An Interesting School Board Problem

This is a sad story, but there are those who will find it thrilling. We found it in the Union Democrat of Sonora, California, population 4,802. Their headline is Bret Harte student wants science class to make room for God, and the newspaper has a comments feature. Here are some excerpts from the news story, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Grayson Mobley stood Monday night in front of about a hundred people who sat at tables and stood between book cases in a library at Bret Harte High to hear him challenge a school district policy that prohibits discussion of religion in science classes. “I’m here tonight to safeguard my constitutional rights,” Grayson, a 16-year-old sophomore at the public high school, said aloud, reading from notes, to the five-member district board and the crowd in front of him. “Free speech is granted to all American citizens, including minors. I am an American citizen.”

What a brave young man! He claims a Constitutional right to discuss religion in science class. Much later in the chaotically-written article we’re told what the problem is:

Grayson’s science teacher, Jerre Maurer, told students on the first day of school in August, “Leave all ideas and notions about God outside my classroom” and “Science is fact and religion is faith.” In September, Grayson’s mother, Lisa Mobley, received an email from Kylee Luchetti, Bret Harte High principal, saying in part, “Ms. Maurer’s statement that God/religion would not be discussed during class time is in line with Board Policy at this time.”

That’s what’s being protested at the meeting — and a hundred people showed up! The Union Democrat says:

Grayson, who attended grades 1 through 8 at Christian Family Learning Center in Angels Camp, is now a straight A student at Bret Harte High and he has received math and science awards, his father and his family’s attorney say. He received applause at the end of his speech and returned to his seat with his parents.

He received applause! The whole town supports him. Isn’t that wonderful? After that the newspaper tells us:

“When he walked into science class his teacher said any notion of God or creation needs to be left outside the classroom,” Grayson’s father, Troy Mobley, said in a phone interview before the meeting. “That was the ground rules at the beginning of the year. Grayson is not trying to argue about it. He never brought it up. He’s being told right from the get-go don’t even bring it up. He feels like his freedom of speech right is being taken away.

It must be quite a shock to come from a bible school background into a public school. The Union Democrat continues:

Troy Mobley [the lad’s father] says he and his family practice their faith at Church of the Nazarene in Sutter Creek and Mountain Ranch Community Church. Back when he attended Christian Family Learning Center, Grayson studied creationism, his father said. “Creationism is that God created the heavens and earth, and that’s what he was taught and that’s what we believe,” Troy Mobley said.

The lad’s father is with him all the way! The newspaper quotes several speakers at the event, all of whom seem to support the boy. One was Dr. Jeff Whitman, who said:

“For someone to say that ‘science is fact and religion is faith’ is just an incomplete statement of a question,” Whitman said. “Allowing Bret Harte science students to constructively and relevantly express their viewpoints is a good solution. It respects the Constitution, and it encourages critical thinking in an American academic environment.” Whitman also urged the district board to place a potential policy change on the agenda for their next meeting.

They also quote Pastor Kevin Diamond of San Andreas Community Covenant Church, who brought a petition with more than a hundred signatures urging the board to amend their policy. The preacher said:

“If a princess kisses a frog and it becomes a prince, that’s called a fairy tale,” Diamond said. “But if a frog becomes a prince over millions of years, it’s called science.” People laughed and applauded. Diamond shared a copy of the petition.

Then they quote Greg Glaser, an attorney representing the Mobleys:

Before the meeting Monday, Glaser was asked is he would sue the district board if they do not revise their policy. “We are hopeful the board will do the right thing and restore the Constitution to Bret Harte,” Glaser responded. “However, if the board clings to this unconstitutional policy, then my clients are prepared to litigate.”

Wowie — they’re going to litigate to “restore the Constitution.” This is exciting! Let’s read on:

If Glaser [the lawyer] and the Mobley family can convince the school district board to amend their policy, “Grayson will not proselytize or redirect scientific discussions off-topic,” Glaser said. Grayson’s intent is that if he observes that class discussion descends to scientism, a point of view that only modern scientific theory can explain life, then Grayson would like to politely exercise his right to offer his perspective in the discussion, namely, that God created life, Glaser said.

The lad wants to preach The Truth to the class. What’s wrong with that?

There’s more to the newspaper article, but we’ll quit here. Our guess is that the whole town is going to get a lesson in Constitutional law.

