Idaho Committee to Alter Bill Permitting Bible as Reference in Schools to Ensure Creation Can’t Be Taught

Bible GenesisBOISE, Idaho — An Idaho Senate Committee that approved a bill allowing the Bible to be used for reference purposes in public school classrooms has unanimously decided to alter the text of the legislation to ensure that the law can’t be interpreted as permitting the teaching of Creation in the classroom.

As previously reported, S.B. 1321 was recently introduced by the Senate Education Committee at the urging of Sen. Cheryl Nuxoll, R-Cottonwood, who also works as a high school teacher.

“The Bible is expressly permitted to be used in Idaho public schools for reference purposes to further the study of literature, comparative religion, English and foreign languages, United States and world history, comparative government, law, philosophy, ethics, astronomy, biology, geology, world geography, archaeology, music, sociology, and other topics of study where an understanding of the Bible may be useful or relevant,” the bill read as introduced.

It also noted that “[n]o student will be required to use any religious texts for reference purposes if the student or parents of the student object.”

However, following nearly two hours of debate on Friday, the Committee unanimously agreed to add a clarifier to the bill to outline that it also applies to other religious literature.

“It only calls out the Bible. There are other great religious texts … so why not the Koran? Why not the Torah?” asked Sen. Cherie Buckner-Webb, D-Boise, according to the Spokesman-Review.

“The worldview that we come from is not a worldview that has the Quran as its basis,” Bobbie Post, a teacher at a Christian school in Meridian, contended. “It is a worldview that has the Bible as its basis.”

  • Connect with Christian News

At the prompting of Sen. Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, the committee also decided to strike “astronomy, biology, geology” from the text of the proposal so that it cannot be interpreted as allowing the teaching of Creation in public school.

Nuxoll, who initially defended the measure, stating that it had been reviewed and approved by three religious liberty organizations, was among those ultimately in favor of the changes.

“All of them agree that this proposed section of code does indeed meet both state and federal constitutional muster,” she said.

Some, such as Sen. Michelle Stennett, D-Ketchum, expressed skepticism as to why the bill was needed at all as the Bible is already allowed to be used as reference material in schools, but agreed to the proposed amendments.

As previously reported, last June, the Idaho Republican Party passed a similar resolution calling for support for using the Bible alongside public school curriculum.

Resolution 2015-P20 was submitted by Idaho County Chairman Marge Arnzen, and uses state history as the basis of the motion.

“[I]n 1782, the U.S. Congress voted this resolution: ‘The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools,’ and authorized a loan of money to help the printing and distribution of 10,000 copies to be made available to the public primarily for public schools,’” it noted.

“[T]he use of the Bible for literary and historic value is consistent with the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1963 case of Abington School District v. Schempp declared that the Bible is worth studying for its literary qualities and its influence on history,” the resolution further outlined.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Oboehner

    I guess evolutionism can’t compete on a level playing field.

    • BarkingDawg

      BWAHAHAHAHA

      You are funny.

      As they say down south: Bless Your Heart.

      • Oboehner

        At least you can laugh at the pathetic attempt to call evolutionism science.

        • BarkingDawg

          the science of evolution, I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            He refuses to understand it.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            What’s new.

          • Oboehner

            There’s nothing to explain but assumption, speculation, and blind faith.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            That is religion.

          • Oboehner

            That’s what I’ve been saying.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            So you admit that your religion is build on assumption, speculation and bllind faith, got it.

            Uhm evolution is not religion.

          • Gary Whiteman

            You are one bored btch.
            Get a life, troll.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Hey, he claimed that, not me. And you must be pretty bored too, since you’re here too. Just saying. It’s my day off, sunday, so just chilling, not bored.

          • Oboehner

            Umm, evolutionism isn’t my religion.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            I said that is religion, not ‘a religion’. You said, that is what I’ve been saying. So you admitted that all religion are based on what you claimed. What do they say? It’s all in the details.

          • Oboehner

            Save your pigeon-holing.

          • Quantz

            How can a word you made up be anyone’s religion?

          • Oboehner

            How can a made up fairytale about exploding dots and random chance be science?

          • Quantz

            It isn’t. That’s not what evolution is. Part of your problem right there. Also, you continue to tie it in with cosmology. You don’t know the difference, and you can’t learn the truth in science class because you failed it.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz….
            Wake me when you have proof of evolutionism.

          • Quantz

            I think you must have slept through it, it was over a century ago.

          • Oboehner

            Still nothing?

          • Quantz

            Start with “The Origin of Species” and go from there. You’ll only have about 12 million books to read but you should at least comprehend it by then.

          • Oboehner

            Start with a fairytale and hope something factual pops out?
            How pathetic for you when you can’t defend your religion.

          • Quantz

            Fairytales. Religion. All yours.

          • Oboehner

            Now we’ve hit the sandbox level, you have any proof or am I supposed to take the whole thing on faith yet?

          • Quantz

            Depends, how long are you going to ignore the proof?

          • Oboehner

            What proof is that exactly? No one has ever produced any.

          • Quantz

            How distressing, and yet not terribly surprising, that you have never set foot in a public library.

          • Oboehner

            And still nothing, seems all you have is blind faith – proving my point with every post.

          • Quantz

            What point do you have, exactly? All I gather from anything you post is that you’re a fundamentalist Christian and young earth science denier.

          • Oboehner

            Ok there exploding dot, blind faith, ape descendant, science liar.

          • Quantz

            Reduced to childish name calling – the last refuge of one who has no leg to stand on.

            You lose.

          • Oboehner

            From you that means… exactly nothing.

