|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ID daze in COURT ... Time to place your bets ... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm not sure that the response is indicative of the overall concern as much as an acknowledgement of the reality of the overall picture.
IMHO, this case will have no more effect than the earlier ones related to teaching Classic Biblical Creationism. It will likely lead to yet another change in tactics by the Creationists, but little beyond that. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3902 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Sure it will have them change their tactics.
If it is upheld then they will push harder to try to get ID actually taught. If it is overturned then ID is branded as the religion that it is and they go back to the drawing board. I guess I don't see why this is so insignificant. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
I haven't posted on this subject because I was wading through the entire trial transcripts, including the bits in chambers. After that, I was left sitting in a state of utter shock! Jazzns, you're right, Bill Buckingham lied, and lied comprehensively over the funding for Pandas. I'm so shocked because he set himself up as a guy who's religion meant so much to him, yet he was prepared to lie under oath when it suited him. As a Christian, I find that abhorrant. If I was a non-Christian, I would find it equally abhorrant. It's not just the lies that make me feel this way, it's the way that he thinks he is furthering the cause of God by doing this. What a hypocrite!! I know, I shouldn't judge, but as a scientist I can't help it when someone uses this sort of behaviour to attack your subject.
One thing I did notice in his testimony was his extreme reluctance to agree with anything put to him on cross. Heck, he wouldn't even agree that he said things in his deposition until the deposition was read out in court and even then, all he would say was words to the effect of "Well I must have if that's what it says". He just couldn't bring himself to say "Yeah, I said that". He came across as someone on a major damage limitation exercise, having realised what he had done. Problem was, he destroyed his own truthfulness and credibility in the process. 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. Buckingham seems hard-pressed to actually demonstrate an accurate knowledge of the theory he was rubbishing and he admitted that he had no idea if ID was good science, bad science or not science. However, the highlight of the entire trial has to be when, explaining how he would redefine science, Behe used such a broad definition that he was forced to agree with the plaintiffs' councel that astrology would be included in his definition. Behe's credibility was comprehensively destroyed in my opinion, especially by the reams of material on the evolution of the immune system, which he claimed did not exist. Shame that it was produced in court lol. I'm a molecular biologist, I don't specialise in evolution, but even I could pick holes in his pronouncements. 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. It took millions of years for the present bacterial flagellum to evolve - why does he think that a failure for it to develop in 2 years in a test tube would prove his IC theory? That seemed to be the sum total of his argument that ID is testable and if that's his idea of a test of his theory, he's fooling no-one but himself. Over here in the UK, we don't have this problem. Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of the population, very few people deny it. There is no (clear and present) danger of attempts to introduce ID into schools here. If that time ever comes I will fight it tooth and nail. I've learned so much more about ID and it's proponents by reading the transcripts of this trial, much more than I've been able to glean from ID proponents on this board. Now I know why they are so unwilling to go into details to support their claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I guess I don't see why this is so insignificant. I don't think we do see it as insignificant. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
I guess I don't see why this is so insignificant.
I'm waiting for the court ruling, when it comes. There will be more to discuss at that time. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3902 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
to lie under oath when it suited him. As a Christian, I find that abhorrant. If I was a non-Christian, I would find it equally abhorrant. It's not just the lies that make me feel this way, it's the way that he thinks he is furthering the cause of God by doing this. That was pretty much my feelings too. Any IDer Christians actually care to respond? I cannot imagine that this is not important to many of the ID folk around here or for matter any ID lurkers. I mean common. ID in schools. God back in the classroom. This is huge!
The people making the decisions knew bugger all about the subjects that they were making decisions about. Buckingham seems hard-pressed to actually demonstrate an accurate knowledge of the theory he was rubbishing and he admitted that he had no idea if ID was good science, bad science or not science. The best question that Rothschild asked multiple times on cross towards the board members was that if anyone on the board who supported the decision did any research or presented any evidence to the public and the staff showing that including ID in the classroom had educational benefits. All of them answered in the negative. What else do you have except religion at that point!? This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-12-2005 02:04 PM 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6013 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Any IDer Christians actually care to respond? The first that comes to mind is randman - his pet theory is that because Haeckel intentionally forged embryo drawings 150 years ago, that we cannot trust anything that evolution scientists tell us. If they did it once, they'll do it again to maintain their theory. What does this say for the ID movement, randman? Buckingham outright lied under oath, (and actually lied in such a way as to imply guilt in others), regarding his role in getting ID taught in the Dover schools. Though others involved were not caught in such a boldface lie, it is quite clear that many on the schoolboard acted unethically. If Buckingham lied, then how can we trust anything that the ID movement tells us? I guess "ID theory" is another baby that needs to be thrown out with the bathwater...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What else do you have except religion at that point!? politics. Of course ID is all just a political scam anyway. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5810 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
However, the highlight of the entire trial has to be when, explaining how he would redefine science, Behe used such a broad definition that he was forced to agree with the plaintiffs' councel that astrology would be included in his definition. Behe's credibility was comprehensively destroyed in my opinion, especially by the reams of material on the evolution of the immune system, which he claimed did not exist. I did not read all the court transcripts, only the ones for Behe because I wanted to see if the prosecutor would ask him what I have wanted to get an answer about. He is so far the only scientist to try and posit having found actual science based evidence. Thankfully the attorney did move along the same lines I would have and you are right that Behe's credibility was destroyed. In addition to the points you raised something pretty critical was revealed. While he kept asserting that it was evo theorists who were using presumptions to cloud their findings, he repeatedly did the same thing. He asserts X to be true, and when asked why he did not run experiments to try and substantiate that he said that it was because he believed X to be true and if it was then nothing would come of the experiments! That shows he doesn't even understand the power of a negative result. When asked if he had read numerous articles and books on the subject his answer was the same, he assumes X to be true and so the books and articles could not in any way suggest an undercutting of X. It was a display of sheer willful ignorance and arrogance and antiscientific behavior. It was also disturbing to watch him try to wriggle out of obvious statements he had made as well as what the book under discussion was making. Anyone having a problem with Clinton's "is" waffling, should have exploded in rage over Behe's "means" twisting. In the end, through Behe, the Pandas book which was to be suggested reading if not enforced was shown to not have an accurate depiction of either evo theory or id. So what was it good for? I guess for another round of books kids could be taught discrediting it? This message has been edited by holmes, 12-13-2005 03:55 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3902 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
What you might consider another good read would be the Steven Fuller direct and cross.
Its Day15. It seems like it was a bit more of a mistake for the defense to call him than it helped. I particulary like the subtle way on cross they got him to admit that he considered holding to methodological naturalism to be dogmatic and that he his objection to evolution is that it is an "explanation that claims to be final". If you liked the in depth nature of Behe's testimony, I am curious what you think of Fullers. This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-13-2005 09:56 AM 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5810 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
If you liked the in depth nature of Behe's testimony, I am curious what you think of Fullers. I went ahead and read his full testimony (pros and def) on your suggestion. If he was not outright lying most of the time, then he is a fantastic example of why ad hoc reasoning really comes back to bite one in the ass. The defense portion seemed to contain assertions based on a rather biased view of science, two of the more important were... 1) Monotheism drove/caused the creation of singular encompassing scientific theories in the western world. The first question I had is why does a single creator suggest at all that there would be a unified set of rules for everything? People create things differently with different rule sets all the time. And I might point out with some irony the whole point of the ID movement is to undermine unification rules of biological origin and diversity. Whatta dumbass. 2) Evolutionary theory would cause a loss of interest in science because we just live and die. Where does he get off with such an assertion? And again with much irony most ID adherents... and he himself... chose NOT to go into science and practice science. Those fighting ID are generally those that have been in science and want to continue doing so. Again what dumbass. And I was troubled by suggestions he made over both sets of testimony... 3) The state of modern science necessitates a form of affirmative action for disadvantaged theories? 4) As long as intelligent design is forwarded as an alternative theory, then the cost of making kids unenthused about science (because of the inaccurate Dover statement to students) is something he is comfortable living with? Yeah this guy was great for science. He admits that MN has been a contributor to lots if not most of our scientific advances. He admits that ID comes from creationist backgrounds and as of yet has no real theories nor tests nor justifications (which by his own definition of science means it only has background "discovery" issues to offer students). He even admits it may not actually provide any scientific advances. Yet his conclusion from all of the above is that any reasonable person with a knowledge of the history and philosophy of science would be to reject MN, and that society should artificially generate recruits among unwitting students, moving them into ID just to see where it might lead? My guess is he would not accept that in any area of life or science, except ID. The prosecution's cross started as an entertaining bit of pinning an ad hoc reasoner (or liar) to the floor using his own previous statements. By the end it was pathetic. This message has been edited by holmes, 12-14-2005 09:08 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3902 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I just can't believe how much he showed ID's impotence.
