Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer

Guys, I have to admit, I was really despairing there for a while, but now my faith in humanity - and more importantly in Americans - has been reaffirmed.From this side of the pond the whole Dover thing made Americans look very, very stupid and possibly blinded by religious fanaticism... now I know that isn't the case, but I read EvCForum - I have insider knowledge as it were. Seeing such an intelligent and eloquent rebuttal to ID, written by someone in power no less, is a big turn-around.Congradulations, you don't look like idiots anymore!

---

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

"They believe that persistence will pay off and therefore plan to continue the obfuscation instead of engaging in true scientific research"I completely agree with Percy here. To the figureheads (aka Phillip Johnson and friends) this is not about getting ID into schools, but rather getting the word out on intelligent design. Johnson is a law professor at Berkley, he is not a stupid man. He knows that if the law is truly upheld ID will not be allowed in schools. They and others at discover institute obviously know that the law needs to be altered before ID can enter schools. Perhaps not so much the law, but the definition of science. All of these battles are only publicity stunts and ways to get their ideas into public.I myself am a Christian, but I do believe in the United States constitution. I believe intelligent design has no place in publics schools, or at least science class. Would it be bad to show evidence against evolution? My opinion is no, but it should in no way be in a religious manner (with all the controversy today I say good luck with that).Last but not least. Many of these fanatical Christians are making other Christians look very bad, or at least not giving DI the exposure it wants. For example, the one comment made ..."Show me where it says in the constitution there needs to be a separation of church and state." To me that shows sheer ignorance for IDer's. Of course this does not mean all of them think that way (I sure hope they don't), but this is bad publicity nonetheless.Or how the judge Jones said " It is ironic how several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID policy."Yes, DI and its ID theory is getting exposed, but to what cost? I could be wrong, perhaps there are more pros to this situation than cons. But I do think that if ID wants to make a stronger impact, it can not have mindless people running around condemning every aspect of the law and science.

I agree, this is no more than a publicity stunt. How it got this far with so little evidence? Beats me! There is no way, in my mind, that we can change the definition of science. It would leave way too many people out in the dark. As of right now, most students share a pretty similar definition of science, this definition is based on scientific evidence and facts. There is no need to further confuse this already crazy mixed up world. If one must learn theories with little scientific evidence that bad, there are private schools. This may sound harsh, but I have heard about ID/Creationism outside of school, and if it is something that one must pursue further there are plenty of resources. Heck, isn't there already enough subjects in school anyway.

While I agree that Irish Rockhound is not able to really breath fire by bacteria digesting his own to hydrogen gas or that Disney did not get the correct computer animation of a red winged flying dino in Fantasia, I feel somewhat compelled to comment on the religious reaction to Dover.This past weekend the First Presbyterian Church in Ithaca
http://www.firstpresithaca.org/01_22_06.htm
had a sermon but while embracing creation ex nihilio the preacher, who formerly taught English in Kentucky REFUSED to show the CREATION side of ID. This is what is objectionable and it would be wrong for "science" to be no longer science by being negated by a religiously based Biblical Creationism of an equivalent theology that underlay what the preacher DID believe and think in.To me, and I have not failed to make known on EVC my frustrations with the intelligence woven throughout ID, ID simply will never CHANGE 'science' but I can not be as confident that science will not change to where ID is seen as a needed adjunct in the economic development. ID needs to show only, in my mind, how the combination of it with science is more profitable for science, even if the profit science"" was to find morally acceptable were only in increased popularization because of a more enlightened studentship. IR thinks however that ID HAD made US populations' people look less well read, but if the continued creationist frustration with secularly slanting mass psychology, in particular having to do with biology, is a theoretical problem of a lack of instruction (which I often "feel" it is) and not a problem with the process of discovery (past and to be future) it would be clarity and not confusion that ID must bring if it is to appear as strong nationally once again.

quote:

---

Intelligent design now has snuck up on us in the last ten or so years, courtesy of a think-tank on the West Coast, that suggests that science and evolution are inadequate or incompetent explanations; that the natural world and the origins of Creation could not have occurred or arisen without the help of an intelligent designer - an unnamed Creator.

---

Indeed they are "inadequate" in the logical sense Kant USED in 1800 which makes more than post of the disjuction Henry used but that would take me out of the scope of getting over with Dover.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-26-2006 06:40 PM

I do not think it was about "getting ID out"instead I think this: pretty much expresses what I was trying to say in this thread.

quote:

---

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.

---

This is the actual sentence that ICR seems to have elided. The missing phrase gives a much different feeling to the sentence.Thank you for another example of dishonest practices of ICR.The claim by ICR that ID proponents are not creationists because some are not does not apply in this case where it is very clear that the subset involved in Dover are creationists.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-01-2006 10:04 AM