          • Quantz

            Well, maybe we can have a real conversation when you join the human race and can talk about evolution and not made up words like “evolutionism” and your bafflegab about exploding dots and all your other nonsense. You might consider learning what evolution IS in that time, too, because it’s got nothing to do with origins as you keep insisting. It is about change.

          • Oboehner

            I know what evolution is, a religion – hence evolutionism (a word found in the dictionary).

          • Quantz

            Except that no one prays to a God in evolution. So apart from that one crucial little detail….

          • Oboehner

            “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” Merriam-Webster
            No god in that definition of a religion.

          • Quantz

            Why don’t you use a real definition from Webster then, and not a garbage one?

            1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods

            2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

            Were you seriously going to ignore those, or pretend they weren’t there, when they are the primary definitions and the first listed? Any particular reason you chose to omit them?

          • Oboehner

            Those are also definitions of religion, along with the “real one” directly quoted from Webster.

          • Quantz

            And why did you choose to leave them out?

          • Oboehner

            Because ALL the definitions apply to a religion.

          • Quantz

            Including the ones you tried to leave out hoping I wouldn’t notice?

          • Oboehner

            Yup, those too. Didn’t leave them out, they weren’t pertinent.

          • Quantz

            What part wasn’t pertinent, the part that talked about a deity being necessary for it to be a religion?

          • Oboehner

            No such part existed, there was a part that stated that some religions have that. If the part I posted wasn’t correct, why on earth would it be in there? Who’s denying accepted information now?

          • Quantz

            You are.

            “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.”

            Who’s being worshipped in evolution? And what is the holy text people take on faith in evolution, please?

          • Oboehner

            Just so you know, the reason they included the definition I gave is because it also defines religion – no superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods needed.

          • Quantz

            So you don’t believe in God, or the Bible then. Got it.

          • Quantz

            If it was any of those things, they would not be PERMITTED to teach it in science class. I don’t quite understand why you are digging your heels in so hard when you LOSE so hard on this one.

          • Oboehner

            It is all of those things, if there was any proof of evolutionism whatsoever you wouldn’t just be blowing hot gas, you’d be backing it up.

          • Quantz

            And here you are arguing with me instead of demanding that science and the schools change their ways. Funny that.

          • Oboehner

            Speculating again?

          • Quantz

            Well, how is your battle against reality going so far? Made any headway? Or are you scratching your head wondering why everyone looks at you like you’re crazy when they don’t understand your made-up words like evolutionism?

            An army of one. Sounds lonely.

          • Oboehner

            More hot gas I see, so when are you going to reveal some big proof that evolutionism isn’t just a religion?
            Remember, citing popular opinion is not proof.

          • Quantz

            Let me guess…your children are home-schooled, and you teach them that Jesus rode a dinosaur 6000 years ago.

            What a shame crimes against reality are not illegal….yet.

          • Oboehner

            Just more hot gas.

          • Quantz

            EVERYTHING you post is hot gas. It all flies in the face of accepted proof. Every last word. Yours is the religion. Ours is the science. And you know this.

          • Oboehner

            “accepted proof” The fairytale which nobody ever sees.

          • Quantz

            Go to your local library and tell me if evolution material is filed in fairy tales/fiction or science. If it’s in with the fairy tales, you win. If it’s in the science section, I win.

          • Oboehner

            I could take a crap in the romantic section, doesn’t mean it’s a love story.

          • Quantz

            Just like you take a crap all over accepted science and call it a religion.

          • Oboehner

            “accepted science” So was bloodletting, doesn’t make that any more true.

          • Quantz

            I see, so the passage of time is pointless with science. Once they make a mistake, they never learn from it, so you point your finger at an ancient practice and laugh at science based on that. No wonder you never accept evolution – because you elect to go back to pre-Darwinian times and believe what they believed to be true then.

          • Oboehner

            What you’re saying is that evolutionism isn’t a fact? It could just be a mistake to be learned from?

          • Quantz

            Evolution, not evolutionism is what we’re talking about, and after studying evolution for over 100 years, no, we have pretty clear proof.

          • Oboehner

            No, you have empty claims based on blind faith. If you had one shred of proof you would have posted it.

          • Quantz

            If you had one shred of respectability you’d have gone to the library like everyone else and read about it. Or stayed home and looked it up on the internet. The information is the same for everyone. And it’s all long-accepted science.

          • Oboehner

            And it’s all long-accepted science. Bloodletting anyone?

          • Quantz

            Right…got an example a little more recent than medieval times? Didn’t think so.

          • Oboehner

            Yup, evolution and how man “evolved” from apes or that soft tissue can be “millions of years” old.

          • Quantz

            Oh, all that sciencey stuff you don’t believe in, even though the rest of the world has been on board with it for over 100 years. But you know better than scientists.

          • Oboehner

            More boring popular opinion. The masses are @sses, you’re a prime example, you believe it even though you can’t say why other than “they teach it in science class” – sad.

          • Quantz

            Nope, if it were opinion, they wouldn’t be allowed to teach it as a science in schools worldwide, nor house it in public libraries and bookstores under “sciences”. As you well know, and which you hate to hear because it conflicts with the superstition you’ve been indoctrinated with. But acknowledging it as fact like the rest of us means your hate-based faith comes falling down like a house of cards. So you cling to your true believers and absolute followers and go through life with your blinders on.

          • Oboehner

            Atheists policing atheists, like that’s going to happen.
            There is nothing Hate-based about my beliefs, just the truth no one can handle, and I know for a fact it will never come crashing down. You prove that with every post, all you have is popular opinion, zero facts and zero proof or you would post it so I could show you the assumptions and speculations (religious belief).

