocky Toppers have decided to grant job protection to teachers who choose to criticize the scientific doctrine. To be quite proper, they have inserted language that stipulates that “this section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine.” But Becky Ashe, the president of the Tennessee Science Teachers Association, is not fooled. She told a subcommittee of the Tennessee House that the Bill “is an anti-evolutionary attempt to allow non-scientific alternatives to evolution (such as creationism and intelligent design) to be introduced into our public schools.”
Seems the famous trial and the movie version (“Inherit The Wind”) are always on the minds of theocrats. Tennessee State Representative Richard Floyd (R) even alluded to them in the floor debate commenting that “since the late ’50s, early ’60s when we let the intellectual bullies hijack our education system, we’ve been on a slippery slope.” Aptly named Republican Sheila Butt even found a way to criticize environmentalists in the debate saying she was told in high school that Aqua Net hair spray hurts the environment. In a conclusion worthy of mention she added, “Since then scientists have said that maybe we shouldn’t have given up that aerosol can because that aerosol can was actually absorbing the Earth’s rays and keeping us from global warming.” Ah, the joys of anti-intellectualism.
The Bill passed the House 70-23 and now goes to the Senate. Hopefully, they reached a stage of high intellectual evolution.
Source: TPM
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Slarti,
1881 was the year the first modern C-section was performed…
Gyges,
Unless you’re talking about President Garfield (a sub-species of homo sapiens sapiens which went extinct in 1881) or some species that was affected by the Thumb Fire, I haven’t got a clue…
Slart,
I know, I just wanted to point it out. Any guesses as to what species I’m thinking of? As a hint, we can trace exactly when the one of the changes began, 1881.
Gyges,
Bdaman has never shown much interest in a reasonable discussion – his tactic is to merely post misleading (or just plain wrong) links in response to any attempt to engage him in debate – he’s clearly got some evolving left to do…
BDAman,
So you really aren’t interested in the answer to your question?
Hi Kevin hope all is well.
it’s hard to argue against the scientific certainty that we are related to the great apes (and every other life form…).
We all share
Head, shoulder knees and toes, knees and toes
Head, shoulder knees and toes, knees and toes
Two eyes two ears a mouth and a nose
Head, shoulder knees and toes, knees and toes
🙂
If Darrow had a halfway decent geneticist as an expert I think he would have mopped the floor with Bryant – no matter how many ‘expert’ cintelligent designists he had on his side, it’s hard to argue against the scientific certainty that we are related to the great apes (and every other life form…).
Great stuff Mespo! It is amazing that Tennessee has learned nothing in the decades since the original monkey trial.
For anyone interested, here’s an excerpt of the famous cross-examination by Darrow of Bryan taken from the transcript:
STEWART [Bryan’s fellow prosecutor]: I want to interpose another objection. What is the purpose of this examination?
BRYAN: The purpose is to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible, and I am perfectly willing that the world shall know that these gentlemen have no other purpose than ridiculing every Christian who believes in the Bible.
DARROW: We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States, and you know it, and that is all.
BRYAN: I am glad to bring out that statement. I want the world to know that this evidence is not just for the view. Mr. Darrow and his associates have filed affidavits here stating, the purpose of which, as I understand it, is to show that the Bible story is not true.
MALONE: Mr. Bryan seems anxious to get some evidence into the record that would tend to show that those affidavits are not true.
BRYAN: I am not trying to get anything into the record. I am simply trying to protect the Word of God against the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United States. [Prolonged applause.] I want the papers to know I am not afraid to get on the stand in front of him and let him do his worst. I want the world to know that agnosticism is trying to force agnosticism on our colleges and on our schools, and the people of Tennessee will not permit that to be done. [Prolonged applause.]
DARROW: I wish I could get a picture of those claquers.*
*The term referes to organized body of professional
applauders.
Now that’s good lawyering!
BDAman,
O.k. I’ll bite. Here’s my challenge, if you can give me a good reason for each of your arbitrary limits (warm blooded animals that have been around 1000s of years), I’ll give you one that we have strong evidence has changed on a genetic level due to variation in environmental pressures. Heck, I’m feeling generous I’ll give you TWO examples.
But only if you can tell me why you chose those limits.
Buddha,
I think you are correct! For some reason I want to watch Deliverance right now!
raff,
The part of the clip with Moe devolving is re-enacted in Tennessee everyday. Evidence? Lamar Alexander.
Buddha,
That was hilarious!! That clip should be replayed in Tennessee every day!
And, believing as Taliban Tootie does, understanding that God is real isn’t that difficult at all! Why? Cuz Mikey Seaver say so!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ5Pv_gZ4N4&w=640&h=390]
For once, I agree with Taliban Tootie … God IS real and evolution is a farce … God created all things, the air we breath, the water we drink, the animals we eat … How do I know? Cuz Mikey Seaver and his bestest friend Ray said so …
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4&w=640&h=390]
I will stipulate I should have mentioned Gitlow and that I had totally forgotten (it does happen) about Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., so mea culpa. However, I was unaware of Webbs Famous Pharmacies. I’ll have to look that one up. Thanks, Bob.