Your quote from ICR about IDists not necessarily being creationists is the kind of thing that Judge Jones termed a sham. Ruse is another good word.IDists seem to believe that if they say they're not creationists then this should be accepted without question, as if the truth is whatever they declare it to be. Such shoddy approaches are why creationism always fails in the court system. Courts have to deal daily with the justifications and explanations of criminals, some of whose lives are at stake, so they're very familiar with untangling complicated stories. No judge with any familiarity with the creationist movement is going to respond to a claim that ID is not creationism with, "Oh, okay." Transparent arguments like this aren't going anywhere. Judge Jones said as much in his ruling when he noted how even the shining lights of ID like Behe couldn't support their assertions.A guy runs a red light and gets pulled over. He says to the officer, "My wife's having a baby." He's alone in the car. That's about the level of stupidity someone would have to achieve before they would believe that ID is not related to creationism.For decades evolution was treated to invented arguments from fundamentalist religious groups that the earth is young, the universe is young, cosmology is wrong, geology is wrong, physics is wrong, biology is wrong. Finally they say, "Oh, never mind," and now the same fundamentalist groups are backing ID through the Discovery Institute and are subjecting evolution to what will likely be more decades of invented arguments. When this, too, fails they will once again say, "Oh, never mind," and move on to yet another argument.Can one become an Olympic skater just by declaring, "Hey, I'm an Olympic skater!" No, of course not. Well, what in the world makes IDists think that ID can be science just by declaring it is science? How stupid do they think people are? In order to be science ID will have to do science. Invented arguments like those of Behe and Dembski just aren't going to fly.So the Discovery Institute can fight on, and no doubt will fight on, but ID has already lost this war. The battles and skirmishes will likely continue for decades, but unless the court system experiences a sudden and dramatic drop in IQ the outcome is already clear.This inevitable outcome seems to be strongly reflected here at EvC Forum. The number of threads hosting traditional YEC arguments has dwindled to a trickle, and no thread is currently focused on Dembski's information and specified complexity arguments or Behe's irreducible complexity arguments beyond brief mentions. Whither next, creationism?--Percy

It seems to me that artifical and natural selection can be defined as an existant tautology (the classic objection was {what is most fit evolves, what evolves is most fit}) if a new statistical division of variation remands the butterfly catastrophe conditioning representation of codable 1 - dimensional differences.
In response to Herepton on Mayr and Genetic Homeostasis &c. catching up with Halucingenia I will explain this further but given the logical nature of evolutionary theory thus displayed or to be displayed by me, I do not see , or hear, or find sound that, the elidation of the proposition (take this aforementioned of mine as a quantification one) to alter, even though the tone is different, the reasoned (and this is what the judge did not or could not find) intermediate (mediatable) attribute between CS(creation science) and ID{CS:ID}I learned from KANT

quote:

---

Stated in the form of judgments they would stand thus: Everything rational is a spirit; the soul of man is rational; consequently the soul of man is a spirit. This is an affirmative ratiocination. As to the negative, it is equally obvious that since I cannot always recognize clearly enough the inconsistency of a predicate and a subject, I must, if possible, avail myself of the aid of an intermediate attribute. Suppose there is proposed to me the judgment: the duration of God cannot be measured by any time, and that I do not find that this predicate compared thus directly with the subject gives me a sufficiently clear idea of the inconsistency, I avail myself of an attribute which I can immediately represent to myself in this subject, and I compare the predicate herewith, and by the help of it with the thing itself. “Being measureable by time” is inconsistent with everyting that is “unchangeable,” but “unchangeable” is an attribute of God, therefore, &c. Formally expressed, this would stand thus: Nothing unchangeable is measureable by time; the duration of God is unchangeable; consequently, &c.

---

quote:

---

p80-1 Immanuel Kant, Introduction to Logic

---

only by observing the difference of YEC and ID.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-02-2006 04:33 PMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-02-2006 04:35 PM

RELIGION!!!!Repeatedly insert that word into any argument and secularism wins in science debate, no matter what IDists may produce. LOL!

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Some traditional YEC arguments are, imo, neither scientific or Biblical as I have aluded to in much of what I've been saying. Hopefully some of the mainstream YECs will come to realize this. Traditional YECs are reading much into the Genesis historical record. A good starter would be to dump the term YEC and especially as regarding the universe.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

The whole Dover episode highlights a problem in the structure of the American K-12 education system. It is run by amateurs.The OP shows the Dover School Board getting excellent advice, not for the first time, from the science professionals most readily available to them: the teachers. They got good legal advice from the school board's lawyer about pushing their ID agenda. They ignored all this because they could afford to. The amateurs, not the professionals, were in charge.Another symptom of the problem appears in the pattern one sees acted out over and over in American school discussions. The public gets concerned about the quality of education in schools for some reason. The amateurs on the school boards (who have been in charge the whole time) vow that things are going to change. They start 'cracking down' on the teachers (whose know-how they have been ignoring all along) and instituting make-work solutions that do nothing. Except for a new standardized test or two thrown into the mix, everything stays the same.Recommended solution: put the professionals in charge. Standardize curricula and accreditation at the federal level. Put experienced educators and researchers to work in the Department of Education to oversee these tasks. Ongoing research will solicit ideas from students, parents and community members, of course. But get the drones out of the hair of the workers.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : added detail.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

quote:

---

It is run by amateurs.

---

That it may be, but it is not really the problem.-

quote:

---

put the professionals in charge.

---

Actually, I would rather see the opposite occur; put locally elected boards in charge of, for example, the medical services. Much of the problems in this country, in my opinion, stem from the professional classes being too insulated from the public. I prefer democracy, with all of its imperfections, to technocracy with its imperfections.-

quote:

---

Standardize curricula and accreditation at the federal level.

---

I've never understood the allure of a single, mandated standardized curriculum, except to those would would demand to be the ones determining what the standardizations are. I wonder if people advocating this would be so thrilled if the standarized curriculum makers would decide that evolution shouldn't be taught, but classes should be held on literal Biblical doctrines?

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Guys, I think this is moving too far from the original topic. Could someone spin off a topic? It could go in this forum or in the coffee house I think.

We already have a Controversial Opinion thread going right now, so no need for a new topic. Sorry for bringing this off-topic.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck