Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 160 (8170 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-28-2014 2:00 PM
56 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, dwise1, Porosity, RAZD, Tangle, Theodoric (7 members, 49 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MarkG
Happy Birthday: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 742,231 Year: 28,072/28,606 Month: 3,129/2,244 Week: 533/710 Day: 33/76 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   ID daze in COURT ... Time to place your bets ...
RAZD
Member
Posts: 16136
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


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


From http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9444600/
‘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 Lam, posted 09-23-2005 6:42 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 09-27-2005 5:28 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Jazzns, posted 12-08-2005 11:51 AM RAZD has not yet responded

Lam
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 52 (246010)
09-23-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-23-2005 6:27 PM


Re: WTF?
Is it me or is this becoming more and more comical? Once again, the scientific community is being attacked by religion. And once again, society is being told what is and isn't science by religion.

This is like those wise ones who are American born caucasions when they tried to tell the Vietnamese how the Vietnamese culture and history were like and should have been like. I'm pretty sure anyone can become an expert in anything by skimming through a book supposedly about the subject in question written by god knows who... :rolleyes:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2005 6:27 PM RAZD has not yet responded

EZscience
Member (Idle past 1656 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 3 of 52 (246246)
09-25-2005 7:40 AM


If ID = creationism...
Judicially, it should come down to whether or not ID is determined to be just a form of creationism that pointedly avoids identifying a creator. Remember, the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism cannot be taught in public schools. It's a no-brainer for most of us, and it will reflect poorly on the judicial system (particularly the judge) if he doesn't rule that these goofballs are just trying to do an end-run around the previous ruling. I am betting the ID contingent will end up sitting on their collective asses out in the street - Bush-appointed judge or no.
Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2005 8:07 AM EZscience has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 16136
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by EZscience, posted 09-26-2005 5:58 AM RAZD has responded

EZscience
Member (Idle past 1656 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 5 of 52 (246461)
09-26-2005 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
09-25-2005 8:07 AM


Re: But if "under god" is not religious ...
I agree with your analysis of the 'hack factor' in this administration - many government agencies have been hollowed out and lots of the most capable (scientific) people have quit. FEMA is only the tip of the iceburg - FDA, EPA and USDA have been similarly gutted.

Nevertheless, I an still optimistic that the ID side will lose this case. They must surely bear the burden of proof - proof they have a valid scientific line of inquiry, rather than just a religious agenda. It's not quite the same as the 'under god' distinction (although that pisses me off too). It is a case of trying to introduce something as science that isn't and teach it as if it were, rather than remove some verbage which has a long historical tradition in the country. I don't think that's a case they can make, and the judge can fall back on the 1987 decision as a precedent - provided our side can reveal ID for what it is - creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Surely that won't be hard to do. I am betting the ID side will try and focus attention on the alleged 'deficits' and 'inadequacies' of evolutionary theory, rather than try and prove they have some viable alternative, because they can't do that. If there is any justice to be had, it will be ID on trial - not evolution - and they will have to lose. Surely no court can mandate the teaching of supernatural explanations as science.

ABE. I notice this story has two pages in the NY Times this morning.

"Parents in Dover appear to be evenly split on the issue. School board runoffs are in November, with seven candidates opposing the current policy facing seven incumbents. Among the candidates is Mr. Rehm, the former Dover science teacher and a plaintiff. He said opponents had slammed doors in his face when he campaigned and performed a "monkey dance" when he passed out literature at the recent firemen's fair."

This message has been edited by EZscience, 09-26-2005 05:18 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2005 8:07 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2005 8:09 AM EZscience has responded
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 09-26-2005 8:38 AM EZscience has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 16136
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


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.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
{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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Omnivorous, posted 09-26-2005 9:37 AM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 9 by EZscience, posted 09-26-2005 10:11 AM RAZD has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5184
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 7 of 52 (246484)
09-26-2005 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by EZscience
09-26-2005 5:58 AM


Re: But if "under god" is not religious ...
Nevertheless, I an still optimistic that the ID side will lose this case. They must surely bear the burden of proof - proof they have a valid scientific line of inquiry, rather than just a religious agenda.

It isn't obvious that the question of scientific content will even be considered by the court. I would expect it to mainly be about who has the authority to define the curriculum, and whether the establishment clause is violated.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by EZscience, posted 09-26-2005 5:58 AM EZscience has not yet responded

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3355
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 8 of 52 (246501)
09-26-2005 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
09-26-2005 8:09 AM


Free Speech and States' Rights
I think the ID protagonists here (the school district, remember, not the DI) will argue under the rubrics of free speech and states' rights, both powerful political magnets.

