Why aren't the creationists being charged?

[Willamena]

It's the constitutional principle that the beliefs of each individual be protected. Humanism.

 

[Skwim]

Just like the tobacco lobby.

If you want to claim that tobacco is harmless and go on a lecture tour during which it is discovered that your claim to having scientific expertise is a lie and that you know damn well that tobacco is a leading cause of cancer. Prosecution would be appropriate.

Under what law, fibbing?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

But if he believes it, it isn't fraud. You just believe he doesn't believe it. I know people who think that we didn't go to the moon. That's demonstrably false, but they believe it.

And others would argue that the Pope DOES make false claims - it's a bit eye of the beholder on that one.

Hmmm....Perhaps it would be nice to have a good public trial for these things.
Might not be able to send anyone to jail, or fine them up the kazoo.....but at least at the end, it would be clear that they are wrong, and now they can go home, hat in hands, and keep their kind of crazy to themselves.
Maybe get a few public service commercials out of it, to warn the young and impressionable from considering their goofball ideas in the future.

Yeah, ours is a free country with free speech, but these guys who are gaining ground in altering our children's school-books should be getting as much traction from their "arguments" as the guy on the corner, with the trash bags, yelling about how the purple butterflies are coming to steal our electricity and our women. Should we be considering letting him teach our next generation?

 

[Bunyip]

No, they don't. But if the Bible says that the moon is made of cheese, than the freedom of religion laws just might protect you... even though they shouldn't.

The constitution protects the education system from religious influence, freedom of religion does not equate to being able to insert religious mythology into science classes. Such activity is contrary to US law, not protected by it.

What position are you in to make that kind of judgment?

If Hovind is so deluded that he does not in fact know that he does not have a real doctorate, that should be publicly stated prior to each lecture. That Hovind can not distinguish between fantast and reality should be made clear prior to each speaking engagement.

Don't underestimate the length of human stubbornness, especially one born out of a lifelong fear of hellfire.

Sure, and what amazes me is that all you need to do to reconcile the bible and science is to reconsider how you are interpreting the bible. Assuming that all of the evidence of science is wrong, rather than that your interpretation is wrong is staggeringly egomaniacal.

 

[Bunyip]

Under what law, fibbing?

Fraud.

 

[Skwim]

Fraud.

Then it isn't "Just like the tobacco lobby" as you've describe it.

 

[Bunyip]

Then it isn't "Just like the tobacco lobby" as you've describe it.

How so?

 

[Riverwolf]

The constitution protects the education system from religious influence, freedom of religion does not equate to being able to insert religious mythology into science classes. Such activity is contrary to US law, not protected by it.

Yes it is... barely.

And only in government-funded schools. Privately-funded schools can teach whatever they want.

If Hovind is so deluded that he does not in fact know that he does not have a real doctorate, that should be publicly stated prior to each lecture. That Hovind can not distinguish between fantast and reality should be made clear prior to each speaking engagement.

If he's that deluded that he's unaware of it, then how can he express that he's unaware of it?

Sure, and what amazes me is that all you need to do to reconcile the bible and science is to reconsider how you are interpreting the bible. Assuming that all of the evidence of science is wrong, rather than that your interpretation is wrong is staggeringly egomaniacal.

About 95% of the religious leaders I've seen appear to have a fairly good degree of narcissism, so... yeah. That it's staggeringly egomaniacal is kind of a "sky is blue" statement to me.

 

[Curious George]

In the US at least, freedom of speech protects you from being sued for being wrong as long as you don't intend to defraud someone. If they genuinely believe the lie, it can't be fraud, can it?

That is not completely true. Constructive fraud would be an example. However, most criminal acts have a mens rea requirement. However, lying without gain or loss from reliance on the lie, is not something for which there can be a legal remedy. And freedom of speech prevents any sort of statutory per se fraud without intent in the criminal code.

 

[Sir Doom]

How to make the ACLU support a right-wing cause in one easy step.

 

[illykitty]

Why is big business allowed to pollute the earth and instead of meet the proper standards pay off the gov?
Why are some countries destroying the planet and no one seems to care?
That is more important to me than, what creationists do.

Money. At least I think it boils down to that. Either those guys are going to dead by the time it's really messed up (and they don't seem to care about their descendants) or they must be really burring their heads in the sand or they think having lots of money is going to make them immune to having hardships.

I think we (people) should demand them to clean up their act... But I don't think enough are informed and/or they are so preoccupied by everyday stuff. It would make a nice thread I think.

---

Now on the thread subject, it's freedom of speech and I suspect also freedom of belief. I don't agree with creationists and I don't think it should be taught to children in schools, but it would be a scary world if you wouldn't be allowed to have a belief that runs contrary to the norm, science and so on. People and science aren't always correct to begin with.

 

[fantome profane]

I have been fascinated for some years in the so called 'creation/evolution controversy'.

The creationist education lobbies such as the Discovery Institute, along with popular speakers such as Hovind (before his conviction), Comfort, Ham and so on repeat the same blunt and proveable lies endlessly - no matter how many times the same objections and falsehoods are challenged and disproven.

The result is that there is no real debate, intead just an endless cycle of repeating the same frauds and misconceptions ad naseum and forcing new opponants to simply start at the beginning every time and address the exact same fallacies that have been repeated every previous time.

Examples of these outright frauds include;

1. That there is any controversy whatsoever that evolution is a fact.
2. That macro-evolution has not been observed.
3. That scientific theories are just guesses.
(I'm sure that others here will be painfully familiar with many other examples)

This sort of con-trick seems to be uniquely tolerated in the US, a dangerous and damaging crime that has direct and serious consequences.