Update: California Creationists Threaten Lawsuit

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

76 responses to “An Interesting School Board Problem

  1. This is what I mean by having teachers brave enough to teach science! Only an excessively brainwashed 16yr would care about this with all those girls around dressing so immodestly!

  2. Grayson Mobley, I have just three words for you: Kitzmiller v. Dover.

  3. Michael Fugate

    Good thing today is the anniversary of the repeal of the 18th amendment.

    The family should be suing Christian Family Learning Center instead.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Creationism is that God created the heavens and earth…

    If there were gods, they could pretty much doing anything anyway they wanted. So why believe that statement contradicts our current scientific understanding? If the gods wanted it to unfold over billions of years, who is to say they couldn’t or wouldn’t?

  5. According to Baraminology, cats, lions, tigers, cheetahs and saber-tooth “tigers’ (smilodon) descended from the same pair of felid kind over a few thousand years.

  6. I’ve always thought it was pretty much up to the instructor to decide what topics they should cover and how, as long as they’re not violating the law. Some kid comes into a class on cosmology and wants to discuss the Russian Revolution, it’s pretty much up to the instructor to let him/her know they’re in the wrong class.

  7. “Diamond said. “But if a frog becomes a prince over millions of years, it’s called science.” ”

    No, it’s called creationist’s gossip.

    “then Grayson would like to politely exercise his right to offer his perspective in the discussion, namely, that God created life”

    This lad may have read too much Chick’s tracts for the wellbeing of his brain.

    But, if he has to explain his “perspective”, he should begin by defining “God” and offer scientific evidences about its factual existence. Before afirming that a magical creature created something, offer proof that this magical creature exists. Otherwise you just demonstrate that religion is, indeed, faith.

  8. At 16 and being an A student, Grayson Mobley should be able to write a well-researched paper citing any relevant scientific research that supports his thesis. Absent any relevant scientific research, he should forgo the attempt to write said term paper, and instead pay close attention in his science class and learn a new (to him) perspective.

    He isn’t being asked to renounce his beliefs; he is only being asked to listen to the evidence that supports the scientific ideas concerning the universe and all in it, including life on Planet Earth. If his religion forbids him to listen to different viewpoints, it is a false religion. What are they afraid of? Loosing their followers? If that’s the case, the religion should revise its teachings to conform more to reality.

  9. I should have read Desnes Diev‘s last paragraph more carefully before writing my post. Well said, Desnes Diev.

  10. What was Einstein’s viewpoint when he said “The more I study science, the more I believe in God”?
    https://www.quora.com/What-was-Einsteins-viewpoint-when-he-said-The-more-I-study-science-the-more-I-believe-in-God

    “He [Einstein] said he believed in the pantheistic god of the Jewish philosopher Spinoza.  Michio Kaku (the great physicist) also believes in Spinoza’s god.  Einstein did not believe in a personal God like the Bhakti panthis or Christians do.  So Einstein’s viewpoint was that of Pantheism (God is in everything: or more accurately, everything together is God.  God and the Universe are identical).”

    Just one of many comments regarding Einstein’s “faith.” This young creationist could have done a little more research, but then again such research likely would negatively contradict his set of beliefs.

  11. Comment submitted just now to the Union Democrat of Sonora, CA. (Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Union Democrat.)

    .
    Mr Glaser —

    So you would be okay if the Science Teacher rebutted your client’s faith-based beliefs from her position of authority?

    Why would your client’s faith not be better and more fairly and thoroughly discussed in a World History class, along with other faiths and beliefs? Why cheat your client’s science classmates out of learning science by the distraction of an irrelevant discussion?

    And that’s the problem — your client “is saying that if a student has a constructive, relevant, and succinct comment that connects religion and science . . . “ — no religious comment no matter how succinct is RELEVANT to the learning of science, nor constructive to it.

    Are you not familiar with Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District? Nutshell: Intelligent Design and Creationism are both religious (specifically, Christian) beliefs, neither is based on science, and neither has a place to be taught in public schools.

    Bret Harte High School does recognize your client’s right to say what he thinks — in the appropriate forum.  “Such beliefs shall not be discussed in science classes, but may be addressed in the social science and language arts curricula.”

    You say that your client “is not just standing up for himself, but also standing for his friends and classmates . . . “

    And I hope that the Bret Harte Union High School District Board of Education will continue to stand up for students of religious beliefs different from your client’s, or of no religious belief at all, despite your threats of litigation.  (Spoiler Alert: You would lose in court.)