          • Quantz

            It isn’t just atheists who believe in evolution. It’s MOST Christians, including the largest group, the Catholics. It’s only a handful of young earth wackos who take the view you do and it’s high time you admitted that. Popular opinion is when you seek out something that’s not settled science. Evolution IS settled. If it wasn’t settled to your satisfaction, then you’re the one who has to live with that. The great thing about the passage of time is it leaves the archaic people with the archaic beliefs behind in the depths of their wrongness and they are forgotten.

          • Oboehner

            Studied Christians do not believe, one can’t serve two masters. Evolution is a religion – period, you have no proof, just faith no matter how many epithets and appeal to authority arguments you attempt.

          • Quantz

            You’re not “appealing” to anything when you’re invoking evolution, you’re consulting an authoritative source. Appeals to authority are when you turn to someone whose opinion is respected. Evolution stopped being a matter of opinion decades ago, which is why you can’t use it (but I know you will continue to anyway).

            Accepting evolution isn’t “serving two masters” either. It’s not even serving one master. It’s accepting that science has the answer and there’s no point in fighting the truth even though you don’t like the sound of it. So you can repeat your silliness all you like, you still lost this battle before it even started.

          • Oboehner

            “Appeals to authority are when” “you’re consulting an authoritative source”
            All “science” in regard to evolutionism is assumption, speculation and blind faith. If it has more do post it, but refrain from long cut and paste and redundant links, post it as YOU know it.

          • Quantz

            Maybe, because there is no such thing as evolutionism, but you keep changing the subject. We are talking about the actual field of evolution and not your made up “evolutionism”.

            It’s proven. We have fossils. It is taught in schools. It is housed in libraries.

            You still lose.

          • Oboehner

            So what do fossils prove other than something existed? It takes faith and speculation to believe they show anything else.

          • Quantz

            No, because science KNOWS through tried and tested methods the dates of those fossils. They aren’t speculating or guessing at all.

          • Oboehner

            Dating, that’s funny. the dating methods are all based on assumption and speculation.
            Makes as much sense as “a car goes by at 60mph, how far did it go?”

          • Quantz

            Oh, I didn’t realize you were an expert on radiometric dating. Tell me how it’s flawed. Specifically, maybe you could tell me why the speed of light does not depend on the rate of atomic decay. And nonspecifically, maybe you could tell me why any science using “assumption and speculation” would be taken seriously, and yet evolution very clearly IS?

          • Oboehner

            “A car goes by at 60mph, how far did it go?” Use the same methods that radiometric dating uses to determine age and post the answer, then I’ll explain it to you.

          • Quantz

            No, that’s a stupid comparison, because you’re saying there is missing information, and there isn’t. We know the age of fossils and don’t need to have been there at the time to prove them.

          • Oboehner

            “We know the age of fossils and don’t need to have been there at the time to prove them.” BS, a big steamy pile, I guess you are clueless as to how radiometric dating works.

          • Quantz

            I am, huh? Well, why don’t you explain it to me, Einstein, and then explain it to all the scientists who use it on a daily basis? I’m sure they will be thrilled to get bold new insight from a believer in the cult of the talking donkey and snake.

          • Oboehner

            I figure someone from the cult of the exploding dot, the magically appearing life, and defying the second law of thermodynamics, would be able to dazzle me with some circular reasoning, assumptions and speculation. But do explain in your own words how radiometric dating works.

          • Quantz

            I have news for you, NO ONE is ever going to be able to “dazzle” you even if they gave you spoon fed, step by step, idiot-proof iron clad evidence, because even if they did, you would bleat one of your standard dismissive non-answers like “speculation” or “appeal to authority”. You’re about the only person I’ve ever seen who is essentially being told two plus two is four and covering your ears and running away. The most amazing part is that next to no one believes anything as stupendously stupid as you do and you’re being all high and mighty about it. If you had any sense you’d be too ashamed to even post here.

          • Oboehner

            No one will ever dazzle me with idiot-proof iron clad evidence, because it does not exist.

            “You’re about the only person I’ve ever seen who is essentially being told two plus two is four…” Ah, no – I’m being told to believe some religious belief because it’s taught in science class, and everyone believes it, and some other poppycock with zero to back it up. All you ever have is popular opinion, appeal to authority arguments and ad hominem attacks. I mean, you’re STILL wittering on about “talking snakes”.
            As for “magically appearing life” – primordial ooze anyone?

          • Quantz

            Of COURSE it exists, this is long-settled science, and not something you are permitted to have a meaningful “opinion” about anymore. That you missed the memo and so many other millions of people move on quite comfortably with it is very telling.

            All you’re doing, and it’s easy to see, is trying to drag settled science down to the sad, pathetic depths of your own faith which has zero proof to back it up, and trying to make them appear to be one and the same. They aren’t. We have fossils. You have a book with a talking snake.

            Primordial ooze, ho ho. Funny how you never state anything that has been relevant for the past 100 years.

          • Oboehner

            If it existed you would be able to post some in your own words, since you can’t it only PROVES I am right – all you have is bling faith.
            Not only that, you insist on continually bringing up “talking snakes”, yet get all whiney when I mention your exploding dot and primordial ooze with the magical life.
            So do tell me in your own words how radiometric dating works, I’m still waiting.

          • Quantz

            True or false – you base your entire existence on your faith in a book which contains passages involving talking donkeys and snakes? I’m gonna answer for you Sparky. True.