Well they have really done any science yet but it ID is science! I wish I get the audio of his testimony because I would have liked to hear his tone of voice during cross. I do agree that he is for some kind of affirmative action for fledgling theories. What else can you think about if you are a "sociologist of science". WTF is that anyway? After reading it again I have to say after all that talk about how ID is new and needs a chance and needs to reach a "critical mass" and how that takes time:
Q. So that's in the idea formulation phase? A. Yes, what's motivating people, yeah, the things that are animating their imaginations. Q. But on the justification side when it comes to intelligent design, that's the scientific testable side? A. Yes. Q. And intelligent design has not yet made its case on the justification side? A. No, because it's not sufficiently developed yet. You actually have to have more theory developed, you have to have more interpretation of existing phenomena to then be able to develop the appropriate kinds of tests. 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 -- {ABE} Also found this absolute GEM!. Emphasis mine.
Q. So intelligent design aspires to change this ground rule of science, this methodological naturalism? A. Methodological naturalism is not a ground rule of science. Q. A commitment to natural causation is a ground rule of science? A. Well, actually, the ground rule of science is testability. Okay? I mean, so -- and that is metaphysically neutral. Q. And how do you test the supernatural? A. Well, that's an age-old question, but there have been paranormal experiments. And even when one was thinking about gravity as a potentially occult force, right, that was the big challenge of the experimental imagination, to figure out how can we measure something that seems to be kind of, you know, invisible, you know, kind of impalpable. So this is, in fact -- this is, in fact, one of the prompts to develop very subtle kinds of experiments and get at things in indirect ways. So the idea that something is supernatural doesn't preclude it from any kind of experimental testing. It just makes it kind of tricky, and it often takes a long time to do it. WTF? This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-14-2005 08:24 AM 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5810 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
What else can you think about if you are a "sociologist of science". WTF is that anyway? Hey now! I would probably best be considered a philosopher and sociologist of science. It is real and it can be done. In fact lately I have been considering going back to school in essentially that field. This guy was not a very good example of what that is. You could think of sociologists of science as being anthropologists who go investigate tribes of scientists in the field and see what goes into (underlies) what they do. What I didn't get is where he switches from anthropologist to activist. How does he go from how science is done to then say we need to change that because I don't like how I see it is being done? Especially when he can also see and admit that it has produced results which were its intended aim. The key difference between that guy and a person like me, and many others I hope, is that I have a real background in actual science. I did take massive coursework (full undergrad and some grad) in phys sciences as well as having worked there. He appears to like to think of himself in the role (or mind) of God, thinking how he'd like things to be. Heaven forbid he actually has to work IN science. Much easier for him to tell everyone else what they should be doing. There were several sections I found funny, and you hit a couple of them. On the critical mass thing, it seemed to me that during def he was arguing against Kuhn and for Popper, but within pros crossexam had shifted to stating that Kuhn's prediction was coming true and because of this must use the power of govt to make Popper's dream come true via Kuhnian mechanisms. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9053 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
IDers are not here because they cannot figure out any defense to the points being made. If they try to make their outlandish claims, we force them to back them with proof or evidence. Since they do not truly understand what science is, they cannot provide scientific evidence.
Their mantra is "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024