    Thank you in advance for your time and attention.

    PS: William Paley’s “Watchmaker Analogy” had already been thoroughly refuted by David Hume well before Darwin’s birth. Even if Paley’s flawed analogy is accepted, the injection of a specific religion would be required to identify exactly which God the Watchmaker represents. Religion has no place in a public school science class.

    Thanks again.
    .

  12. The whole truth

    The kid’s dad obviously thinks that he’s going to make some money on this situation. He already hired a lawyer.

    “Our guess is that the whole town is going to get a lesson in Constitutional law.”

    Yep, a very expensive lesson and the lawyers, on both sides, will be laughing all the way to the bank.

  13. “Leave all ideas and notions about God outside my classroom”
    Hm, a colleague who begins the first day with this command doesn’t have my sympathy. Then again I never taught in an area infested with religious barbarians such as a huge part of the USA.

    “Science is fact and religion is faith.”
    This difference (and it’s badly formulated) is something I have explained in my classes physics and math.

    Abeastwood has “always thought it was pretty much up to the instructor to decide what topics they should cover.”
    No. In Suriname and The Netherlands government appointed committees that consist of expert descide that. However besides this there is often some room for more stuff and imo free speech applies then. Simple example: several pupils wrote stuff like “Jesus saves” on their test papers. I always made sure it didn’t influence my grading at all.

  14. @Random
    You say that creationism is specifically Christian religion. I suggest that it should be pointed out that it is only a part of Christianity. There is the “Clergy Letter Project” which shows that a significant number of Christian clergy throughout the USA who accept evolution.

  15. This Grayson Mobley bloke has, in all likelihood, been fed God is not Dead and similar tripe. Those of you who’ve sit through it may recognise the pattern of (presumed) Evil Goliath Professor vs Innocent David Student.

  16. Oops.

    The Union Democrat of Sonora, California now requires a paid subscription to access the cited article.

  17. @mnb0, next time a student writes that, add: [Jesus saves] His game of Minecraft until after dinner.

  18. @TomS: “You say that creationism is specifically Christian religion.”

    No, I said that ID and Creationism are specifically Christian beliefs, echoing Judge John E Jones III’s findings in Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District.

    A “Christian belief”, as opposed to a belief held in or articulated by any other religion. A “Christian belief”, as in specifically formulated to support the existence of the Christian God.

    There are very, very many Christian beliefs — no individual Christian believes every single one, as so many are contradictory.

  19. If this student wants to discuss how “God created life” according to Genesis, fine, but not in science class. If he were able to back up his views without waving the Bible, that would be different, but even the professional creationists at the Discovery Institute can’t do that; they only pretend they can.

    As for Pastor Diamond, he can make all the silly remarks he wants. He isn’t teaching a public-school science class, for which every parent in his home town should be grateful.

  20. Holding The Line In Florida

    Amusing story. Sounds like a kid wanting to become a martyr for the cause! Those types just can’t live without the suffering and struggle for their faith. The chance to have Preacher Man say that Jesus would be proud of him and die in his cause is irresistible to that sort. Maybe he will be lashed upon the school grounds for spreading the gospel or even better, be crucified on football field during homecoming! Oh gag a maggot!

  21. Otis Jefferies

    What’s really amusing is all this talk of faith when atheists themselves make use of it on a regular basis. With the obvious implications of things like fine-tuning they conjure up fantastic ideas of universes without number, magical Properties that *poof* allow life and other such nonsense.

    By the way, I’m afraid your faith in Douglas Adams in misplaced.

  22. You say that when someone offers an theory with substance that that is faith.
    You also say that anyone who expects explanations to explain is therefore an atheist.

  23. Michael Fugate

    What obvious implications, Otis? As I pointed out before, random mutation and natural selection can fine-tune organisms to their environment – implying of course that intelligence is not needed. Oh so that is what you meant by obvious implications – now I see.

  24. Mark Germano

    Is there anything that isn’t designed – that isn’t fine tuned? I’m told only certain things are best explained by design.

  25. More dire news out of Florida.

    Apparently, Floridians hold a state Constitutional Convention every 20 years, and they’re gearing up for one right now.

    The 37 members of the Committee that will be voting on proposed changes to the Florida state Constitution to present to the voters in a referendum all happen to be Republican.

    One proposed change is as follows:

    Revise “Section 3 of Article I of the State Constitution to remove the prohibition against using public revenues in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or any sectarian institution.”