            True or false – if I give you a detailed explanation of radiometric dating, you’re going to go through it word by word looking for any incidence of words like “may”, “probably”, “likely”, “suggests,” or other words which you are going to say suggest vagueness and yet are commonplace in science? Save your breath. The answer is true.

            And you will walk around with your chest puffed out, smug and self-satisfied about how you reduced the scientific world to nothing more than faith, when in fact you haven’t. You do this over and over and over.

            Having said that, dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay:

            Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.

            Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.

            By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.

            Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:

            The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.

            Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes give accurate dates for rocks of any age.

          • Oboehner

            True or false – you base your entire existence on your faith in the exploding dot that no one ever saw, and “evolving” that never happened. I’m gonna answer for you Sparky. True.
            True or false – if you give me a “detailed explanation” of radiometric dating, it’s going to be loaded up with words like “may”, “probably”, “likely”, “suggests,” or other words which you are going to say suggest “facts” and are commonplace in science? Save your breath. The answer is true. “May”, “probably”, “likely”, “suggests,” are not words indicating fact, but assumption and speculation, a first grade English student would be able to tell you that.
            Love the disclaimer you tossed in before the speculative heap you piled up.
            Fossils prove only that something existed, nothing more. “Observing” them will reveal no more than watching paint dry (which may be relative or absolute) – “as described above”? there was nothing described above. Yeah I know, we can tell the age of the fossil by the layer of strata it’s in, and we can tell the age of the strata by the fossils in it – circular reasoning at it’s finest.
            “Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.” “The car went by at 60mph (predictable rate)” yet we have no clue as to the starting levels, or anything that may have affected those levels over “billions of years”

            Carbon 14 dating relies on the ASSUMPTION the earth is billions of years old and has reached equilibrium. Because of the rapid rate of decay of 14C, it can only give dates in the thousands-of-year range and not millions, too bad. One also has to ASSUME the levels of 14C are the same today as they were years ago as well, just more assumption based on a religious belief.
            Basically your whole “theory” is based on assumption and speculation based on an atheistic worldview – religion.

          • Quantz

            “True or false – you base your entire existence on your faith in the exploding dot that no one ever saw, and “evolving” that never happened. I’m gonna answer for you Sparky. True.”

            Too bad, because that’s false. You are fond of putting your own words in other peoples’ mouths. They DO observe evolution, you know what fossils are? You know that they change over time?

            “May”, “probably”, “likely”, “suggests,” are not words indicating fact, but assumption and speculation, a first grade English student would be able to tell you that.”

            Then you haven’t got the foggiest clue how science arrives at consensus. Your issue (one of many) – not mine. Science HAS to use words like that to prevent people like you from thinking that they got stuck at Piltdown Man and Lucy and a flat earth and never moved past them. Which of course they did.

            “Love the disclaimer you tossed in before the speculative heap you piled up.”

            Love the horse manure you keep trying to pass off as fact. I called out what you were going to do and you did it like the trained seal you are. Your fundamentalist church has taught you very well. Speak, Rover! Roll over, Rover!

            “Fossils prove only that something existed, nothing more.”

            Wrong. If they didn’t change over time, I might agree with you. But they do. And we see it. We observe it. We don’t guess and we don’t speculate about that.

            “Yeah I know, we can tell the age of the fossil by the layer of strata it’s in, and we can tell the age of the strata by the fossils in it – circular reasoning at it’s finest.”

            At its most desperate, you mean. That’s a strawman if ever there was one. Radioactive isotope decay is a constant. It never fails. It can be measured and extrapolated. No circular reasoning necessary. And we know radiometric dating is accurate, because we understand nuclear physics well enough to built nuclear reactors using the same principles.

            “Carbon 14 dating relies on the ASSUMPTION the earth is billions of years old and has reached equilibrium. Because of the rapid rate of decay of 14C, it can only give dates
            in the thousands-of-year range and not millions, too bad. One also has to ASSUME the levels of 14C are the same today as they were years ago as well, just more assumption based on a religious belief.”

            One doesn’t have to at all, unless one is a moron. Radiocarbon dating doesn’t work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of
            error in measuring background radiation.

            “Basically your whole “theory” is based on assumption and speculation based on an atheistic worldview – religion.”

            Basically you’re a fundamentalist Christian with his ears willfully sewn shut.

          • Oboehner

            “Science HAS to use words” Not anywhere near facts they don’t, only around assumption, speculation and plain old religious belief (no matter how hard they try and deny it).

            “They DO observe evolution, you know what fossils are? You know that they change over time?” Fossils are dead thing, no more. the fossils never change, they will be the same dead things 100 years from now. I know what you are getting at though, you are referring to the part that some people BELIEVE the fossils say anything more than some creature died. No matter how nice they are arranged, they can only show something existed, to BELIEVE otherwise is just as ludicrous as arranging cars in a parking lot and claiming they somehow evolved into one another; “but we see it, we observe it…”

            “Radioactive isotope decay is a constant. It never fails. It can be measured and extrapolated.” That’s very nice, the car had its cruise set at 60 (it can be measured and extrapolated) , how long has it been driving? You should be able to tell me that because you understand nuclear physics.

            “Radiocarbon dating doesn’t work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years” Yet diamonds which contain C-14 are claimed to be “millions of years” old – which you can’t tell from that dating method anyway. So just how much did they start with so we know how much decayed, I didn’t see that in your cut-and-paste.

            “Basically you’re a fundamentalist Christian with his ears willfully sewn shut.” Basically you can’t defend your religious beliefs so you attempt to marginalize another’s

          • Quantz

            “Not anywhere near facts they don’t, only around assumption, speculation and plain old religious belief (no matter how hard they try and deny it).”

            Science does not use speculation. Period. At least not when arriving at something concrete.

            “Fossils are dead thing, no more. the fossils never change, they will be the same dead things 100 years from now.”

            No, they DO change, and we see it happen. Just like when you photocopy something it’s going to have something to make it slightly less like the original. And we have proof of this. You know when a dog dies, and then its son dies, and the son of that dog dies, etc.? Line them up and over time they change. This isn’t up for debate from fundamentalist zealots. It’s fact.

            “That’s very nice, the car had its cruise set at 60 (it can be measured and extrapolated) , how long has it been driving?”

            This ludicrous analogy doesn’t work in any way as a comparison, sorry. You fail hard.

            “So just how much did they start with so we know how much decayed, I didn’t see that in your cut-and-paste.”

            Do you want, oh, I don’t know, another 150 websites that specifically deal with the idiocy of fundamentalists in the face of the science they refuse to understand? Can get that for you no problem.

            “Basically you can’t defend your religious beliefs so you attempt to marginalize another’s”

            Basically you don’t understand your subject and are ill equipped to discuss it.

          • Oboehner

            “Science does not use speculation” Now you’re admitting evolutionism isn’t science, as it most certainly uses speculation – that is unless you can find someone who was around “bazillions of years” ago.

            “No, they DO change, and we see it happen.” You have video of a single fossil changing? Would like to see that. You know when a dog dies, and then its son dies, and the son of that dog dies, etc. they are still dogs? Line them up and over time they are still dogs. This isn’t up for debate from evolutionist zealots. It’s fact.

            “This ludicrous analogy doesn’t work in any way as a comparison, sorry. You fail hard.” Though ludicrous, it matches EXACTLY to your little “dating” farce, without knowing the beginning radiation levels AND any environmental influences – you’ve got nothing but pure speculation and faith.
            Do you want, oh, I don’t know, another 150 websites that specifically deal with… zzzz….
            The only reason you believe in evolutionism is because you don’t understand it and are ill equipped to discuss it.

          • Quantz

            “”Now you’re admitting evolutionism isn’t science, as it most certainly uses speculation – that is unless you can find someone who was around “bazillions of years” ago.”

            No, that’s you putting ridiculous ideas in my mouth once again, because no, evolution (not evolutionism, which doesn’t exist) doesn’t speculate. It just is. It wasn’t necessary to have been around millions of years ago to know that it’s so. Just as I can’t explain in my own words how computers and the Internet works either, but lo and behold; I still manage to use them both, simultaneously. I know there are people out there who can and do explain it, and I trust them because they work with it daily.

            “You have video of a single fossil changing? Would like to see that.”

            Not necessary. Look up “list of transitional fossils” online. You might not understand it, as you haven’t managed to understand very much so far, but they are listed.

            “Line them up and over time they are still dogs.”

            Line them up over millions of years and see if you come to the same conclusion.

            “The only reason you believe in evolutionism is because you don’t understand it and are ill equipped to discuss it.”

            I don’t believe in evolutionism, I accept evolution. Keep changing my words all you like, you’re fond of your strawmen, but let’s be clear about who’s building them – it’s not me, it’s you.

            Sorry 150 websites loaded with facts you are unwilling to accept puts you to sleep. So do tell me in your own words how goddidditt works, I’m still waiting.

          • Oboehner

            “know that it’s so” – faith.

            “list of transitional fossils” – someone’s idea of how they fit into a preconceived idea, proof that evolutionists will buy anything in their desperation to believe there is no God. Just because someone lined them up attempting to create a narrative doesn’t even begin to prove that ANY of the dead creatures were in any way related to each other – just another fabrication in the long list.

            “Line them up over millions of years and see if you come to the same conclusion.” LOL, you will still have dogs.

            Sorry 150 websites loaded with assumption, speculation, and religious belief that someone fraudulently labeled as “science” always puts me to sleep. So do tell me in your own words how goddidditt has ANY bearing on your religion, I’m still waiting.

          • Quantz

            “know that it’s so” – acknowledgement of accepted science.

            “list of transitional fossils” – a list of transitional fossils. Not anyone’s idea by any means, but an observed phenomenon.

            “LOL, you will still have dogs.” Uh huh. You think there were always dogs as they are now? If you photocopy a piece of paper a million times, will the millionth look identical to the original?

            “Sorry 150 websites loaded with assumption, speculation, and religious belief” aaaaaaaaaand I stopped reading, because that’s not what we are discussing, but science. I made no mention of the Cult of the Talking Snake, that’s your department.

          • Oboehner

            “acknowledgement of accepted science” – blind faith.
            “a list of transitional fossils.” So they found them laid out in exactly that order – magically!!

            “If you photocopy a piece of paper a million times, will the millionth look identical to the original?” No what you will have is a barely legibly (if at all) mess demonstrating the Second Law of Thermodynamics – what you don’t have is some “new and improved” species.

            “I stopped reading, because that’s not what we are discussing” Make up your mind, either we are discussing evolutionism or science. You have brought it up repeatedly in your cult of the mystical, magical exploding dot.

          • Quantz

            “acknowledgement of accepted science” – blind faith.”

            Keep going in circles all you want. You’re on the losing side because evolution is taught as fact in science classes, it’s a science in bookstores and libraries and universities and everywhere online. A few lunatic holdout religious zealots means nothing. And every time one of you dares to come out of the woodwork and state it, you’re laughed right out of the room. Sucks to be you.

            “what you don’t have is some “new and improved” species.”

