Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer

Hallelujah! Hossanah! Praise be to God!Finally a win for the good guys.Although after reading the article in the NYT yesterday about how bad peer review has become, it's kind of unnerving to see the judge use scientific peer review as a reason why science and evolution ought to have more credence than ID.

What I find is so neatly ironic about Judge Jones is that he was apponted by George W Bush.

Since the school board was basically replaced at the last election, with all 8 of the school board memembers who voted FOR I.D. defeated, the chances of appeal are non-existant. The 9th person who voted for the I.D. to be taught was not up for election.

The State of Peer Reviewmost scientific papers are wrong?
A good theme to pursue further.I suspect that the second topic might directly relate to your NY Times article. But the first topic still might be the better place to pursue the matter. Take your pick.Adminnemooseus

---

If the ID movement had already discriminated schematical and symbolic outworkings

quote:

---

All hypotyposis(presentation, subjectio sub adspectum), or sensible illustration, is twofold. It is either schematical, when to a concept comprehended by the understanding the corresponding intuition is given, or it is symbolical...There is a use of the word symbolical that has been adpoted by modern logicians which is misleading and incorrect, i.e. to speak of the symbolical mode of representation as if it were opposed to the intuitive, for the symbolical is only a mode of the intuitive.

---

quote:

---

I Kant @59 Dialectic of the Aesthetical Judgment

---

in evolutonary versimultidue, no matter what the probability was, the design of vicariantly CREATEABLE kinds, after the kinds, could be fathomed if the means of dispersal was a CHARM or ORNAMENT no matter what or how beautiful the forms of nature are transformed.They could have been "robbed" without knowing what was taken. I suspect the purpose was robed rather in the robbery and the trainbearer got off with the torch bearing the silver spoon (in the conservatory). I have quoted this from Kant before,

quote:

---

But in order to regard a thing cognized as a natural product as a purpose also - consequently as a natural purpose, if this is not a contradiction - something more is required.

---

quote:

---

Analytic of the Teleological Judgement I Kant

---

The problem beyond probable plausibilites without the lack of contradiction having been revealed apparently is that the triple:

quote:

---

There are then(1)[1] for the cognigive faculty an antinomy of reason in respect of the theorectical employment of the understanding extended to the unconditioned, (2)for the feeling of pleasure and pain an antinomy of reason in respect of the practical employment of the self-legislative reason; (3) for the faculty of desire an antinomy in respect of the practical employment of the self-legislative reason; so far as all these faculties ahve their superior principles a priori, and, in conformity with an inevitable requirement of reason, must judge and be able to determine their object, unconditionally according to those principles.

---

quote:

---

(@57 Dialectc of the Aesthetical Judgment I Kant.)

---

are not being worked on by those who might be inclined to make a project of the words "creation science" into "intelligent design."I would say if I had my way and had found the Court in my ball (since the ball is NOT in my court), humanity is still stealiing away from a better expression than Kant of

quote:

---

All intuitions which we supply to concepts a priori are therefore either schemata or symbols, of which the former contain direct, the latter indirect, presentations of the concept. The former do this demonstratively; the latter by means of an analogy (for which we avil ourselves even of empirical intuitions) in whch the judgement execercises a double function, first applying the concept to the object of sensible intution, and then applying the mere rule of the reflection made upon that intuition to a quite different object of which the first is only the symbol. Thus a monarchical state is represented by a living body if it is governed national laws, and by a mere machine (like a hand mill) if governed by an individual absolute will; but in both cases only symbolically. For between a despotic state and a hand mill there is, to be sure, no similarity; but there is a similarity in the rules according to twhich we reflect upon these two things and their causality.

---

quote:

---

@59 Dialectic of the Aesthetical Judgement I Kant.

---

I can only find the criticism, with perhaps a better but not an as wholly disproportionate result as in DOVER, only that, that, no such "a priori" exists. This however is not REALLY a religious question etc. The problem actually is for those who can not motivate the intuition and are stuck with divisions of magesteria (sic!) due to proper due regard to aesthetical deference ungrounded in the (an) end. Thus pain overcomes the desire and cognition remains less than before. Discursivity overcame systematic communication.All quotes from Critique Of Judgment by I. Kant

Simply stated, Judge Jones written decision was a scholarly, well documented, well referenced, and eloquent statement to the best legal talent we have on the bench.It certainly became apparent to me, reading the trial transcripts and judge's decision that the defendants were clueless as to the true definition of perjury. In so doing they mocked the U.S. Courts and their Lord and Savior in one swell foop. Remind me again. Which Commandment states..."Thou Shalt lie through thy teeth to the Judge appointed by the President thou voted for to cover thy ass."(:raig

wow.just... wow.he really said that? i guess what the judge said about "disservice" was right.

---

אָרַח

yup. gotta love these terrible activist judges that bush appoints. (sadly, that's only half sarcasm)

---

אָרַח

The Discovery Institute is posting responses to the Dover decision. This one response is particularly interesting.It starts by admitting something rather important... Hopefully that will put to rest notions from the YEC crowd that such actions are kosher.However... I love how consistent they are. They are for open inquiry yet the Dover issue was patently not about opening inquiry, and one of the points mentioned above is about suppressing speech at a website.Note they are still hoping the "teach the controversy" angle will work, and using the same suggestion of how this case will be viewed years from now that they use for evolutionary theory.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-23-2005 12:26 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If I can try saying this a different way, the Discovery Institute says it is going to continue packaging ID the same way it always has, despite the ease with which the judge in this case was able to see through the ruse. They believe that persistence will pay off and therefore plan to continue the obfuscation instead of engaging in true scientific research and the composition of sound, rational arguments.--Percy

You are absolutely correct, I just found this other article at DI, which suggests their new strategy... ... which means repackaging as offering simply "critical analysis of evolution". The irony being they are saying how great this avenue might be because it won't involve their theory of intelligent design.Some might find this more satisfying anyway as it will allow them the ability to throw stones at evolutionary theory without ever having to try and create a solid secondary theory.I love the wrap up... Hahahahahahahaha...

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Over the last couple of years, the "teaching the controversy" term has been cropping up

The "term" is BS. There's no "controversy" whatsoever, except among laypeople and the creationists are trying to snowball them.

Martha Raffaele from the AP http://news.yahoo.com/...0104/ap_on_re_us/evolution_showdownThis message has been edited by Iblis, 01-04-2006 03:28 AM

You know that. I know that. However, the followers of I.D. don't know that.They dont' WANT to know that.