    They’re trying to get rid of Florida’s version of the Blaine Amendment,

    Commissioner John Stemberger: “Faith is a public good … Our job [as the commission] is not to be successful, it is to be faithful,”

    http://www.gainesville.com/opinion/20171206/jiri-hulcr-dont-use-taxpayer-money-to-fund-religious-organizations

    There is a 9-page PP presentation buried in the 89 pages at this link (hint: Find “church”):

    Click to access MeetingPacket_93.pdf

  26. PS: My Comment apparently did get posted on the Union Democrat of Sonora, California web site,

    You still need a subscription to read the article, but you can access (some of?) the comments thru DISQUS:

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/uniondemocrat/bret_harte_student_wants_science_class_to_make_room_for_god/#comment-3648821202

    Five comments critical of the kid, one comment from the kid’s lawyer and mine.

  27. Thanks, Random. I’ll keep an eye on that.

  28. Otis Jefferies

    For the “Fine-tuning? What fine-tuning?” crowd here, Leonard Susskind said it well:

    “Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.”

    Don’t like Susskind? You can ask Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Guth, Hawking, Linde, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Smolin, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, or Wilczek.

    Who are the real reality deniers?

  29. Wiggle and Wag!!!

  30. If the laws of nature are fine tuned to the existence of life, then there is no need to resort to the supernatural for the existence of life.

  31. Otis Jefferies

    TomS, If I understand you:
    There is no fine-tuning, ergo no need for the supernatural
    There is fine-tuning, ergo no need for the supernatural

    Is that correct?

  32. I wonder if the above Susskind quote was from his book:
    The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design.

    Unfortunately, without reference links it is impossible to evaluate such quotes in context.

  33. You don’t understand me.
    I did not say whether there is, or is not, fine-tuning for the existence of life.

  34. Michael Fugate

    “Fine-tuned” for what by whom?

  35. Otis Jefferies

    Tom B, agreed. In this age of Google, it is impossible to evaluate the quote in context. Sorry about that.

  36. @Otis Jefferies: “Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings . . . “

    How many explanations do you require?

    As Michael Fugate puts it, “random[!] mutation and natural selection can fine-tune organisms to their environment”. Even to “cosmological constants”.

    I don’t see that you have specifically addressed that argument.

    And while you’re at it, please do give us (as Tom B suggests) some links (or at least, cites) to (at least SOME of) those Susskind, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Guth, Hawking, Linde, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Smolin, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinbergand Wilczek sources which suppOSABly support your position.

    Thanking you in advance.

  37. If the laws of nature are fine-tuned for the existence of life, is this consistent with the pantheism of Spinoza (or Einstein) or the deism of Voltaire?

  38. Hee hee — I was able to edit my Comment after it was posted.

    No more suppositions to Our Supercilious Curmudgeon to fix my formatting errors.

    Hee hee!!!

    [*Voice from above*] “Hee hee” to you too, Random. As you wish, all your, ah … “suppositions” will be ignored.

  39. Michael Fugate

    If I win a lottery with odds of 1 in a billion, was the lottery “fine-tuned” for my victory? I did win after all – so it must have meant for me to win, right?

  40. Otis Jefferies

    Michael, were you the only player and was there only one drawing?

  41. Michael Fugate

    What difference does it make?

  42. Michael Fugate

    Here is an article on what school vouchers will do – it is not pretty.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/voucher-schools-championed-betsy-devos-151650433.html

  43. Otis Jefferies

    Why are you using lottery anaologies when you clearly don’t understand lotteries?

  44. @Michael Fugate
    We know that yeour lottery was designed.
    Even though it isn’t real, it was designed by you. You didn’t specify enough details to satisfy some of us, but it was designed. It is an example of how being designed is not enough for existence.
    And if someone were to ask about how many players or how many drawings in your lottery, I am confident that they would not be satisfied by being told, “it was designed”.
    Just as being designed does not account for the reality of life.
    Just as being designed does not tell us whether or not real living things are related by common descent with variation.

  45. Why are people using analogies when they clearly don’t understand the terms in the analogies?

  46. Michael Fugate

    So my odds of winning are changed by how many people play a lottery? Really? Maybe how much I win, but not whether I win.

