Merged Scalia is dead

[sunmaster14]

LOL. Scalia believed that there is such a thing as "creation science" but he wasn't actually a creationist. Yeah, sure. And Obama is going to resign, have Biden nominate him to replace Scalia, and he will be easily confirmed.

Scalia's point was - and I think it is a reasonable one - that a judge can't really distinguish science from pseudoscience. He can distinguish religion from science if the people adhering to the religious principles admit that they are following "revealed doctrine" and faith. Creationists claim that they're doing real science and trying to find evidence of intelligent design. How is a judge sitting in Scalia's position supposed to know if their claim is meritorious or not? There have been many pseudosciences in the past. For example, cold fusion was big when I was in graduate school. Would it have been forcing religion on a student if he was required to learn about Pons and Fleischmann's experiments?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is consistent with the truth (note the "at least" qualifier), appropriately respectful of his hosts (a Catholic school which presumably teaches Catholic doctrine), and justifiable as lower bound on the age of human civilization.

Dude, humans as we are currently go back some 160,000 years at a minimum.

The fossil evidence

The oldest known fossils of modern humans have been discovered in Herto, Ethiopia. An international team led by researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, found the skulls of two adults and a child dating from 160,000 years ago - 40,000 years earlier than the previous oldest remains of Homo sapiens.

 

[The Big Dog]

And the evidence to support your claim that he was not a creationist remains nonexistent.

Except the fact that I nuked the so called "evidence" that he was from orbit.

 

[newyorkguy]

LOLZ! That NPR article is basically copying the discredited Patheous article...

What Patheous article, is there a quote-and-a-link in the thread? The essay on the NPR site was written in June 2015 by an anthropology professor named Barbara J. King. She also wrote, "I sought comment from [Scalia] for this post but had received no response as of publication."

Further, just a bit of looking reveals Scalia has been roundly condemned in the science community for his dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard. This is from a blog by Larry Moran, a Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. He refers to an essay written by the scientist Stephen Jay Gould:

Following this theme, Scalia presents his most confused statement in the written dissent:

• Creation science, its proponents insist, no more must explain whence life came than evolution must explain whence came the inanimate materials from which it says life evolved. But even if that were not so, to posit a past creator is not to posit the eternal and personal God who is the object of religious veneration.

Consider also, indeed especially, Scalia's false concept of science. He equates creation and evolution because creationists can't explain life's beginning, while evolutionists can't resolve the ultimate origin of the inorganic components that later aggregated to life. But this inability is the very heart of creationist logic and the central reason why their doctrine is not science, while science's inability to specify the ultimate origin of matter is irrelevant because we are not trying to do any such thing. We know that we can't, and we do not even consider such a question as part of science. Link

When Scalia told a lawyer in an environmental case, "I’m not a scientist," he was just scratching the surface.

 

[sunmaster14]

No, your mistake is in thinking the Senate fairly represents the population. That's another thing that needs to change along with the gerrymandering.

So gerrymandering ensures we don't get a representative House and two Senators per state regardless of population assures we don't have representation in the Senate.

Hey, if you get your way and get a 5th liberal on the Supreme Court, they can just rule that allowing at most two Senators from even the most populous states violates the Equal Protection clause and thereby overturn 227 years of precedent.

 

[sunmaster14]

Dude, humans as we are currently go back some 160,000 years at a minimum.

The fossil evidence

Apparently you don't know what the word "civilization" means.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Scalia's point was - and I think it is a reasonable one - that a judge can't really distinguish science from pseudoscience. He can distinguish religion from science if the people adhering to the religious principles admit that they are following "revealed doctrine" and faith. Creationists claim that they're doing real science and trying to find evidence of intelligent design. How is a judge sitting in Scalia's position supposed to know if their claim is meritorious or not? There have been many pseudosciences in the past. For example, cold fusion was big when I was in graduate school. Would it have been forcing religion on a student if he was required to learn about Pons and Fleischmann's experiments?

That may be true for some finer points but it's absurd to say a judge isn't responsible to have an understanding of basic science.

Scalia only needed to familiarize himself with the Kitzmiler v Dover ruling.

