Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 12:50 AM
42 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   The Significance of the Dover Decision
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 61 of 150 (452135)
01-29-2008 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by FliesOnly
01-29-2008 3:15 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
start a new thread and I will be glad to provide one......but I will expect you to do the same.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by FliesOnly, posted 01-29-2008 3:15 PM FliesOnly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by FliesOnly, posted 01-30-2008 11:49 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1988 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 62 of 150 (452139)
01-29-2008 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
01-29-2008 3:00 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
I can't believe that many would. Why would they?

Because this is an important application of creationism injected into the school system. This is what they want. This is why the modern creationism movement exists.

You really cannot fathom why a creationist might be interested in this case? Really?


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 58 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 3:00 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 4:10 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1988 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 63 of 150 (452141)
01-29-2008 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by randman
01-29-2008 3:04 PM


Re: breathe deeply girl and slow down
The lemon test is part of why this ruling is significant. It is also important for the understanding of the decision if you had read it.

The lemon test is on topic.


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 59 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 3:04 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 4:06 PM Jazzns has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 64 of 150 (452143)
01-29-2008 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by randman
01-29-2008 3:04 PM


my position
it doesn't hold the same water with me
as I think

I think I've located the problem. Anyone else notice it?


Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 3:04 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1996
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 65 of 150 (452144)
01-29-2008 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jazzns
01-29-2008 1:45 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
jazzns in message 44 writes:

What I don't understand is why more creationists have not read the transcripts.

I think the main reason they have not read the transcripts, especially the testomony from their side, is embaressment. Their side came across sounding like ignorant boobs. They heard enough about how poorly their witnesses did to convince them that they would not be able to bear the humiliation of actually reading the transcript.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jazzns, posted 01-29-2008 1:45 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 4:02 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 66 of 150 (452148)
01-29-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by randman
01-29-2008 11:34 AM


Re: btw, anyone see a contradiction here
randman writes:

Sorry. I wasn't trying to break the rules but discuss "the significance of the Dover decision" per the thread title. For me, what I posted is the significance.

Oh, okay. If I get a chance later tonight I'll attempt a response.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 11:34 AM randman has not yet responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 67 of 150 (452153)
01-29-2008 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tanypteryx
01-29-2008 3:33 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
I think the main reason they have not read the transcripts, especially the testomony from their side, is embaressment.

That's not the reason. You guys need to take a step back to get a handle where IDers and creationists are at.

Maybe this will illuminate you....long before the Discovery Institute, the term "Intelligent Design" was being heavily used in "creationist" and non-evo circles. I remember talking with someone in the 80s about some ideas and used the term "creationist", and the person I was talking with, said, don't you mean "Intelligent Design" for tbe idea I was presenting, and she was right.

Of course, there is considerable overlap. The Discovery Institute is but one small facet of the Intelligent Design camp, which is a fairly broad camp in that it can include anything between YEC and theistic evolution.

So a court case involving some people in Dover, PA isn't going to be seen as particularly significant to a long-time IDer or creationist or a saltional evo......I am not saying there couldn't be someone that thinks otherwise, but in my experience, the mindset of those disagreeing with Darwin won't be influenced or persauded or even take too much notice of, the Dover case, except maybe to point out it's flaws.

It's just not something someone like me sees as all that relevant. In fact, it's quite humorous to see some evos say stuff like "I think creationists have gone into hiding since Dover" or some other idiotic statement. Nothing can be further from the truth. The slow march of truth overcoming deception, as we look at it, is not going to be too far set back with a simple court case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-29-2008 3:33 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14750
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 68 of 150 (452155)
01-29-2008 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
01-29-2008 11:01 AM


Re: btw, anyone see a contradiction here
Yes, I certainly see a contradiction in your posts.

quote:

IDers are publishing articles, discussing theory, etc, etc,....

But they're mainly publishing press releases, blogs, popular level materials and very few scientific papers. If ID was really about science you'd see very little BUT scientific papers at this stage. You certainly wouldn't see school textbooks being written !

quote:

The people trying to silence them are evolutionists. They have even resorted to using the courts to silence proponents of Intelligent Design, and yet there appears to be little self-awareness among evos of what they are trying to do.