  47. Otis Jefferies

    Oh I understand the terms of the analogy all right.
    Our friend Michael:
    1. Designs a lottery
    2. The odds of winning are a billion to one
    3. He is the only player
    4. He wins the lottery
    5. No one sees a problem with this

    Got it. Thanks

    No wonder fine-tuning is a non-issue for everyone here.
    Meanwhile, real scientists like the ones mentioned above admit to extreme fine-tuning as a real phenomenon necessitating an infinite number of universes or a universe with an eternal past if ID is off the table.

  48. I was referring to the frequent use of analogies, often broken ones, by the creationists. (Rather than evidence or reasoning, but let’s not worry about that.) Without understanding of the terms of the analogies. Particularly, no description or definition of “design”.

  49. Michael Fugate

    Otis – people do win lotteries and it doesn’t matter how many enter. God you are dumber than a post. You really are. You still haven’t addressed random mutation and natural selection – will you?
    Why would anyone try to use evidence from nature to believe in God? Are you that insecure in your faith?
    And by the way I am a real scientist – are you?

  50. My Gracious, Benevolent, All-Forgiving Curmudgeon

    whimper

    Yes, yes, yes, please, please, please — ignore all my “suppositions”.

    They are worthless — ptui! — not worth the air they are written on.

    But please please please do not ignore my (at this time) sole SUPPLICATION

    Please Forgive my Effrontery.

    Please? (“I’m stoopid” is my only defense.)

    [*Voice from above*] I shall think about it.

  51. Michael Fugate

    Otis,
    Pick a number between 0 and 999,999,999.
    Use a random number generator to pick a single 9-digit number.
    Could your number match?
    If it matches, would you believe a god picked the number?
    Why?
    Some number had to get picked, no?

  52. @Otis Jefferies: “Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings . . . “

    How many explanations do you require?

    As Michael Fugate put it, “random mutation and natural selection can fine-tune organisms to their environment”.

    I don’t see that you have specifically addressed that argument.

    Will you ever?

  53. Michael Fugate

    Let me also add. If one million individuals pick a number, it increases the odds that someone will win, but it doesn’t change my odds. I am still at 1 billion to 1 if I play alone or if I play and everyone in the US plays.

    We really don’t know the contingencies associated with the universe. We do know those associated with biological evolution. This is why the creationist probability arguments are bogus, but you knew that, Otis? That’s why you ignore them, right?

  54. Otis Jefferies

    TomS, Kindly notice that in the two posts on which I’ve commented, it was Michael Fugate that first brought up the lottery analogy. If you’ve got a problem with it, take it up with him.

    As a matter of fact, since you fancy yourself an expert at spotting bad analogies, how about telling us why Doug Adams’ puddle analogy is an excellent example of one and why it should never be used again to refute fine-tuning.

  55. Say, Otis, aren’t you supposed to be looking up some citations? You know, those Susskind, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Guth, Hawking, Linde, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Smolin, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinbergand Wilczek sources that you think support your case?

  56. “As a matter of fact, since you fancy yourself an expert at spotting bad analogies, how about telling us why Doug Adams’ puddle analogy is an excellent example of one and why it should never be used again to refute fine-tuning.”

    Why don’t you tell us?

  57. Michael Fugate

    Say, Otis, are you ever planning to comment on random mutation and natural selection?

    This really is a god of the gaps argument. We can’t explain x, therefore god could have done it. Otis is mesmerized by big numbers. The universe is here so posterior probabilities claiming it is impossible are all rather beside the point. We can all come up with these silly games, but they don’t mean squat and they certainly aren’t evidence of gods.

    If anyone is interested in the “philosophy” behind ID, read starting on page 24 Meyer, Stephen C. 1999. The Return of the God Hypothesis. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 11:1. He really believes science is enhanced by putting his god into any gap presently open.

  58. RSG,
    He made claims on a previous thread and declined to provide reference links then as well. From what I can find, it appears he gets most of his talking points from over at Uncommon Descent, which would explain why he resists providing links.

  59. Otis has a way of discrediting himself. I’m not going to waste any more time on this.

  60. Otis Jefferies

    For those looking for links, why you can’t find them yourselves is beyond me. It’s really simple dimple. Go to Google, type ” fine tuning”. Presto!

    “There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life.”
    Paul Davies
    “How bio-friendly is the universe?” International Journal of Astrobiology, vol. 2, no. 2 (2003): 115

    Michael Fugate: I addressed your RM/NS challenge on another thread. Don’t you remember? Tom B took me to task for not knowing my cosmoology 🙂

    Mark Germano: “Why don’t you tell us?” I will. I just wanted to hear the soothing sound of crickets from TomS and everyone else who thinks that Puddle Thinking, for some mystifying reason, is a bullet to the brain of the fine-tuning argument.