 

[The Big Dog]

What Patheous article, is there a quote-and-a-link in the thread? The essay on the NPR site was written in June 2015 by an anthropology professor named Barbara J. King. She also wrote, "I sought comment from [Scalia] for this post but had received no response as of publication."

Further, just a bit of looking reveals Scalia has been roundly condemned in the science community for his dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard. This is from a blog by Larry Moran, a Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. He refers to an essay written by the scientist Stephen Jay Gould:


When Scalia told a lawyer in an environmental case, "I’m not a scientist," he was just scratching the surface.

Before summarizing the testimony of Senator Keith and his supporters, I wish to make clear that I by no means intend to endorse its accuracy. But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science and evolution are (or should be) beside the point. Our task is not to judge the debate about teaching the origins of life, but to ascertain what the members of the Louisiana Legislature believed. The vast majority of them voted to approve a bill which explicitly stated a secular purpose; what is crucial is not their wisdom in believing that purpose would be achieved by the bill, but their sincerity in believing it would be.

 

[Tony Stark]

Scalia's point was - and I think it is a reasonable one - that a judge can't really distinguish science from pseudoscience. He can distinguish religion from science if the people adhering to the religious principles admit that they are following "revealed doctrine" and faith. Creationists claim that they're doing real science and trying to find evidence of intelligent design. How is a judge sitting in Scalia's position supposed to know if their claim is meritorious or not? There have been many pseudosciences in the past. For example, cold fusion was big when I was in graduate school. Would it have been forcing religion on a student if he was required to learn about Pons and Fleischmann's experiments?

Teaching creationism in public schools is clearly and obviously about pushing religion. Creationists lie about this of course in an effort to get around the 1st Amendment. Anybody who doesn’t understand this is stupid or a creationist themselves. I don't think that Scalia was stupid.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apparently you don't know what the word "civilization" means.

Even if you think the first homo sapiens had no civilization, the archeological evidence shows evidence of civilization going back much further than 6,000 years. Heck, farming goes back further than 6,000 years.

Here's a hint for you: stop thinking civilization started with the Bible.


Oldest Poison Pushes Back Ancient Civilization 20,000 Years

Traces of civilization have been found going back nearly 80,000 years in Africa,

Evidence of Ancient Farming in Iran Discovered

Ancient mortars and grinding tools unearthed in a large mound in the Zagros Mountains of Iran reveal that people were grinding wheat and barley about 11,000 years ago....

 

[Cain]

Hey, if you get your way and get a 5th liberal on the Supreme Court, they can just rule that allowing at most two Senators from even the most populous states violates the Equal Protection clause and thereby overturn 227 years of precedent.

I wish. Article V makes it almost impossible to reform the highly undemocratic Senate. Not even a constitutional amendment can change the composition of the upper house.

 

[Tony Stark]

Except the fact that I nuked the so called "evidence" that he was from orbit.

You showing that he was careful to not admit to being a creationist is not evidence that he wasn't. The "evidence" to support your claim remains at nothing.

 

[newyorkguy]

What is being missed here is, Scalia writing (or saying):

But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science...

There is NO science in Creation theory. As in none whatsoever. It's all religious doctrine.

I'm serious, we're well on our way to becoming the Iran of the West. God must be honored in the public schools. No one can insult the Bible or the beliefs of those who honor God. God is great! Someone right here in the Forum is advocating a violent reaction if The Great Satan in the White House dares to defile the memory and reputation of the blessed Antonin Scalia by attempting to name an infidel to take his place.

I am so glad I'm not twenty years old. Because I don't want to live long enough to see how this movie turns out. I smell utter disaster ahead! The inmates are taking over the institution.

Help!!!

 

[Cain]

Why are people emotionally invested in Scalia not being a creationist? He said "humanity" had been around 5,000 years, not "civilization." So he was just a creationist apologist and not a bona fide believer? Regardless, he sucked balls (not in the awesome "homosexual agenda" way, but in the crappy metaphorical sense where you believe stupid **** and impose it on everyone else).

 

[The Big Dog]

What is being missed here is, Scalia writing (or saying):


There is NO science in Creation theory. As in none whatsoever. It's all religious doctrine.

