Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Significance of the Dover Decision
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 46 of 150 (452073)
01-29-2008 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jazzns
01-29-2008 11:48 AM


Re: Lets Get A Count
I've read big chunks of it.
It's interesting that Randman doesn't understand that the transcripts are a good source for what went on at the trial - and some very interesting points came out of it.
For instance, without the trial we certainly wouldn't know that "Of Panda's and People" started out as an explicitly Creationist text. It really does illustrate the fact that ID began as a replacement for the failed "Creation Science" strategy.
And I would add that William Dembski seemed to think that a legal setting was a good way to bring out the truth. Or at least he did before the trial.
The Vise Strategy
...the Vise Strategy consists in subjecting Darwinists to a sustained line of questioning about these five key terms in settings where they have no choice but to answer the questions (as in a legal deposition).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jazzns, posted 01-29-2008 11:48 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Jazzns, posted 01-29-2008 1:48 PM PaulK has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 47 of 150 (452076)
01-29-2008 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by subbie
01-29-2008 1:31 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
I disagree with his application of case law regardless of the evidence presented before him and regardless of what the evidence could be....seems to be something going over evos heads here.
It's not ignoring the evidence, which I don't think a court of law should settle when it comes to science anyway, but it's a view of the 1st amendment that is seen as protecting religious liberty rather than defending it.
In fact, I would argue that if ID is religion, that it is wrong to restrict it from being taught along-side of evolution. I am not saying it is religion though. My point is that regardless of how the judge ruled on that point, either way I consider it either a violation of the 1st amendment if it is religion or usurping local government outside the powers of the federal gov it is not, and I trust that over time, a more originalist interpretation of the Constitution will win out. I'd like to say more, but that may take us off-topic.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by subbie, posted 01-29-2008 1:31 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by subbie, posted 01-29-2008 1:57 PM randman has not replied
 Message 52 by Trixie, posted 01-29-2008 2:35 PM randman has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 48 of 150 (452078)
01-29-2008 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by subbie
01-29-2008 1:31 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
nless you're aware of what the evidence was, your belief about the correctness of the decision is worth no more than my opinion on who should win the Westminster dog show.
Well put subbie.
What I don't understand is why more creationists have not read the transcripts.
Had the trial gone the other way, in favor of ID, I would STILL have been interested in the case itself. If I found myself in opposition to the decision I would be picking apart every detail of every witness to try to show how this case was biased or flawed.
Randman however is just handwaving it away yelling "1st ammendment" all the way to pews.
How can you disagree with the decision without knowing the details of the case?
Its like saying that the New York Giants cheated in their win over the Green Bay Packers without ever having watched the game!

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by subbie, posted 01-29-2008 1:31 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 3:00 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 65 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-29-2008 3:33 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 49 of 150 (452080)
01-29-2008 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
01-29-2008 1:40 PM


Re: Lets Get A Count
And I would add that William Dembski seemed to think that a legal setting was a good way to bring out the truth. Or at least he did before the trial.
I think one significant thing is certainly that the DI hardliners did not feel like they had a case and withdrew. Here they had a conservative judge in a conservative part of the country and yet they backed down.
The only thing more favorable for them would have been for this to happen in Texas which is what we are seeing right now. I wonder if they will be more bold.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2008 1:40 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 2:55 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 50 of 150 (452091)
01-29-2008 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
01-29-2008 1:43 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
Fortunately for the rest of us who live in this country, your understanding of the law is as flawed as is your understanding of science.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 1:43 PM randman has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 51 of 150 (452100)
01-29-2008 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by randman
01-29-2008 1:30 PM


education is in a poor state
So the upshot is you indoctrinate kids because you say they are not ready to critically think about it, and yet you think that's education and work very hard to keep all criticisms of evo theory out of the curriculum......I couldn't take you guy's stance with a straight-face....just telling you the truth here.
Unfortunately education can't be what we would like it to be, especially if we open it for all. There are problems with the way we teach all subjects, teaching kids to pass exams and failing to teach them explore, learn and question. This is not specific to evolution teaching, but all education.
It is a sad state of affairs, but overhauling the education system costs a lot of money. Dawkins gave a great talk about this problem called indoctrination versus education.
There are lots of kids, and a lot of facts. The choice to date is to try and teach them a broad selection of facts so that they might specialize later in their educational career if they choose or go into the world with a basic understanding of a variety of subjects.
Heck, the fact that education is so universally academic annoys me. I'd like to see more practical lessons in subjects like personal finances and the like.
With all that borne in mind, it seems crazy to try and let special interest groups dictate what gets taught, let scientists decide what would be a good founding in science based on what they know about science and the time permitted for its teaching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 1:30 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 2:46 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 55 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 2:52 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 52 of 150 (452112)
01-29-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
01-29-2008 1:43 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
t the risk of being totally ot this shouldn't be left unanswered.
You say
I disagree with his application of case law regardless of the evidence presented before him and regardless of what the evidence could be....seems to be something going over evos heads here.
Which part of the application of case law do you disagree with? BE SPECIFIC.
What does the actual case which was used as a test say in regard to this matter? BE ACCURATE
Can you describe which prong(s)the judge misapplied? BE SPECIFIC
Can you summarise your interpretation of the Lemon test. BE PREPARED TO ACTUALLY CITE AT LEAST ONE RELEVANT PART OF THE LEMON TEST.
Other than the Lemon test are there any other cases that you feel the judge misinterpreted? BE PREPARED TO CITE ACCURATELY AND GIVE FULL SOURCE INFO.
You cannot comment on the applicability of the law to science (which is your own take on this) unless you are willing to actually substantiate your your ramblings.
Since you haven't shown any willingness to address the OT material which you brought up, can you at least address the on topic information which I gave in my first post to this thread.
Can you actually address the significance of this judgement from an informed standpoint, or ar you just going to cover your ears and shout "La la la" for the next 250 or so posts? At the moment you appear to be as concerned with the truth of the matter as the defence witnesses were.
Randman, make your case or go away and let the rest of us discuss this sensibly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 1:43 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 2:47 PM Trixie has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 53 of 150 (452117)
01-29-2008 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Modulous
01-29-2008 2:05 PM


