Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer

It is true the analogy "collapses" on inspection but I can not agree that it is "little". It collapses because it is too big (colossal) to maintain in apprehension very long not because its truth or falsity lies in a very small (bound) level of magnitude. It is not hard to judge but because it still collapses in society (due to differences in the sources of creationism in the US) it is hard to say if it should be retained until it does not pedagogically. If the judge was confused by the view that evolution (IN NATURE) is really but an engine of atheism the functionaries of the court briefed incorrectly. It was not for no reason of only ART that Derrida referred to Creationism in the USA when plying, right around; four times:: a cartouche.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-05-2005 12:33 PM

What bothers me is that they seem to have stayed on the science battleground, thus(1) allowing the ID people to appear more scientific by their inclusion and(2) not gone into the obvious and relevant political movement issue, as exemplified by the actions of ID proponents and the "wedge" document, where the whole political purpose of the concept is to get a favorable Supreme Court decision and(3) ignoring the vast philosophical battleground that is the real push behind ID and the place where it is more {vulnerable\ammenable} to the questions that should be raised about it:
- (a) Is it faith? How does it differ from faiths like Deism? Theism?
- (b) What is the {purpose\value} of the hypothesis to the pursuit of knowledge? Truth?
- (c) Is it dependent on good science to assist it's investigations rather than trying to trump it with presuppositions?The question is what path you take when you run out of explanations:- Science says "we don't know, we'll have to wait to find out"
- Philosophy says "we don't know, but we can make certain conjectures based on assumptions and applying logic"
- ID (properly pursued) says "perhaps it was designed, let us hypothesis what that means, see where that leads"In this regard the analogy does not collapse, but it also means that the place for ID is not science class. I feel correcting that impression is more important that {ridiculing\ostracizing\marginalizing} the concepts.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

On listening to Roberts' questioning I came to understand that a "favorable" Supreme Court Outcome might not be a bad thing if the hearing was based on actual results and not just for politics.The Lousiana Legislature simply purported to ADD information to the curriculum but as I heard now how how now Supreme Court Justice Roberts,say/said it, the Lemon Test in effect, precludes the simple introduction of this "information" no matter how gained or how little science is actually in it just now. I can not see how there should be a LEGAL barrier to the introduction of additonal information, if that is what it is... So if it takes a US SUPREME COURT DECISION which really are about not just a majority opinion but if the court will decline further hearings after setting an informed precedent, I can not be against that. I can see clear secular purposes for creationism and ID if it was integrated in creationism better but this is not obvious to others when you have Will Provine insisting on being an authority of both the history and contemporary scene of evolutionary biology. What he lectured on at Cornell would NOT be possible to be discussed in school. He said it would become legal if Johnson had his way and schools on his opinion reverted back to his Provine child days where the teacher brought out a felt board and acted out Bible stories. Will even admits getting something out of it in his nore innocent mind.Yes there is a potential that ID will not collapse in culture but at present it does for internal creational informed reasons not because it might motivate new and better science that could even help in regard to solving the population problem.I need to see IDers NOT simply trying to get out from under the charge (made by Will and others) that IDers inherit a legacy of design in naturally selected organic forms. The design, if it exists, is in the artifically selected effects on migration through shifting balances. Will NOW thinks this is SCIENTIFICALLY not true. So if I am wrong I am gettin closer to falling off an Ithaca gorge. I do not think that will happen. I think he has to see how applied population thinking can be applied in meso evolution at worst ON PURPOSE.More later.What appeared to have been a faculty memeber was in the audience at Will's recent lecture and he said to Will, pretty much "told" him, that he did not have a problem with Will permitting IDers to debate in his classes, (this would be illegal at present in public schools on Will's testimony (under god etc , virgin mary (he also discussed)) but that Will MUST make the stipulation that the IDers could not be permitted to say that ID was science!OKBut look what WIll said next, and I paraphrase, "I do not 'play 'that. I do not need to 'do' that. The other students in the class are more than able to point out what is science and what is not. 'And' they do." Will is very sly. He puts "blanks" where there is some issue of religion. He should know. His father went to Union Seminary and he has four generations of presbyterian ministers in his family. He did this Johnson saying in effect, all you get from Phil is "blank, blank, blank" and yet when he can not find the ability to hook up with me. Is it because I was also raised in the Presbyterian Church USA? I dont know.WE do know that there is not enough science in ID but if students only can NOT say what science is and legislators can not add information that is what is illegal at present how is there any way for a final verdict of ID whether in science or out every going to occur? I would love for the pre EVC ID days but alas they are not coming back.I'll talk later.Thanks for your perceptive and plentiful comments on EVC!!