I'm serious, we're well on our way to becoming the Iran of the West. God must be honored in the public schools. No one can insult the Bible or the beliefs of those who honor God. God is great! Someone right here in the Forum is advocating a violent reaction if The Great Satan in the White House dares to defile the memory and reputation of the blessed Antonin Scalia by attempting to name an infidel to take his place.

I am so glad I'm not twenty years old. Because I don't want to live long enough to see how this movie turns out. I smell utter disaster ahead! The inmates are taking over the institution.

Help!!!

Gee Ayatollah, he was quoting the position of the party in that case.

Oh, I get it, IRONY! Great job!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As smart as Scalia was, Catholicism warped his thinking. That's why he saw homosexuality as a moral issue instead of a civil rights issue.

It's already been noted that in 2015 Scalia's Commencement Speech Supported Young Earth Creationism

From The Panda's Thumb

I suppose that “at least 5000 years” gives you some wiggle room, but I would hardly call, say, 200,000 years “at least 5000 years.” That is a bit like saying, “The trip from Boulder to New York is at least 20 kilometers.”...

Still, Justice Scalia generally comes across as an authoritarian, uncomfortable with ambiguity and guided by literalist interpretations. If he takes the Bible as literally as he takes the Constitution, then it is easy to see that he might well believe in a young Earth. I hope I am wrong and Professor Coyne is right.

But this NPR discussion gets to the meat of the matter:

In 1987, the Supreme Court, deliberating in the Edwards v. Aguillard case, overturned a Louisiana law that required creation science to be taught in the public schools when evolution was taught. The decision was 7-2, with Scalia as one of the two dissenters. Scalia's dissenting opinion is long, multi-faceted and includes this passage:

If he dissented he was fine with teaching Creationism as if it were science. And that's just plain ignorant.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why are people emotionally invested in Scalia not being a creationist? He said "humanity" had been around 5,000 years, not "civilization." So he was just a creationist apologist and not a bona fide believer? Regardless, he sucked balls (not in the awesome "homosexual agenda" way, but in the crappy metaphorical sense where you believe stupid **** and impose it on everyone else).

Well he's gone now so we need not worry but his religious beliefs affected his POV that creationism could be taught in science classes and homosexuality was a moral not a civil rights issue. By that standard I imagine 65 years ago he's have been fine with segregation.

So it matters.

 

[The Big Dog]

As smart as Scalia was, Catholicism warped his thinking. That's why he saw homosexuality as a moral issue instead of a civil rights issue.

It's already been noted that in 2015 Scalia's Commencement Speech Supported Young Earth Creationism

From The Panda's Thumb


But this NPR discussion gets to the meat of the matter:
If he dissented he was fine with teaching Creationism as if it were science. And that's just plain ignorant.

Hee hee! This thread has got to set the record for people posting the same discredited nonsense article.

WE GOT A THREEPEAT!

Before summarizing the testimony of Senator Keith and his supporters, I wish to make clear that I by no means intend to endorse its accuracy. But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science and evolution are (or should be) beside the point. Our task is not to judge the debate about teaching the origins of life, but to ascertain what the members of the Louisiana Legislature believed. The vast majority of them voted to approve a bill which explicitly stated a secular purpose; what is crucial is not their wisdom in believing that purpose would be achieved by the bill, but their sincerity in believing it would be.

 

[Foolmewunz]

He did? He didn't mention that in his dissent (which he wrote, lol), so I assume that your next post will be proof of the "better arguments." Or is that cherry picking?

You're not familiar with the case? Color me surprised!

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/brennanscalia.html

 

[The Big Dog]

You're not familiar with the case? Color me surprised!

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/brennanscalia.html

lol, you mean the case in which I have been citing the dissent.

no never heard of it

Before summarizing the testimony of Senator Keith and his supporters, I wish to make clear that I by no means intend to endorse its accuracy. But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science and evolution are (or should be) beside the point. Our task is not to judge the debate about teaching the origins of life, but to ascertain what the members of the Louisiana Legislature believed. The vast majority of them voted to approve a bill which explicitly stated a secular purpose; what is crucial is not their wisdom in believing that purpose would be achieved by the bill, but their sincerity in believing it would be.

hee hee!