            You think evolution is cosmology, so of course you don’t understand adaptation either.

            “Make up your mind, either we are discussing evolutionism or science. You have brought it up repeatedly in your cult of the mystical, magical exploding dot.”

            Magic’s a funny word for you to be using, Mr. Goddidit. Magically poofing everything into existence, that’s not faith, but observing change in species, that IS faith? I don’t know what the hell “evolutionism” is, but evolution is science, and exploding dots and talking snakes are not. Didn’t they teach you that in your little hate cult?

          • Oboehner

            Sticking to the appeal to authority, ad hominem playbook because you have nothing else I see. I’ll play along.
            Keep going in circles all you want. You’re on the losing side, just because evolutionism is taught as “fact” in science classes, it’s listed as science in bookstores and libraries and universities and everywhere online doesn’t make it any less a religion.
            Adaptation provides a service to the species, what it does not do is create a different species – that would be religious belief.
            A few discerning people means someone actually has the wherewithal to actually call a spade a spade. And every time one of you dares to come out of the woodwork and state “science”, you’re laughed right out of the room. Sucks to be you.

            Speaking of “magically poofing”, how are those “scientists” doing attempting to create life out of ooze? What’s that? They are continuing to fail? That can’t be possible, real science is repeatable!! “but observing change in species” Been around millions of years have we? Guess that rules out evolutionism (the religion of evolution) and your little magically exploding dot and magical life-popping ooze randomaccidentalchancedidit hate cult.

          • Quantz

            They only appear as ad hominems because you haven’t got the foggiest clue how out of your league you are when you try to tell scienctists that you know better than they do about their jobs and livelihood and when you tell them that acres and acres of books, facts, data, etc. are a religion. The correct response to anyone that willfully ignorant is to laugh in their face.

            “You’re on the losing side, just because evolutionism is taught as “fact” in science classes, it’s listed as science in bookstores and libraries and universities and everywhere online doesn’t make it any less a religion.”

            How are we losing? Evolutionism isn’t taught as a “fact” in science classes. Your made up words and re-inventing the English language is your problem here. Read very carefully: EVOLUTION is taught as a FACT in science classes. That’s why you’re losing. Because it’s NOT being taught as a religion. If it was, you’d be winning.

            Adaptation over time changes species. They don’t remain the same. That’s simple fact with simple fossil proof to back it up. And your own problem if you can’t accept it. No mention of your “few discerning people” once again, thank you. Got it.

            “how are those “scientists” doing attempting to create life out of ooze?”

            They aren’t. And your lightning bolt hitting ooze example is immature stupidity. There was nothing magical with the ooze. It might have been hit by lightning or something, but it was definitely something natural, not anything supernatural.

          • Oboehner

            Starting out with more ad hominems to deny your previous ad hominems followed by more appeal to authority, nice.
            “Evolutionism isn’t taught as a “fact” in science classes.” You said it was, you lying now?
            I posted a dictionary listing for evolutionism, constantly calling it “made up” won’t make it go away, sorry. Them more appeal to authority arguments.
            “Adaptation over time changes species.” BS, there is zereo proof this EVER happened, all you have are dead creatures someone arranged in a desperate attempt to try and show that which doesn’t exist. That’s simple fact unless you have documentation of ANY single fossl’s every change from one to another. You don’t so I won’t concern myself over it, all you have is two different creatures and blind faith they are in any way related.
            “And your lightning bolt hitting ooze example is immature stupidity.” What was that about fabricating statements? Did I say anything about lightning bolts? No, I didn’t.
            “It might have been hit by lightning or something,” More religious belief with no repeatable science, how sad for you.

          • Quantz

            Ad hominems are used as logical fallacies. I’m not arguing any of your points, therefore they aren’t ad hominems. Let’s just call them what they are – barbs, because they are all you deserve when you go running from proof time and time again. Anyway, even if I was arguing a point, it wouldn’t be an ad hominem because you DON’T know better than scientists. They have mountains of evidence and you have a little book that you have blind faith in.

            “”Evolutionism isn’t taught as a “fact” in science classes.” You said it was, you lying now?”

            I never said it was, you’re flat-out lying now. I never would have said “evolutionism” was taught as anything because I’m not entertaining words you’ve made up. What I said was that evolution is taught as a fact (note the lack of mocking quotation marks) in science classes. Stop putting your ridiculous made-up words in my mouth.

            webster dot com. Type in “evolutionism”. Nothing comes up. Are you going to run from this proof as well? Got a special fundie dictionary I suppose, one that also says Catholics aren’t Christians (which is contrary to EVERY dictionary out there as well)?

            “BS, there is zereo proof this EVER happened”

            Says the guy too afraid to set foot in his own public library to look up the answer to find out he’s wrong.

            “all you have are dead creatures someone arranged in a desperate attempt”

            No, what we have are dead creatures which appear to be the same type and we see them changing over time. We don’t guess it. We don’t speculate about it. We observe it. You, however, refuse to observe it out of willful ignorance. Science – ours. Blind faith and talking snakes – yours.

            “Did I say anything about lightning bolts? No, I didn’t.”

            Then stop talking about primordial ooze.

            “More religious belief with no repeatable science, how sad for you.”

            And you don’t even realize that your statement applies entirely to yourself and not to science at all. How sad for you. How PATHETIC for you.

          • Oboehner

            “I’m not arguing any of your points, therefore they aren’t ad hominems.”
            Definition of ad hominem –
            1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
            2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
            This should help you not to look even more foolish.

            “you go running from proof time and time again” Well I won’t be getting any exercise from that, NO proof has ever been presented, only rumors of proof.

