Scalia Blows Creationist Dog-Whistle

Star

Gold Member
Apr 5, 2009
2,532
614
190
.
Scalia Blows Creationist Dog-Whistle, at a Catholic High School no less. Wonder what the leader of the largest Christian church in the world would say about Scalia's bloviating?


Justice Scalia Blows Creationist Dog-Whistle During Graduation Speech At Catholic High School

by Ian Millhiser
June 5, 2015

Justice Antonin Scalia spoke on Thursday at his granddaughter’s graduation from a Catholic high school in Bethesda, Maryland. During the speech, however, the sitting Supreme Court justice offered a subtle nod to young earth creationism, the belief that that the earth was created by God and is only several thousand years-old.

“Class of 2015, you should not leave Stone Ridge High School thinking that you face challenges that are at all, in any important sense, unprecedented,” Scalia said, adding that “Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so, and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were.”

Humanity began to develop much more than 5,000 years ago. Early human ancestors began to diverge from the chimpanzee lineage about six million years ago. The first members of the species Homo sapiens are believed to have lived in Africa about 100,000 years ago, and cave paintings and other evidence of human culture exist that are believed to have been created 50,000 years ago.

<snip>

It's unbelievable to me that goofballs like Scalia and others on the SCOTUS will be deciding whether or not millions of Americans will be able to see a doctor or vote, or if it's OK for someone to buy politicians or if foreigners can buy our politicians or...

.
 
Judging from what he said, I suspect that he was referring to human civilization. But even there, he got it wrong. Jericho was founded over 9,000 year ago, and is the oldest continuously occupied city on the planet.
 
“Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so..."

Hoo boy.

Technically true, but an obvious sop to Young Earth Creationists. Pretty bizarre coming from a Supreme Court Justice in this day and age.
 
Scalia is a retarded asshole. Nothing he says surprises me. It's sickening to think that piece of shit will probably be sitting on the SCOTUS bench until he dies. I don't worry about his senility - because he's already there.
 
How about modern civilization? It is pathetic that all you have is the Creationist canard. I guess straw men are still popular in the Land of Oz.
 
Perhaps he meant civilzation rather than humanity. I'll give him that.


I think Scalia meant what he said but couched what he said, probably so he wouldn't have his non-scientific feet held to the fire.

Excerpted below is Scalia's dissent in Louisiana's case Edwards vs. Aguillard.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578#writing-USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD

<snip>

(2)The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger…. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth."

(3) Creation science is educationally valuable. Students exposed to it better understand the current state of scientific evidence about the origin of life.

<snip>

.
 
Perhaps he meant civilzation rather than humanity. I'll give him that.


I think Scalia meant what he said but couched what he said, probably so he wouldn't have his non-scientific feet held to the fire.

Excerpted below is Scalia's dissent in Louisiana's case Edwards vs. Aguillard.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578#writing-USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD

<snip>

(2)The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger…. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth."

(3) Creation science is educationally valuable. Students exposed to it better understand the current state of scientific evidence about the origin of life.

<snip>

.
He's right, of course. The evidence for classic Darwinian evolution--man evolved from apes--is non-existent.
 
Perhaps he meant civilzation rather than humanity. I'll give him that.


I think Scalia meant what he said but couched what he said, probably so he wouldn't have his non-scientific feet held to the fire.

Excerpted below is Scalia's dissent in Louisiana's case Edwards vs. Aguillard.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578#writing-USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD

<snip>

(2)The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger…. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth."

(3) Creation science is educationally valuable. Students exposed to it better understand the current state of scientific evidence about the origin of life.

<snip>

.
He's right, of course. The evidence for classic Darwinian evolution--man evolved from apes--is non-existent.
No wonder you're so confused.
The science says humans and apes had a common ancestor. Do some reading.
 
Perhaps he meant civilzation rather than humanity. I'll give him that.


I think Scalia meant what he said but couched what he said, probably so he wouldn't have his non-scientific feet held to the fire.

Excerpted below is Scalia's dissent in Louisiana's case Edwards vs. Aguillard.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578#writing-USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD

<snip>

(2)The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger…. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth."

(3) Creation science is educationally valuable. Students exposed to it better understand the current state of scientific evidence about the origin of life.

<snip>

.
He's right, of course. The evidence for classic Darwinian evolution--man evolved from apes--is non-existent.
No wonder you're so confused.
The science says humans and apes had a common ancestor. Do some reading.
"The science" says nothing of the sort. Leave this discussion to adults, please.
 
Perhaps he meant civilzation rather than humanity. I'll give him that.


I think Scalia meant what he said but couched what he said, probably so he wouldn't have his non-scientific feet held to the fire.

Excerpted below is Scalia's dissent in Louisiana's case Edwards vs. Aguillard.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578#writing-USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD

<snip>

(2)The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger…. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth."

(3) Creation science is educationally valuable. Students exposed to it better understand the current state of scientific evidence about the origin of life.

<snip>

.
He's right, of course. The evidence for classic Darwinian evolution--man evolved from apes--is non-existent.
No wonder you're so confused.
The science says humans and apes had a common ancestor. Do some reading.
"The science" says nothing of the sort. Leave this discussion to adults, please.
Bullshit
 
Don't know where you retards are getting this 5,000 year number. From the OP:

"The first members of the species Homo sapiens are believed to have lived in Africa about 100,000 years ago, and cave paintings and other evidence of human culture exist that are believed to have been created 50,000 years ago."
 
As far as I know the world started about 60 years ago.

Always so interesting to read the left wingers so sanctimoniously tells us what to believe. So what if he said 5000 or meant to say 50,0000? Doesn't really matter at all.

The real question is, other then the left wing makes everything political, why is this thread in politics?
 

Forum List

Back
Top