Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,475 Year: 3,732/9,624 Month: 603/974 Week: 216/276 Day: 56/34 Hour: 2/2


EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Creation/Evolution In The News ⇒

ID daze in COURT ... Time to place your bets ...

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID daze in COURT ... Time to place your bets ...
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 1 of 52 (246005)
09-23-2005 6:27 PM

From MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
”Intelligent design’ faces first big court test
​
A federal judge in Pennsylvania will hear arguments Monday in a lawsuit that both sides say could set the fundamental ground rules for how American students are taught the origins of life for years to come.
​
While judges have considered smaller questions barnacled to the issue, the trial that opens Monday is believed to be the first time a federal court has been asked to decide the fundamental question: Is intelligent design religion or science?
​
The suit, brought by 11 parents, challenges the Dover Area School District’s adoption last year of an addition to the science curriculum directing teachers ” in addition to teaching evolution ” to tell students about intelligent design and refer them to an alternative textbook that champions it. Three opposing board members resigned after the vote.
​
The parents contended that the directive amounted to an attempt to inject religion into the curriculum in violation of the First Amendment.
​
The school board is being defended pro bono by the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich. The case is being heard without a jury in Harrisburg by U.S. District Judge John Jones III, whom President Bush appointed to the bench in 2002.
​
So you have a de facto christian group defending ID (and no scientific or secular group?) and you have a Bush appointee making the decision ...
​
And of course this will be appealed to SCOTUS we can be sure regardless of the decision ... now we get to Roberts and the next appointee?
​
“Discovery Institute strongly opposes the ACLU’s effort to make discussions of intelligent design illegal. At the same time, we disagree with efforts to get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design,” the institute said in a statement this week.
​
That is “a disturbing prospect,” the Discovery Institute said ” judges should not be telling scientists “what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not.”
​
Heh. (let's not worry whether ID is a legitimate scientific inquiry, we'll just pretend it is with this claim eh?)
​
Of course we all agree that judges (and politicians and loudmouthed opinionated but uneducated people) shouldn't be telling scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry.
​
One wonders if the DI is worried about losing the court case and all their pretty schenanigans are for naught? They know they can milk this for years as long as it remains a "controversy" ...
​
Anybody need any expert witnesses?
​
Enjoy.
​
{abe} ps -- topic is about what the court decision will be and not about the validity of ID. This could also include the question: "is ID a religious belief" {/abe}
​
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*23*2005 06:30 PM
​
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
​
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by coffee_addict, posted 09-23-2005 6:42 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 09-27-2005 5:28 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 15 by Jazzns, posted 12-08-2005 11:51 AM RAZD has not replied
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 4 of 52 (246250)
09-25-2005 8:07 AM 		Reply to: Message 3 by EZscience
09-25-2005 7:40 AM

But if "under god" is not religious ...
That's fine, but my concern is the precedent in the SCOTUS "pledge" cases where the phrase "under god" is not seen as particularly religious (??) because it doesn't refer to a specific religion (it just rules out all beliefs that are not religious).
​
If they make the same kind of distinction here ...
​
And I do think that this judge being a Botch administration appointment will be a factor: they are incapable of discerning real competence, and have demonstrated that repeatedly. They have also shown a willingness to appoint political hacks in preference over actual ability.
​
Roberts is a case in point: he was a point man for GOP\Reagan political law.
​
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
​
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by EZscience, posted 09-25-2005 7:40 AM EZscience has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by EZscience, posted 09-26-2005 5:58 AM RAZD has replied
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 6 of 52 (246478)
09-26-2005 8:09 AM 		Reply to: Message 5 by EZscience
09-26-2005 5:58 AM

Re: But if "under god" is not religious ...
They could have a lot of money behind it -- the Bill Gates Foundation funds the Discovery Institute -- and I would expect them to have pre-prepared their legal case (that is their ultimate goal, to win in court not in science)
​
Thus I would expect them to stick to (1) ID is non-religious, it makes no claim about who or what the designer is, could be little green martians, and (2) it's about teaching both sides of the debate, that open scientific inquiry should be encouraged.
​
What the scientific side needs to do is show (1) it is faith based because it believes in a designer, and thus is a form of Deism, the faith of many of the founding fathers, and (2) there is wide based support for ID in the religious community because it is perceived as support for their religion.
​
The fact that it is bad education does not by itself conflict the separation of church and state, and that is the issue to be decided.
​
{abe}
... a long historical tradition ...
​
50 years is a long historical tradition? "under god" was added in the 50's. the pledge itself was written in 1892, and our founding fathers certainly didn't need a pledge to be patriotic.
​
The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History
{qsHis original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ][/qs]
​
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*26*2005 08:14 AM
​
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
​
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by EZscience, posted 09-26-2005 5:58 AM EZscience has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Omnivorous, posted 09-26-2005 9:37 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 9 by EZscience, posted 09-26-2005 10:11 AM RAZD has replied
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 11 of 52 (246622)
09-26-2005 5:42 PM 		Reply to: Message 10 by jar
09-26-2005 12:06 PM

Re: But if "under god" is not religious ... OT?
I don't care how the "In God We Trust" issue is resolved
​
I think we should return to the pledge used by the founding fathers.
​
and they don't try to take "Play Ball" out of the anthem.
​
that doesn't violate church and state.
​
but anthem is OT
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 09-26-2005 12:06 PM jar has not replied
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 12 of 52 (246627)
09-26-2005 5:51 PM 		Reply to: Message 9 by EZscience
09-26-2005 10:11 AM

Re: But if "under god" is not religious ...
Only one particular project on urban trasnportation alternatives, as I understand it.
​
And, IIRC, the annual salary of the head of the institute? I think there is more than they will admit, but then I don't trust Gates for anything.
​
If you read the article in the Times, it seems they are already trying to make it a 'freedom of speech' issue.
​
From BBC news (unbiased by american corporate interests? ... see "outfoxed" thread)
​
BBC NEWS | Americas | US evolution court battle opens
Speaking at the opening of the trial in Harrisburg, a lawyer for the families told the federal judge that intelligent design was inserted into the school district's curriculum with no concern for whether it had any scientific backing.
​
"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in a science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," Eric Rothschild said, the Associated Press news agency reported.
​
Defending the school district, Patrick Gillen said the case was about "free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda".
​
"Dover's modest curriculum change embodies the essence of liberal education," he said, the AP news agency reported.
​
Intelligent design is being promoted in schools across 20 states in the US.
​
The Dover school board instruct its teachers to say that Darwin's theory is "not a fact", and that there are "gaps in the theory".
​
However, the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science says that the alternative put forward by the board, intelligent design, "is not even a theory".
​
I am afraid that they are going to focus too much on the "it isn't science" issue and not enough on "its religious"
​
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
​
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by EZscience, posted 09-26-2005 10:11 AM EZscience has not replied
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 38 of 52 (268446)
12-12-2005 9:33 PM 		Reply to: Message 33 by Trixie
12-12-2005 3:41 PM

Re: Bump - Wondering why this is recieving so little attention here at EvC
Another thing that bothered me about this case was the system in place for deciding curriculum and textbooks. The people making the decisions knew bugger all about the subjects that they were making decisions about.
​
Welcome to the wonderful world of the American school system, where education is not needed to make decisions about education. It's not just science, but the whole kit and kaboodle is decided based on often ignorant opinions of often undereducated people - they aren't selected based on their qualifications .... they are elected by a political process that pays more homage to propoganda and popular ideas than to what is actually known.
​
One other gem was his claim that "evolutionists" could disprove his theory of irreducible complexity in a couple of years in the lab by rerunning the development of the bacterial flagellum.
​
I haven't read the transcript, but he should have been taken to task on that. He can't pick an existing "IC" system and say it needs to be replicated, all scientists would need to do is produce one (F1E) IC system by evolution to show that the concept cannot exclude evolution as a source. That has been done, and IC is a falsified concept. Thus IF this were really about science it would be discarded, dumped, on the garbage pile. And this should have been made VERY clear, because that IS how science works.
​
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
​
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Trixie, posted 12-12-2005 3:41 PM Trixie has not replied
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 39 of 52 (268448)
12-12-2005 9:35 PM 		Reply to: Message 36 by Jazzns
12-12-2005 4:03 PM

Re: Bump - Where are all the IDers?
What else do you have except religion at that point!?
​
politics.
​
Of course ID is all just a political scam anyway.
​
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
​
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Jazzns, posted 12-12-2005 4:03 PM Jazzns has not replied
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 46 of 52 (269404)
12-14-2005 8:03 PM 		Reply to: Message 43 by Jazzns
12-14-2005 10:23 AM

Re: I can't believe there are no IDERS in this thread!
Q. And intelligent design has been around for almost 20 years. Is that correct?
A. Has it? That sounds a bit long to me, but --
Q. If Of Pandas and People was first published in 1989 --
​
From The "Wedge" Document, by Phillip Johnson - considered by many the formal beginning of neo-paleyism (ID):
​
The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work.
​
The "wedge document" was apparently written in 1998 (it talks about things that has happened in 1997 and what will happen in 1999-2003 as the next five years).
​
"Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds" was first published in 1997
​
"Darwin's Black Box" was first published in 1996.
​
And further "Of Pandas and People" started with creationism (1983) and was altered to fit ID later (1987), with a "second edition" published in 1993.
​
From Wikipedia article on "Of Pandas and People" (click):
The creationism case in question ” Edwards v. Aguillard ” was decided by the Supreme Court in 1987. The court determined that teaching creationism in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the United States constitution, but that alternative scientific theories could be taught. While the decision ruled out any return to teaching traditional Young Earth creationism in science classes, it did offer an opening for those willing to recast creationist doctrine in the language of science.
​
According to documents released in a 2005 court case in Pennsylvania, the outcome of the case prompted major editorial changes to the book. It was initially focused entirely on creationism but was extensively edited to refer to "intelligent design" instead. The first draft was called Creation Biology (1983); the next was Biology and Creation (1986); the third, Biology and Origin (1987); and later in 1987, the authors settled on the final title, Of Pandas and People.
(bold mine for emPHAsis)
​
I believe they first change to the ID format by simply substituting ID for creationism but otherwise left the text unaltered.
​
That would make 1987 the earliest book involving modern neo-paleyist ID concepts of the ones listed.
​
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
​
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jazzns, posted 12-14-2005 10:23 AM Jazzns has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Brad McFall, posted 12-14-2005 8:08 PM RAZD has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024