            “They have mountains of evidence… that you have blind faith in.” Edited for truth.

            “I never said it was, you’re flat-out lying now.” Evolutionism isn’t taught as a “fact” in science classes. “What I said was that evolution is taught as a fact (note the lack of mocking quotation marks) in science classes.”
            Which is it now, it is or it isn’t?

            “Type in “evolutionism”. Nothing comes up.” I posted a link where it came up in a dictionary, try and keep up.

            “No, what we have are dead creatures WHICH APPEAR TO BE the same type and we see them changing over time.” I saw a fiero, a firebird, a corvette, and a Ferrari in a parking lot, they APPEAR TO BE the same type, that must be proof the fiero evolved into a Ferrari, right? I didn’t guess it. I didn’t speculate about it. I observed it. It must be science!! Blind faith and exploding dots – yours.

            “Then stop talking about primordial ooze.” “‘Primordial soup (ooze)’ is a term introduced by the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin. In 1924, he proposed a theory of the origin of life on Earth through the transformation, during the gradual chemical evolution of particles that contain carbon in the primordial soup.” – Wikipedia on evolution.

            “And you don’t even realize that your statement applies entirely to yourself and not to science at all.” Right it doesn’t apply to science, but it fits evolution perfectly – remember science is repeatable.

          • Quantz

            “Definition of ad hominem –
            1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
            2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
            This should help you not to look even more foolish.”

            That’s where you need some help of your own, apparently. More creative use of the dictionary, leaving out the parts that are inconvenient to you.Type it into Google, and what’s the first thing we get?
            “(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.”
            I’ll ask you: Why did you choose to leave out “of an argument or reaction”? Because you are dishonest, that’s why. An ad hominem is an argument. Me telling you that you disregard science and scientists isn’t even an ad hominem in the sense you WANT it to be, because it’s not an insult. Since we’ve been talking about this, all you’ve DONE is try to undermine science and scientists, and re-label it all as faith.

            “Well I won’t be getting any exercise from that, NO proof has ever been presented, only rumors of proof.”

            No. Mountains of evidence whose principles are applied to all facets of science are proof. There is no other word to use.
            “They have mountains of evidence… that you have blind faith in.” Edited for truth.
            Only in the fundamentalist Christian sense of “truth”, i.e. faith. You don’t understand the word “truth”.

            “I never said it was, you’re flat-out lying now.” Evolutionism isn’t taught as a “fact” in science classes. “What I said was that evolution is taught as a fact (note the lack of mocking quotation marks) in science classes.”
            Which is it now, it is or it isn’t?

            Depends which “it” you’re talking about. Evolution exists and is taught in science classes. Evolutionism doesn’t exist, it’s a made up word that is not found in the dictionary, and you’ve been shown proof of that as well.

            “Type in “evolutionism”. Nothing comes up.” I posted a link where it came up in a dictionary, try and keep up.”
            Try it now. Webster dot com. Type in evolutionism and it autocorrects to “evolution” which is what it assumes you mean. “Evolutionism” itself isn’t there. Lying for Jesus is still lying.

            “I saw a fiero, a firebird, a corvette, and a Ferrari in a parking lot, they APPEAR TO BE the same type, that must be proof the fiero evolved into a Ferrari, right? I didn’t guess it. I didn’t speculate about it. I observed it. It must be science!! Blind faith and exploding dots – yours.”

            All you’re doing with this embarrassing diatribe is further showing a lack of understanding of how evolution works. One species does not magically evolve into another. Weren’t you there when Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort got their butts handed to them when they tried that one on? Remember the Crocoduck? Google it. And no, no blind faith on my end nor any exploding dots. If, by saying “exploding dots” you’re trying not to say “Big Bang Theory”, I’ve conveniently provided you with a link to Wikipedia’s entry on it (just as one of thousands I could have given you) and note the complete lack of mention of an exploding dot. So you lose again.

            https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Big_Bang

            “‘Primordial soup (ooze)” – What’s your point?. How is goddidit an improvement even if you DO believe the primordial ooze idea?

            “Right it doesn’t apply to science, but it fits evolution perfectly – remember science is repeatable.”

            As is evolution. Check and mate.

          • Oboehner

            “An ad hominem is an argument.” “(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.” You are hopelessly lost, you are arguing against the very definition you posted. If I was more inclined, I would grab the crayons and break it down for you. I am done with your ignorant nonsense, you haven’t posted one shred of anything even slightly resembling proof, you talk in idiotic circles and have absolutely no reading comprehension. It’s no wonder you believe in evolutionism.

          • Quantz

            Let’s clarify, “You are an idiot” is not an ad hominem because there is no argument involved, it’s just a flat-out insult. “You are an idiot because you believe in a magic sky fairy” would be an ad hominem because there’s an argument involved. I told you you disregard science and scientists, and you called it an ad hominem. It wasn’t, because we weren’t arguing about that – I brought it up out of the blue.

            You are hopeless. You won’t open a book on evolution and you won’t set foot in a library, and when presented with papers, websites, and whatever else is out there you refuse to look at it and self-righteously conclude that no one’s proven anything. You have to READ it!

          • Oboehner

            “Let’s clarify, “You are an idiot” is not an ad hominem because there is no argument involved” *or reaction* Like I said reading comprehension.

          • Quantz

            “As you can see, merely insulting someone does not rise to the level of an ad hominem attack or fallacy. One must make the insult as a PREMISE of the argument, rather than as part of the CONCLUSION.”

            http://freethoughtblogs. com/lousycanuck/2011/09/15/what-is-an-ad-hominem-what-isnt/

            As you have been shown several times now, my statements were not part of a premise and therefore do not qualify as ad hominems. You’re welcome to try again though.