I agree that it would be much better if the public was informed about evolution. Right now, the efforts are centering around discrediting intelligent design. This puts too much of a negative aura around evolutionists. The best method will be to explain evolution to the public.

Welcome Sagar. We're glad you joined. I did notice that a couple of you signed up at the same time from Tech. If it's actually two registrations great, we welcome both of you. If though they were both you, could you let us know so we can merge the two accounts.Again, welcome. Savannah is a beautiful city. Say hi to the Waving Girl for me. John still mayor or has he finaly walked off the stage?

---

One problem here is people who actively do not want to be informed and actively reject the information (denial). No matter how much information you put out there you won't affect these people.I agree that focusing on the negative makes you look negative.One thing they can do is show what ID is rather than what it isn't. When you show that it is philosophy, then it doesn't belong in science.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The rumor has it that the Judge Jones will be giving his decision on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.Considering the transcripts, and the obvious lies of certain of the now ex-board members, I think the decision will be a slam dunk one.

When Science becomes philosophy, it no longer belongs in the classroom. When teachers attempt to force their religios belifes on others, they no longer belong in the classroom.To Quote a reply to Dawkin's Rottwieler (Discover), people tend to disengage when their convictions come under fire. What are the chances of teaching someone that isn't agnostic, and actually convincing them of your view?

Where did you hear the rumor?

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

New York Times
"Next week he is expected to issue his decision, which will almost certainly be regarded as a bellwether by other school districts in which religious conservatives have proposed teaching intelligent design as a challenge to the theory of evolution"

The rumor was reported at Page not found | National Center for Science EducationThere wasn't an 'offical announcement' there.. that is why I call it 'rumor'.

From the above link above

quote:

---

just received this email update from the U.S. Federal Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania:

​

From: Kitzmiller_Update@pamd.uscourts.gov
To: undisclosed-recipients@null, null@null
Subject: Kitzmiller Decision Expected 12/20/05
Date: Dec 19, 2005 8:20 AM

​

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Note: DO NOT Reply. Replies to this announcement will not
receive a response.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Judge Jones is expected to file his Opinion in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case at some point tomorrow [Tuesday, December 20, 2005].

​

As soon as the opinion is filed and posted to the web site, a notification will be sent with a link to the opinion. Anticipate heavy volume on the web site, so please be patient if the opinion is slow to load in your web browser.

​

Thank you.

​

There will likely be a press conference held in Harrisburg on Tuesday. However, we have received no word on whether or not the opinion will be released early or late in the day. Contact the press ACLU’s press person for this case (Tracy Zimmerman, tracyATPublicInterestPR.com) for the latest.

---

The decision is in. The Judge ruled against the defendants, and also took the broader approch, and said the I.D> is NOT science, but it religion

quote:

---

The much-awaited decision in the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District is now available.

​

The 139 page document finds for the plaintiffs.

​

Judge Jones finds that “intelligent design” is not science. The DASD ID policy violates both purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test, and also violates the Pennsylvania constitution.
by Administrator @ 8:55 am. Filed under News

---

This message has been edited by ramoss, 12-20-2005 11:19 AM

The PDF of the decision is available1. It looks like a pretty decisive win for the pro-evolutionary camp. It will be interesting to see how the DI and other ID bodies spin this.TTFN,WK

for the good guys.

quote:

---

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

​

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that 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.

​

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

​

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

---

abe: Sorry moose. Somehow I thought the source was implied, but it isn't. The source is the court ruling by Judge Jones.MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest VideosThe conclusion: pages 136 - 139This message has been edited by Clark, 12-20-2005 01:03 PM