  61. Otis Jefferies

    Uh oh! Should read:
    Go to Google, type ”name fine tuning”
    I used brackets but forgot they’re for html tags

  62. Mark Germano

    I just figured what you had was super awesome and that you absolutely needed to share a cool and deep thing you learned since you were the first person to bring up Douglas Adams’ sentient puddle.

    Also, I’ve been reading SC’s blog for a number of years, and I’ve never seen TomS quote Adams. I could be wrong, but Augustine of Hippo is more his thing. But don’t let that stop you from making assumptions about people, like how everybody in here is an atheist and worships Douglas Adams. I know you’re just doing your thing.

  63. Otis Jefferies

    How very patronizing of you, Mark. Thank you
    So TomS is Catholic?

  64. Where have I said that “Puddle Thinking” is a bullet to the brain of the fine-tuning argument? I said that if there is fine-tuning for life is accepted, then there is no need for the supernatural to account for life. (For if the laws of nature are enough to account for life, then life does not show the existence of a gap in nature: the suernatural.) I also inquired whether pantheism or deism was more compatible with fine-tuning for life.

  65. I don’t think that I am so important that anyone would be interested in my opinion on religion.

  66. Otis Jefferies

    Interesting

  67. When y’all get tired of this, let me know and I’ll put an end to it.

  68. -raises his hand to signify tiredness-

  69. Michael Fugate

    I recognize futility when I see it – time to move on.

  70. SC, I’d like to add a comment here before leaving the thread.

    Otis Jefferies quotes Paul Davies [attribution not confirmed] —
    “There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life.”

    It would be hard to tell if that is the case, or if, just by chance, it’s the other way around — perhaps life has fine-tuned itself to the universe, or at least, fine-tuned itself to whatever particular environment life finds itself in.

    To my way of thinking, that would be the more plausible explanation. And no, Otis, there is no “broad agreement” among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in any respect fine-tuned for life. Broad agreement would usually be interpreted to mean a large majority, and regardless of any one person’s quote, that is certainly not the case.

    That said, let’s let Otis enjoy his feelings of superiority in peace. It’s the Christian thing to do.

  71. Mark Germano

    I’ll Google “Dawkins fine tuning” right after I finish researching “9-11 was an inside job.” Because your answer is the same that crazy conspiracy theorists provide when asked for references: Do your research! Jet fuel can’t melt fine tuning.

    Is TomS Catholic? I haven’t the foggiest. Although one thing he has in common with the Church is that they see Intelligent Design for what it is. It is interesting that you are interested in the religious beliefs of others. Because ID is not religious, right?

    Am I being patronizing? Well, I was going for condescending, but on the other hand, the two words are synonyms.

  72. Arguments for fine tuning simply are not science. It doesn’t matter how many variables are considered and what the odds are, the fact is the universe and we are here. So what if the odds are 1 in umpteen gazillion that we won the lottery, because the odds of someone winning the lottery are 100%.

  73. Michael Fugate

    Perhaps Davis was going for “tine-fooned” which makes infinitely more sense…
    Foon (n.) An eating utensil combining a spoon and a fork aka a spork.

  74. Michael Fugate

    Otis bleats: “Michael Fugate: I addressed your RM/NS challenge on another thread. Don’t you remember? Tom B took me to task for not knowing my cosmoology 🙂”

    His “answer” on previous thread:”Michael, how does natural selection operate in a universe consisting entirely of hydrogen and helium?”

    What an idiot – flush him.

  75. @The Curmudgeon, our benevolent potent overlord:
    Whenever we get a creationist capable of writing coherent sentences and reading creationist sites well enough to reproduce arguments here without simply copy/pasting ununderstood screeds, and who seems to think the readership here might be swayed towards creationism by his efforts, I suspect that we might have someone capable of slowly recognising the difficulties and indeed contradictions in their creationist beliefs. I am sure many of us either ourselves came slowly from apparently unshakable creationist beliefs, or are well acquainted with others who took perhaps years to abandon creationism.
    I therefore urge, as on previous occasions, that you continue to allow our present creationist commenting privileges.

  76. jimroberts says: “I therefore urge, as on previous occasions, that you continue to allow our present creationist commenting privileges.”

    He’s not banned.