Re: education is in a poor state
Education is a different subject so may need to tread lightly here. Imo, high school should be about developing critical thinking schools. If that means, you don't teach biology or other sciences until later or less science, then so be it. Once you have that skill, you can learn anything you want and any science you want, but making people learn a certain set of facts, or pseudo-facts as the case may be, without teaching them to think critically about what they are learning is a huge mistake, imho.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 2:05 PM Modulous has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 54 of 150 (452119)
01-29-2008 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Trixie
01-29-2008 2:35 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
Explained as much as I could already on the 1st amendment....and I am not sure even admin accepts that as on-topic.
if you want to discuss Constitutional law, maybe coffee house would be appropiate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Trixie, posted 01-29-2008 2:35 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Trixie, posted 01-29-2008 2:59 PM randman has replied
 Message 85 by AdminNosy, posted 01-29-2008 7:58 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 55 of 150 (452123)
01-29-2008 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Modulous
01-29-2008 2:05 PM


Re: education is in a poor state
With all that borne in mind, it seems crazy to try and let special interest groups dictate what gets taught
I don't consider a school board special interests, and imo, communities should be allowed to teach their children whatever they darn well please within moral limits....can't teach them to commit crimes for instance.
If I lived in a Muslim dominated community, as long as they let other views be taught in an equal manner, I wouldn't complain if they taught about the Koran.....as long as believing isn't really the goal, but education. One of my beefs with teaching evolution is that evos seem more concerned over what people believe rather than what they understand and so are near hysterical over the idea someone that rejects evolution be allowed to influence the curriculum.
What does it matter if students not accept evo theory if they understand it? I would think letting students hear strong criticisms of evo theory would help them understand it better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 2:05 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-29-2008 4:17 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 56 of 150 (452125)
01-29-2008 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Jazzns
01-29-2008 1:48 PM


Re: Lets Get A Count
Here they had a conservative judge in a conservative part of the country and yet they backed down.
I think you confuse "conservative" politically with a legal persepective here. I could see a very liberal judge ruling somewhere, for example, that creationism or ID, should be allowed based on not discriminating against a minority, religiously held scientific opinion, and more so if the case were in a very liberal, highly secular, area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Jazzns, posted 01-29-2008 1:48 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 57 of 150 (452127)
01-29-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by randman
01-29-2008 2:47 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
Try again. The judge ruled that the Ist Amendment had been breached, however he came to that decision USING THE LEMON TEST AND A BUNCH OF OTHER CASES, NONE OF WHICH ARE CALLED THE 1ST AMENDMENT, NONE OF WHICH ARE THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
How many more hints do you need that the interpretation of the whole shebang debends on the application of the Lemon test to the evidence in question?
Do you actually understand how case law is applied? You take an already decided case, you look at how it was decided and you then apply that to the case in question. This is why certain things called "legal precedents" can be so important. They set a benchmark by which all similar cases can be interpreted and determined.
THE LEMON TEST!!!
Do us all a favour and go read the judgement which will explain exactly how this works because you'll get to see it in action. Then come back and discuss. You'll be in a better position to discuss the significance of Dover once you've done this.
I wonder if the topic title is leading to some confusion. Its not so much the decision, per se, but the judgement as a whole which is a bunch of things and includes the decision. Subbie, I would appreciate your input here since you speak legalese.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 2:47 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 3:04 PM Trixie has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 58 of 150 (452128)
01-29-2008 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jazzns
01-29-2008 1:45 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
What I don't understand is why more creationists have not read the transcripts
I can't believe that many would. Why would they?
Seems like a big disconnect here. You guys think the decision was somehow significant as far as the science. I cannot imagine anyone that understands the courts thinking that at all.
It is significant as far as the law. It has no significance as far as science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jazzns, posted 01-29-2008 1:45 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Jazzns, posted 01-29-2008 3:26 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 59 of 150 (452130)
01-29-2008 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Trixie
01-29-2008 2:59 PM


breathe deeply girl and slow down
Start a thread somewhere else if you want to discuss the law. I am familiar with the Lemon test or used to be. We can discuss it, but keep in mind my position is based on an originalist interpretation of the 1st amendment as fundamental and so "case law" may mean something within the politics of the courts and what they will and will not do, but it doesn't hold the same water with me, as I think the Constitution should trump case law and not the other way around.
Justice Thomas holds this same view. Scalia is an originalist, but I think he doesn't take it this far. Roberts....who knows for sure?
The more liberal members of the court are inclinded towards the "living document" approach to the Constitution.
Why don't you start a new thread so we don't get banned for discussing this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Trixie, posted 01-29-2008 2:59 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Jazzns, posted 01-29-2008 3:28 PM randman has replied
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 3:33 PM randman has not replied
 Message 121 by Trixie, posted 01-30-2008 7:08 PM randman has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 60 of 150 (452134)
01-29-2008 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
01-29-2008 10:57 AM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
randman writes:
Really? I have asked here for peer-reviewed papers that establish the basic claims and assumptions of Darwinism, and they are non-existent.
I absolutely MUST be reading this wrong. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no scientific support for the ToE?
randman writes:
In fact, there are probably more published papers on ID than papers seeking to establish the basic claims of evos.
In that case, it should be no problem for you to come up with a staggering number of published papers seeking to establish the basic claims of I.D...but I'll settle for just one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 10:57 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 3:18 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024