Talk:Big Daddy? (Chick tract)
Panel 7's footnote - "It has never been against the law to teach creationism in public schools." There's another red herring here...a bit of misdirection. The footnote is true, it's never been against the law to teach creationism...provided you teach it in a comparative religions class (or similar), and not as science or fact. You're correct to point out that the student is justified in expressing his religious opinion - though I'd add that the primary justification for this because he was asked to do so.
Going through the various rulings on the subject we see a clearer picture (all rulings affect public schools only):
- Epperson v. Arkansas (Supreme)
- Schools cannot ban evolution
- Edwards v. Aguillard (Supreme)
- Schools cannot require equal time for creationism
- (Note that this is probably the case you meant to cite as it specifically targets "equal time" issues)
- McLean v Arkansas (District)
- Creation science is religious dogma (unchangeable with new evidence) which means it's not science
- As it's not science, it can't be taught as fact and "equal time" is not allowed
- Webster v. New Lennox School District (7th Circuit)
- Teachers can't take it upon themselves to teach creationism
- Doing so is a violation of the 1st amendment, just as if it had been ordered by the school
- This is the key case that points out the critical flaw in the footnote. If creationism is taught in science class, by a teacher, it's illegal.
You can use this or ignore it, I'll probably put together a quickie article on creationism in the public schools, based on these and other items - though I have no idea how quickly I'll get to that. Sans Deity 23:14, 18 August 2006 (MST)
I created and added a template to this page, let me know what you think. Mediawiki is pretty good about handling edit merges, but as the wiki community grows, it seems like adding a quick warning about editing a work in progress seems like a good idea.
There's another option available to you, also - click the protect tab. Only sysops will be allowed to edit the page and it posts a warning on the edit screen...which should be enough to keep us from stepping on each other's toes. Just remove the protect setting when you're done and it'll be back to normal.Sans Deity 14:32, 19 August 2006 (MST)
Including more pictures?
As Jack Chick is drowning the world in these little nuggets would it be possible to include more panels rather than transcribing. Any suggestions how we can check up on the legality of that (and whether it's actually a worthwhile contribution to the page.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illogicology (talk • contribs), 7 November 2008
Comment on Panel 31
So since the good lord holds atoms together, what exactly happens in a nuclear reaction? Does he let go? Sneeze? Get distracted? If it were true, then god would be doubly responsible for the horror caused by nuclear weapons. Not only did he permit the socio-political climate suitable to the use of nuclear weapons to occur at the end of WWII but he also forgot to hold on to all of those uranium atoms. If he had not forgotten, Little boy would have just been 4,000 kg rock we dropped out of the sky.
I live in an area that uses nuclear power. Is the power plant a special no-lord zone? Why does god specifically let go of the really heavy atoms, and not all the boring stuff in the concrete and steel that the reactor is built from. If there's a special volume of space where god allows atoms to be flung apart all willy nilly, shouldn't we get a couple (just 2) christians to pray and ask that he keep his atom pinching invisible brain power on the concrete and rebar that surrounds the reactor core? It could cause a big mess if he got distracted by a shiny object.
The link to the refutation of the Richard Leakey claim leads to a page that has no mention of Richard Leakey. I've searched the site using the search facility and found nothing about it. Is there another link that could be used?--Jcvamp 11:49, 12 April 2010 (CDT)
The comment to this panel jumps through some hoops to prove that one wrong, and they are basically unnecessary. Macro-evolution has been observed in and out of the lab and may even have been reproduced(?). The only difference between micro and macro-evolution is time-scale--Lots of micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution--so saying that macro is unscientific or any other claim of that absurdity is just an absurdity. The comment should probably be rewritten.