West Virginia man sues education officials for teaching his daughter 'religion' of evolution

[Dexter]

 :huh?:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/west-virginia-man-sues-education-officials-for-teaching-his-daughter-religion-of-evolution-10287709.html

A man in West Virginia is suing education officials for teaching his daughter about evolution, claiming it represents “the propagation of religious faith” and will prevent her from achieving her goal of becoming a vet. In a four-page complaint filed against a range of local, state and federal educators, Jefferson County parent Kenneth Smith said “evolutionary ideology just doesn’t exist and has no math to back it”. Representing himself, Smith accused the defendants of violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prevents the state from being biased towards or making laws respecting any religion. Smith said educators had ignored his “accurate scientific mathematical system of genetic variations that proves evolution is a religion”. “Their actions during the 2014-2015 school year affects my child’s future directly through the state grading system to enter college and the ability to earn economic security and a good job in her chosen veterinarian medical field of work,” Smith’s lawsuit said.

According to the National Centre for Science Education, which posted a link to the legal complaint in full, Smith appeared to be the author of a book called “The True Origin of Man”, which claims to have made “the ultimate discovery” about “the truth of man’s [sic] origins confirmed by DNA mathematical and scientific facts”. The Charleston Daily Mail, which initially reported Smith’s lawsuit, said he was seeking a trial by jury and concluded by requesting a judge declare that evolution violates the US Constitution. It said the lawsuit was yet to receive a formal response.

[MACVSOG68]

Any reasonable judge would immediately throw it out of court as a frivolous use of the court's resources and require him to pay all court costs.

[mountaineer]

Any reasonable judge would immediately throw it out of court as a frivolous use of the court's resources and require him to pay all court costs.

There must not be any reasonable judges, because I've seen cases a heck of a lot more frivolous than this permitted to proceed.

[GourmetDan]

Any reasonable judge would immediately throw it out of court as a frivolous use of the court's resources and require him to pay all court costs.

Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy...

[MACVSOG68]

Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy...

Ah, the argument by repetition fallacy...

[MACVSOG68]

There must not be any reasonable judges, because I've seen cases a heck of a lot more frivolous than this permitted to proceed.

Yes, and it's no wonder real cases stack up for months and years.

[GourmetDan]

Ah, the argument by repetition fallacy...

Ibid...

[musiclady]

Well, atheistic evolution IS a religion (with many devout adherents), but this lawsuit is frivolous, nonetheless.

[ABX]

If he doesn't like science, he shouldn't send his kid to a school that teaches it. He should home school or find a private school that fits his beliefs.

[GourmetDan]

If he doesn't like science, he shouldn't send his kid to a school that teaches it. He should home school or find a private school that fits his beliefs.

Evolution is philosophical naturalism... which is not science... no matter how often the argument by repetition fallacy is invoked...

[raml]

Evolution is a theory not a proven fact. I think bringing a lawsuit is stupid though just tell your child the facts at home out teach the liberal teacher.

[ABX]

Evolution is a theory not a proven fact. I think bringing a lawsuit is stupid though just tell your child the facts at home out teach the liberal teacher.

A theory in science is not a 'guess', it is related to the term 'theorem' which is a concept that is proven through a culmination of facts.  It is a 'theory' in the same way gravity is. It has been proven many ways, including recently DNA mapping.

[raml]

Evolution is not a proven fact sorry but it is not.

[GourmetDan]

A theory in science is not a 'guess', it is related to the term 'theorem' which is a concept that is proven through a culmination of facts.  It is a 'theory' in the same way gravity is. It has been proven many ways, including recently DNA mapping.

Theories are never 'proven' because of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.  Gravity is a particularly bad example to appeal to because 96% of the matter and energy needed to make the Standard Gravitational Cosmological Model 'work' is (by definition) 'dark', meaning that it is completely invisible to detection other than through the assumed effect needed to make the model 'work' (a nice bit of circular reasoning).

[musiclady]

Evolution is not a proven fact sorry but it is not.