Nobody's trying to silence them. Although I can certainly imagine ID supporters trying to hush up information they don't like. Consider the case of Christine Comer in Texas - forced to resign for simply telling people about a lecture critical of ID.

quote:

Think about it.

Scientists who use courts to protect their theory are likely to find, in the long run, their theory cannot stand on it's own merits.


That would apply to any "science" that tries to step around the procedures of science and appeal to politics or public opinion, too. Which is exactly what ID is doing.

And it is the side that stoops to abuse of power to step around that process - as the Dover School Board did - that need to worry. Not those who appeal to the courts to stop such abuses - as happened in Dover. And the parents won because evolution does stand on its merits and ID does not.

quote:

Scientists who seek to silence other scientists with scorn, derision, persecution, etc,....probably don't have a very strong case to begin with, or else they would relish the publication and dissemination of their opponent's ideas provided their's could be presented along-side it or rebut it with later publications.

The ID movement doesn't seem to have trouble in publishing their books. Or in pouring out scorn and derision. What they do have a problem with is doing science. The mere fact that you attempted to commandeer QM as "ID research" rather proves that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 11:01 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 4:07 PM PaulK has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 69 of 150 (452156)
01-29-2008 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Jazzns
01-29-2008 3:28 PM


Re: breathe deeply girl and slow down
So discussing the particulars of law is on-topic in a science forum?

I'll wait to see what percy thinks before responding. Not trying to make his life difficult, mind you, but seems to me you should bring up issues of legal precedent in a non-science forum, which I asked Trixie to do if she wanted to discuss it further.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Jazzns, posted 01-29-2008 3:28 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Jazzns, posted 01-29-2008 5:11 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 70 of 150 (452157)
01-29-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by PaulK
01-29-2008 4:06 PM


off-topic imo
If you want to discuss whether and what IDers have published, why not propose a thread for doing so?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2008 4:06 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2008 4:27 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 71 of 150 (452160)
01-29-2008 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Jazzns
01-29-2008 3:26 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Jazzns, posted 01-29-2008 3:26 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 01-29-2008 4:18 PM randman has responded
 Message 76 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-29-2008 4:27 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 72 of 150 (452165)
01-29-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by randman
01-29-2008 2:52 PM


One of my beefs with teaching evolution is that evos seem more concerned over what people believe rather than what they understand.

What interesting fantasies you have about your opponents.

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.

At least half of the "strong criticisms of evolution" involve lying about what the theory of evolution is. Obviously this is not going to help anyone to understand evolution, and indeed it is demonstrably the case that people who have been duped by such creationist lies do not understand the theory of evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 2:52 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 4:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 183 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 responded

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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 74 of 150 (452167)
01-29-2008 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
01-29-2008 4:17 PM


uh huh?
At least half of the "strong criticisms of evolution" involve lying about what the theory of evolution is.

And my opinion is the exact opposite. Not only are the criticisms valid and not lying, but evos present the theory of evolution in a highly deceptive manner.

So let students hear the arguments and consider them for themselves, provided they can argue either way just as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-29-2008 4:17 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-29-2008 4:52 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 75 of 150 (452170)
01-29-2008 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Coyote
01-29-2008 4:18 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
The period during which an appeal could be filed has long since passed. And only a party to the action could initiate an appeal.

True. I think the way to approach it is to find another way to take the issue to court, maybe if another jurisdiction is challenged, and advise the jurisdiction on how to move forward to put the case in the best possible light in terms of the law, and then take it through the process.

Also, Federal District courts disagree all the time, completely disagree. At the District level is not where law is made. In fact, just last week I was reviewing a legal motion for summary judgement citing District court cases. The ones we cite, well, it would be a slam dunk, but there are a couple of cases with the exact opposite ruling despite citing the same law. Counsel's advice is that we will win summary judgement based on the judge's opinion of the law, not necessarily what the law actually states. Probably if we lose and appeal it, after the trial of course, we feel we would win, but it may well be cheaper to accomplish the same thing another way.

District courts, contrary to what you guys think, are not nearly as significant in terms of establishing case law as you believe. The Dover case doesn't mean all that much.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 01-29-2008 4:18 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 7:19 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019