Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Significance of the Dover Decision
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 30 of 150 (452005)
01-29-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by randman
01-29-2008 11:39 AM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
quote:
So why would teaching ID be OK outside of the science curriculum and not OK within it?
Because ID is not science. It is religion in disguise, dishonestly trying to masquerade as science in hopes of fooling some school boards (to paraphrase the judge's decision).
quote:
Sorry, but if that's what it has come to, I think the theory of evolution has a bleak future indeed.
Evolution -- A doomed science since 1859.
But to return to the OP:
quote:
I am just curious randman, have you read either the decision or the trial transcripts in its entirety?
You really should read the entire transcript. It is very revealing. For example, the testimony of Kevin Padian by itself is an excellent tutorial on science. Here is a link:
Forbidden!
Let me know what you think of his testimony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 11:39 AM randman has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 37 of 150 (452055)
01-29-2008 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by randman
01-29-2008 1:00 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
quote:
If they taught both, it wouldn't be that much of a concern. Show the arguments for one and the other.
However, what I would really like to see, something I recall the ID camp pushing instead of what happened at Dover, is to teach the criticism of evolutionary theory when it is presented. That doesn't occur. What is largely taught is not factual, nor honest.
So you want both science and religion taught in science classes? And, let me guess, you would want your religion taught to the exclusion of the some 4,000 other extant world religions?
And the "teach critical thinking" and "teach the controversy" are just propaganda lines thought up by the Discovery Institute to try to get their view of religion (in the disguise of ID) taught in science classes. Within evolutionary theory there are no such "controversies" for "critical thinking" to deal with. There are a lot of fun problems to solve, but the Discovery Institute isn't interested in real science. They are interested only in their strawman version of science.
The Dover trial laid bare the pathetic attempts to disguise ID as a science. You really should read the transcripts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 1:00 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 1:28 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 73 of 150 (452166)
01-29-2008 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by randman
01-29-2008 4:10 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
quote:
Interested in the legal aspect of the case, sure? If I had a bit more money, I might take an interest in seeing if we could appeal because I'd like to see certain precedents brought back before the Supreme court if possible.
The period during which an appeal could be filed has long since passed. And only a party to the action could initiate an appeal.
quote:
But in terms of understanding ID or creationism or Darwinism? I'd think you must be smoking something if you think a court case is where one should learn about science.
What we have concluded from the court case we (or most of us) already knew. ID is not science.
Scientists have been saying that for years, and now a Federal District Court has weighed the testimony and evidence and concluded the same thing.
Read the transcripts. Behe was totally blown out of the water. Padian gave a splended tutorial on what science is and how it works. You might actually learn something!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 4:10 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 4:27 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 91 of 150 (452303)
01-30-2008 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by randman
01-30-2008 12:32 AM


In other words, the theocracy is coming like it or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 12:32 AM randman has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 118 of 150 (452534)
01-30-2008 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by PaulK
01-30-2008 4:16 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
quote:
It is definitely NOT a research paper. It is evidence though - of how the list of ID "research" has to be heavily padded with poor-quality non-research papers.
The place to turn for ID research is the premier ID research establishment in the country, the Discovery Institute.
And what have they published?
Their staff seems to be mainly lawyers and PR flacks, with an occasional journalist and even one English major.
They do have a blog, which seems dedicated to whining about how picked on ID "researchers" are, but in reality they have published nothing of note since the Wedge Document was "informally" published. They certainly did not ride to the rescue in the Dover case with peer-reviewed scientific research and credible expert witnesses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2008 4:16 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Jazzns, posted 01-30-2008 5:08 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 142 of 150 (452825)
01-31-2008 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by randman
01-31-2008 11:11 AM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
quote:
It's not an extraordinary claim. In fact, the more extraordinary claim is Darwinism and the evidence isn't there.
With this statement you demonstrate that you are willing to ignore any evidence that opposes your religious belief; you show that you are not a debater but an unreasoning zealot, blindly clinging to a particular belief and unwilling to even admit that there is evidence to the contrary.
Have you been into a science library? The journals alone take up floors! You claim there is no evidence, but have you read any of those journals? Here is a link to a current issue of Journal of Human Evolution (one of literally hundreds of journals within which the evidence is accumulating):
Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages 1-168 (January 2008)
By the way, that link will also provide the table of contents for a lot of back issues. You can find such interesting titles as "Biomechanics of phalangeal curvature" and "Evidence of amelogenesis imperfecta in an early African Homo erectus" -- and thousands of other articles. And that is just one journal out of hundreds.
What do you call that, chopped liver? Or do you prefer to just sit there and try to wish it all away?
This is the evidence ID only wishes it had; when the Dover trial came along ID found itself holding an empty sack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 11:11 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Rahvin, posted 01-31-2008 12:11 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024