They will probably assert that the scientific validity of ID is largely irrelevant compared to important questions of protected speech and local control. They clearly cannot win on the scientific merits, and the above alternatives would appeal to a conservative judge (and then SCOTUS): I can readily imagine an opinion that declares it is outside the court's purview to determine the validity of a theory and that otherwise the hurdle for stifling speech and thwarting local control has not been met.

I think the protesting partents and ACLU will lose at least this first round.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2005 8:09 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 1656 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 9 of 52 (246514)
09-26-2005 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
09-26-2005 8:09 AM


Re: But if "under god" is not religious ...
RazD writes:

They could have a lot of money behind it -- the Bill Gates Foundation funds the Discovery Institute

Only one particular project on urban trasnportation alternatives, as I understand it. They have insisted it is just this one project they support and have always tried to distance themselves from the religious agenda of the Discover Institute. I doubt they will be picking up any legal bills, although these are plenty of rich fundies that probably will.

RazD writes:

...it's about teaching both sides of the debate, that open scientific inquiry should be encouraged.

If you read the article in the Times, it seems they are already trying to make it a 'freedom of speech' issue. I guess the locals are demanding the freedom to raise their kids in ignorance. But the point made by Omnivorous is valid. Their best chance may be arguing for 'local control' of education as guaranteed under states rights and the Judge may decide it is not germane for him to decide what is and what is not science, even though that is the crux of the matter.

Razd writes:

"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.

That's interesting. I had no idea. Was the ACLU asleep at the wheel when they slipped that in there?

I think you have the right strategy in trying to show that ID is faith-based. Could be hard to do, though. They are a slippery bunch and it's hard to pin them down because their arguments are so amorphous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2005 8:09 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 09-26-2005 12:06 PM EZscience has not yet responded
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2005 5:51 PM EZscience has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 24992
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 10 of 52 (246540)
09-26-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by EZscience
09-26-2005 10:11 AM


Re: But if "under god" is not religious ...
I don't care how the "In God We Trust" issue is resolved as long as those of us who had to go through the trauma of relearning the pledge (a special practice session every day) get a "by" and they don't try to take "Play Ball" out of the anthem.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by EZscience, posted 09-26-2005 10:11 AM EZscience has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2005 5:42 PM jar has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 16136
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


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 :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 09-26-2005 12:06 PM jar has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 16136
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


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)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4282692.stm

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 yet responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 13 of 52 (246785)
09-27-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-23-2005 6:27 PM


what will? it be- to power up a different moon mission??
Q:
quote:
A rural school board showed a clear bias against teaching evolution before it pushed through
A: no one is wearing glasses.
@Washington Post picking up wire feed

Q:

quote:
“This will be the first legal challenge to intelligent design, and we’ll see whether they have been able to mask the creationist underpinnings and basic orientation of intelligent design,” she said.
A: When is a macro a mask? When EVC already said this.(ID is at the status of theory even if Nuggin thinks agreement occurred otherwise.)
@MSN quotes Scott

Q:

quote:
as science to sidestep a 1987 Supreme Court ruling
@NCSEre:source
It is my feeling that the lemon test already failed and that any suchNCSE will only go to the substitution of its rationality THROUGH whatever in ID could become of the event probably.

Q:

quote:
arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
A:http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Sept05/wethepeople.dea.html
@
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092700246.html

There is side stepping of toleration either way
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Sept05/wethepeople.dea.html
but no prong could eat the design that remained separate. Reason prevails the argument of the will to power. In the early years of Id there will be no separation of the event any ego wise from the probability of its continued occurrence no matter how ugly(beautiful). Transformation of evolution, that, is possible but one would need to show how biotechnology can change the multiplier effect of investment spending on consumer into only an additive affect if Governments used public funds to green mars, moon and asteroids while strife goes legally on on Earth not why the last president of Cornell could not evolve as he told CU to do by 2015. This is not the same view as White even if the "science" is thesame(sic)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2005 6:27 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 52 (247684)
09-30-2005 2:18 PM


Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 413 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 15 of 52 (266814)
12-08-2005 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-23-2005 6:27 PM


Did anyone else read the transcripts?
There was a thread before with this link:

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

I just finished reading the entire court transcripts.

In my opinion the plantiff's case in chief was pretty weak but they summarily destroyed nearly every witness for the defense on cross.

How the heck do you defend the video coverage of a board member saying he wants to teach "creationism"?

I also wanted to ask, for anyone else who read it, about the blatant lying of board members Bill Buckingham and Allan Bonsel. If there are any IDers out there who are also Christians, can you defend this use of bearing false witness for the sake of bringing in a non-Jesus specific topic into the schools? Is it really so important that kids learn about the possibility of an intelligence that no amount of lying is wrong?


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2005 6:27 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 12-08-2005 1:10 PM Jazzns has responded

1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014