|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Significance of the Dover Decision | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3705 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3705 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4144 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
randman writes: I absolutely MUST be reading this wrong. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no scientific support for the ToE?
Really? I have asked here for peer-reviewed papers that establish the basic claims and assumptions of Darwinism, and they are non-existent. randman writes: 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.
In fact, there are probably more published papers on ID than papers seeking to establish the basic claims of evos.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024