So my question is this;

At what point should people like Comfort, Hovind and the Discovery Institute be held accountable? Where does society reach a point where the obvious sham of debate reaches it's natural limits and a significant fraud perpetrated upon the public is exposed and prosecuted?

Is there a point where a repeating the same lie transitions from being an apologetic to an actionable and deliberate attempt to defraud the public?

If the claims of creationists were tested in court, they would clearly fail. They are false claims, and so why are they permitted to be propogated without legal challenge?
​

Could you imagine the cry of outrage if they were actually charged? "this proves what we have been saying, the evolutionists are trying to silence us!" "Persecution!" Picture "Expelled 2, the sequel"

I do agree that in some cases these creationists are guilty of fraud. But actually prosecuting them would be a bad tactic.

 

[Bunyip]

Could you imagine the cry of outrage if they were actually charged? "this proves what we have been saying, the evolutionists are trying to silence us!" "Persecution!" Picture "Expelled 2, the sequel"

I do agree that in some cases these creationists are guilty of fraud. But actually prosecuting them would be a bad tactic.

Very interesting point, cheers.

 

[Drolefille]

That is not completely true. Constructive fraud would be an example. However, most criminal acts have a mens rea requirement. However, lying without gain or loss from reliance on the lie, is not something for which there can be a legal remedy. And freedom of speech prevents any sort of statutory per se fraud without intent in the criminal code.

I am not a lawyer, so you know, just going by general stuff minus the latin.

But again, if I believe I'm telling the truth... Is it a lie or am I just mistaken?

Fraud.

IIRC the tobacco companies only really got in trouble when there was evidence that they KNEW cigarettes were addictive and had been lying about it...

 

[Ouroboros]

At what point should people like Comfort, Hovind and the Discovery Institute be held accountable? Where does society reach a point where the obvious sham of debate reaches it's natural limits and a significant fraud perpetrated upon the public is exposed and prosecuted?

If the fraud is intentional and there's severe harm caused to individuals, then it would fall under the law to protect society, but as long as it's considered free speech and no harm done except exchange of ideas, then it's not a crime.

---edit

I can see others have made the same points on this thread. So in other words, I agree with them. There's nothing to charge unless there's more to it than just expressing views (how ever idiotic they may be). Simply because making it illegal would create a censoring system that can, and most likely will go haywire. Imagine if expressing non-religious views suddenly was outlawed? No good.

 

[Sir Doom]

If the fraud is intentional and there's severe harm caused to individuals, then it would fall under the law to protect society, but as long as it's considered free speech and no harm done except exchange of ideas, then it's not a crime.

---edit

I can see others have made the same points on this thread. So in other words, I agree with them. There's nothing to charge unless there's more to it than just expressing views (how ever idiotic they may be). Simply because making it illegal would create a censoring system that can, and most likely will go haywire. Imagine if expressing non-religious views suddenly was outlawed? No good.

This is something I always try to remember. The religious right and those that consider their opinion valid outnumber us rational people. If we use the tools of democracy to silence them, it will set a precedent that allows them to run roughshod over our rights. The few instances where creationism gets injected into curriculum may represent a slippery slope, but limiting the freedom of expression in any way is a greased cliff by comparison.

 

[Bunyip]

I am not a lawyer, so you know, just going by general stuff minus the latin.

But again, if I believe I'm telling the truth... Is it a lie or am I just mistaken?


IIRC the tobacco companies only really got in trouble when there was evidence that they KNEW cigarettes were addictive and had been lying about it...

Sure, and the transcripts of the Kitzmiller Dover trial along with the leaked Wedge strategy manifesto both show clear evidence of deception

In both cases the intention to decieve was clear.

For example, the DI during the KD trial denied the claim that ID was simply a re-badging of YEC, however it was revealed that the textbook they were advocating for was shown to have been edited so that the word 'creationism' was replaced with the words 'intelligent design'.

In the case of the Wedge doctrine the intention was clearly stated - to drive a wedge between the public and their faith in reason, evidence and science. It was a propoganda campaign of the most dangerous and insidious form.

 

[Drolefille]

Sure, and the transcripts of the Kitzmiller Dover trial along with the leaked Wedge strategy manifesto both show clear evidence of deception.

Wanna bring that down. As I noted, not a lawyer. But if you're agreeing with me, then you either better have PROOF that the creationists you speak of are lying, or no prosecutor will charge them.

 

[Bunyip]

If the fraud is intentional and there's severe harm caused to individuals, then it would fall under the law to protect society, but as long as it's considered free speech and no harm done except exchange of ideas, then it's not a crime.

---edit

I can see others have made the same points on this thread. So in other words, I agree with them. There's nothing to charge unless there's more to it than just expressing views (how ever idiotic they may be). Simply because making it illegal would create a censoring system that can, and most likely will go haywire. Imagine if expressing non-religious views suddenly was outlawed? No good.

Thanks for the comment.

I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating for any restrictions on the expression of religious views. YEC is not a religion, it is not biblical or theological - it is a political reaction to a percieved threat to religious faith.

 

[Bunyip]

Wanna bring that down. As I noted, not a lawyer. But if you're agreeing with me, then you either better have PROOF that the creationists you speak of are lying, or no prosecutor will charge them.

Sure, I think that such proof would be easily established.

The catastrophic loss at the KD trial was an example where deception was proven.