It is definitely a not a proven fact, even though it is TAUGHT as fact. (That's the problem, of course..... it's not taught as theory).

In addition, the theory began as an attempt to prove a philosophy................ which is no more scientific than the theory of global warming is.

Science is supposed to be objective.

Evolution is most definitely subjective and philosophical more than scientific.

[Dexter]

A theory in science is not a 'guess', it is related to the term 'theorem' which is a concept that is proven through a culmination of facts.  It is a 'theory' in the same way gravity is. It has been proven many ways, including recently DNA mapping.

 

[Free Vulcan]

Evolution is definitely theory, strong on general broad strokes, not so good on the details. It gets surprised with new data that doesn't fit with the current model, and scientists and supports have to scramble to make it fit. They don't do so well at times with that.

[MACVSOG68]

Yet another David Parker...WooHoo!   

[musiclady]

Evolution is definitely theory, strong on general broad strokes, not so good on the details. It gets surprised with new data that doesn't fit with the current model, and scientists and supports have to scramble to make it fit. They don't do so well at times with that.

Well said.

Real scientists shouldn't always be surprised, and always be wrong about everything they've believed so strongly in the past.



From the outside looking in, evolutionists look kinda dense.  ^-^

[Paladin]

Scientism is the religion and belief in evolution is its bedrock, it's foremost article of faith.

Christianity is a religion and its bedrock is the Resurrection.

Neither is scientifically demonstrable and thus neither should be taught in public schools.

[truth_seeker]

Scientism is the religion and belief in evolution is its bedrock, it's foremost article of faith.

Christianity is a religion and its bedrock is the Resurrection.

Neither is scientifically demonstrable and thus neither should be taught in public schools.

No teaching science in schools? Physics, chemistry, geology, biology etc.?

What do you think needs to be in an education, to be a doctor, engineer, petroleum engineer, etc.

My grandmother had a masters in biology, my mother had a bachelors in chemistry. They both taught me a belief in science and in God. Evolution and the Bible were not mutually exclusive.

No wonder conservatives are losing their cultural war. Contemporary conservatism is accused of being anti-science, and I'm picking up on that here.

Looking backwards and going backwards, not forwards.

[Paladin]

No teaching science in schools? Physics, chemistry, geology, biology etc.?

For heaven's sake, Truth_seeker, I said no such thing. I said evolution ought not be taught as fact because it is unproven., nothing more.

Did you misrepresent what I posted on purpose as it seems rather difficult to misunderstand this:

Scientism is the religion and belief in evolution is its bedrock, it's foremost article of faith.

Christianity is a religion and its bedrock is the Resurrection.

Neither is scientifically demonstrable and thus neither should be taught in public schools.

[truth_seeker]

For heaven's sake, Truth_seeker, I said no such thing. I said evolution ought not be taught as fact because it is unproven., nothing more.

Did you misrepresent what I posted on purpose as it seems rather difficult to misunderstand this:

I believe evolution should be taught, and creationism can be as well. Let them both make their best possible and convincing presentations. Compete in the marketplace of ideas.

I favor my enlightened upbringing, whereby science and God are not mutually exclusive.

"Scientism" is a goofball word, from those who would have us validate Rev. Benny Hinn and 6,000 and 10,000 year old earth proponents, in a world and in a time of moon walks, modern medicine, etc.

No thanks.
 

[Dexter]

Evolution is definitely theory, strong on general broad strokes, not so good on the details. It gets surprised with new data that doesn't fit with the current model, and scientists and supports have to scramble to make it fit. They don't do so well at times with that.

Science is ever evolving as our understanding of the universe around us grows, but I guarantee you can't show me one piece of data that has made science question the legitimacy of evolution.

[Dexter]

Well said.

Real scientists shouldn't always be surprised, and always be wrong about everything they've believed so strongly in the past.



From the outside looking in, evolutionists look kinda dense.  ^-^

Science is not wrong about evolution and nothing has ever indicated otherwise.