          • Quantz

            Also, you cannot initiate a conversation or new idea with an ad hominem.

          • Oboehner

            “The Copernicus Project”.

          • Quantz

            Yeah? So? Flat earthers. Your group.

          • Oboehner

            Nope, people who believe science.

          • Quantz

            Not for a couple thousand years. Your holy book, however, STILL says that. It’s you, it’s not us. Once again, science gets better information over time. Your book doesn’t.

          • Oboehner

            Nope, they are planning an expedition to study it.
            The Bible does not say flat earth.

          • Quantz

            The earth has four ends and four corners? Sounds pretty flat to me based on that description.

          • Oboehner

            *Sigh* I see the metaphor is over your comprehension.

          • Quantz

            Metaphor? I thought you fundamentalists believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible?

          • Oboehner

            Especially this passage: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness;” 1 Corinthians 1:18a

          • Quantz

            So you’re typing blindly, then, because your eye has caused you to sin, right? So you plucked it out? Likewise your hands?

          • Oboehner

            Are you casting a stone?

          • Oboehner

            Oh, and let us not forget how the “ice age” is coming back – heard that in “science” class.

        • John N

          Well, I guess educated young people are going to have a good laugh if you tried to teach them science from the bible.

          Or do you plan to skip the parts that are not ‘convenient’ to try to explain, like the earth being flat, the heavens a fixed dome, bats being birds, insects having four legs, and how to breed striped goats?

          • Oboehner

            Exploding dots, magic life, random chance, spontaneous appendages…

          • John N

            Yes, thank you, I forgot about them. And add to that man made from dust, women made from a male’s rib, talking serpents, Pi equaling 3, a man living in a whale for 3 days, …

          • Quantz

            Talking donkeys as well, don’t forget them. And got creating light but not the sun until the fourth day.

          • John N

            You are right. The bible is a wonderfull source of scientific knowledge on every discipline it touches.

            I suggest we drop all other educational books an concentrate on the bible for teaching our youth. But you already did that in your education, didn’t you Oboehner?

          • Quantz

            The man thinks scientific research and evidence is an appeal to “popular opinion”. No one is ever going to sway him otherwise. Or rather, he is never going to realize how badly he loses. It’s a worldwide conspiracy against him.

          • Quantz

            And look…he DID skip them.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Intelligent Design was put on trial and lost.

      • Jarle Tveitan

        The documentary about the dover trial should be shown to students, so they can see for themselves what the so-called “controversy” is.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          You want to retry the case, over and over, in every classroom in America? Luckily, we don’t have to do that, because we have a ruling.

          • Jarle Tveitan

            I think maybe you misunderstood my point? Its pretty clear that the only controversy about evolution exist in the minds of the creationists (hence my use of the phrase “so-called controversy”) and the documentary about the dover trial (by NOVA) shows exactly why “intelligent design” failed in court.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I did misunderstand. Yes, in that case, I agree.

      • Oboehner

        Nope.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Kitzmiller v Dover. Look it up. Don’t just say “nope” when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Oboehner

            More opinion, again – nope, IT didn’t lose, merely a victim of another’s religious belief.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about, and I never will if you continue to answer me in short, incomplete thoughts.

          • Oboehner

            Think harder, who knows, maybe you see that evolutionism has nothing to stand on.

          • Quantz

            There is no such thing as evolutionism. No one’s going to accept your made-up word no matter how hard you stamp your little feet.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Probably not, because I have no idea what “evolutionism” is. Evolution, however, has lots of supporting evidence.

          • Oboehner

            No exclusive evidence, it all boils down to “we exist, therefore evolutionism is true”. Just more religious belief.

    • Quantz

      There is no such thing as evolutionism. You can’t make up words and expect people to know what you are talking about.

      • Oboehner

        It is your religion, it is not made up, it is a well-known word.

        • John N

          Probably from the same book where you found cdesign proponentsist?

    • B1jetmech

      On top of tat, evolution has to be subsidized because it’s such a failure of a theory.

      Evolution NEEDS tax payer money to exist or collapse by it’s own demise.

  • Scooter Valentine

    Very frustrating. Yes, I realize it’s Idaho, however, did you realize that Kalmiopsis Elementary here in Brookings is pushing Buddhist and Muslim philosophies and beliefs on the children AND parents? It’s a DAILY part of their curriculum and KIDS are PENALIZED when parents ask for their kids to be excluded from these studies and activities. I fought it the ENTIRE time the girls were in public school. No thank you. In our family, we don’t mess around.

    JESUS is Lord.

    But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.” Joshua 24:15

  • SFBruce

    What problem does this proposed legislation solve? It seems to me it’s entirely unnecessary; however, the proposed amendments are critical. If you look to the Bible for accurate information regarding history, astronomy, biology or geology you simply won’t find much. This is not a criticism of the Bible, it’s simply an acknowledgement that it was written long before science existed as it does today. Furthermore, the writers of the Biblical text simply weren’t bound by today’s accepted standards of historic scholarship. I also see no reason why other religious texts, such as the Quran, shouldn’t also be studied in the same way.

  • BarkingDawg

    I have no problem with using the Bible as a reference to studying literature. But it has no place in a science classroom.

  • gizmo23

    The point is to have an election sound bite, nothing more.

    • Oshtur

      Flake

  • Frank Dorka

    Hasn’t Christian Mormonism had free reign in Idaho all along?