I should have perhaps worded that as “It [the ID] was resurrected by Gideon.” thus providing yet another reminder that the battle to maintain civil rights is perpetual.
For every time a right like those found in the 1st Amendment and the rest of the BOR is created?
There is always some loon looking to take it away from you.
By saying things like the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to the states.
Buddha: “Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Note that date, Bob. The year after Frankfurter retired. The majority written by Hugo Black. Coincidence? Not very freakin’ likely there, buddy!
Where did the ID come from? Thin air? No. It came from Gideon.”
Categorically WRONG:
Long before Gideon…
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897) (Incorporating the takings clause as good against the states.) see also Webbs Famous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith 499 U.S. 155 (1980) (explaining why)
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) (holding that the due process clause of the 14th made the free speech protections of the first amendment applicable to the states)
State of Louisiana Ex Rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947) (holding that the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the 8th Amendment is applicable to the states.)
Isn’t it interesting how silly and childish supposed grown-ups can be?
While that story-book some call “The Bible” (bible is a word which merely means “book”?) may have superstitious words such as, “God said…” it does not tell us how “God said…” whatever “God” said?
Not only that, but not all versions of the book some call “The Bible” use the word “God”?
However, I happen to have close by one which has the following words?
“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life…”? (KJV, from Genesis 1:20 ?)
Well, to bring forth is to evolve?
So, evolution is how God created the moving creatures; it says so in “The Bible”?
Where is the “creation-evolution” controversy, if it can not be found in “The Bible”?
Of course, I might know something I don’t know, had I ever taken even one useful science class in school?
Is it not the sole real (meaning operative?) purpose and function of SCOTUS to dictate selective incorporation? Why else even bother to have a Supreme Court?
It feels good to be perfectly ignorant?
Or, does constitutional law inherently deny all rights under law to the perfectly ignorant?
Bob,
That’s funny. When someone gives up they usually go away. But you seem to have a problem with the meanings of words, so I’ll help you out some more.
But please, first, tell me how the Supremacy Clause doesn’t apply to the incorporated sections of the BOR like the 1st Amendment again.
That’s funnier still.
If no incorporation is required for an amendment to be part of the Constitution as it applies to the states, then all the amendments apply to the states without exclusion via the Supremacy Clause as parts of the whole. Otherwise, the Supremacy Clause is useless.
If no incorporation is required for selective enforcement, absent enabling legislation, specific language in the amendment proper that applies it directly to the states, or riding the coattails of the 14th Amendment, then there was no need to the Gideon court to create an incorporation doctrine. Or do you think Hugo Black was just pulling his pud?
And let’s go back to the your examples of the 13th and 18th Amendments, shall we?
The 13th: “not a part of the Constitution that necessarily applies to states actions absent some other enabling legislation or direct application through the 14th Amendment.” What part of DIRECT APPLICATION or the qualifier NECESSARILY doesn’t register with you? Aside from all of it.
The 18th: “not a part of the Constitution that necessarily applies to states actions absent some other enabling legislation or direct application through the 14th Amendment.” What part of ENABLING LEGISLATION or the qualifier NECESSARILY doesn’t register with you? Besides all of it.
Broad sweeping statements? I never said ID was required for all amendments to be incorporated, so don’t put premises in my arguments. In fact, I specifically mentioned direct language and enabling legislation.
So what you’ve just accomplished with your last post is a complicated act of regurgitation of what I had already said. Which is in itself odd since you didn’t seem to read or understand the words I initially wrote. Do you often eat things that you don’t know what they are?
And last but not least . . .
What does Gideon have to do with it?
Gideon is where Black for the majority explained how incorporation applies to the BOR, getting another swing at a piece of the whole he presented in his dissent in Adamson v. People of the State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S. Ct. 1672, 91 L. Ed. 2d 1903 (1947) where he said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated all aspects of the Bill of Rights and applied them to the states. He was bulldogged into the minority in the Adamson case by Frankfurter who railed against Black in his concurrence. During Frankfurter’s tenure, the Court was hesitant to even look at the ID agaom much less act upon it. It wasn’t until Frankfurter’s retirement in 1962 that the ID was seriously considered by SCOTUS again. Which bring us to Gideon . . .
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Note that date, Bob. The year after Frankfurter retired. The majority written by Hugo Black. Coincidence? Not very freakin’ likely there, buddy!
Where did the ID come from? Thin air? No. It came from Gideon. It’s a judicially created doctrine. Judicially created doctrine to deal with incorporating amendments that don’t have DIRECT APPLICATION or ENABLING LEGISLATION (I put those in caps again so you wouldn’t eat them and regurgitate them again.)
And the ID has been applied piecemeal to the BOR ever since Gideon.
What does Gideon have to do with the ID?
Everything.
You should read it sometime.
Better yet, you should read Adamson and know the history of cases leading to Gideon.