Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer
Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 121 of 164 (271115)
12-20-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Clark
12-20-2005 11:42 AM


Re: Big Win - Should have a reference for that quote
As is, it is totally unatributed.
Source, and link to source? Please add by edit to your message.
Please, no replies to this message.
Adminnemooseus
{Edited to change ID}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-20-2005 12:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Clark, posted 12-20-2005 11:42 AM Clark has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 12-20-2005 12:53 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17918
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 122 of 164 (271119)
12-20-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Adminnemooseus
12-20-2005 12:43 PM


Re: Big Win - Should have a reference for that quote
The story is on MSNBC here and includes a link to the full decision in pdf form.c
{Note from Adminnemooseus - I'm sure variations of the story are all over the place. The quote of message 120 should be atributed to it's precise source, which is not the MSNBC page cited. I don't know if it is buried in the PDF somewhere. If it is, the link to the PDF should have been supplied. This is just a matter of properly crediting sources. Without such credits the content of message 120 is (IMO) more or less plagerism.}
{Second note from AM - I see that Clark has now credited the source, right down to the page numbers. Nicely done, and I thank you.}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-20-2005 01:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-20-2005 12:43 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Wounded King, posted 12-20-2005 1:00 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 287 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 123 of 164 (271121)
12-20-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by PaulK
12-20-2005 12:53 PM


Re: Big Win - Should have a reference for that quote
The quote Clark provided is actually taken directly from the Judge's decision.
TTFN,
WK
P.S. this isn't really a reply to you PaulK, but Adminnemooseus said not to reply to his post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 12-20-2005 12:53 PM PaulK has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 124 of 164 (271148)
12-20-2005 3:44 PM


If you read the Judges desicion, you'll see that Behehehehehhehe played a pretty big role. And to think...he actually thought he did so well. It's pretty damned funny, if you ask me.

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 12-20-2005 3:53 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 133 by roxrkool, posted 12-20-2005 11:18 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 125 of 164 (271149)
12-20-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by FliesOnly
12-20-2005 3:44 PM


The Discovery Institutes response is even funnier...
even though totally predictable.
It can be read here
Once again we can see the total inability to actually understand any evidence that conflicts with their belief system. Whether they are simply willfully ignorant or just plain outright liars remains to be determined.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by FliesOnly, posted 12-20-2005 3:44 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by FliesOnly, posted 12-20-2005 4:00 PM jar has not replied
 Message 127 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-20-2005 4:06 PM jar has not replied
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2005 4:10 PM jar has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 126 of 164 (271152)
12-20-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
12-20-2005 3:53 PM


Re: The Discovery Institutes response is even funnier...
jar writes:
Whether they are simply willfully ignorant or just plain outright liars remains to be determined.
I have not yet had the time to read everything...but I will. As a matter of fact,I see myself spending too much time reading it all. However, if I had to wager a guess, I'd say that the latter would be a closer description of their behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 12-20-2005 3:53 PM jar has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3971
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 127 of 164 (271154)
12-20-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
12-20-2005 3:53 PM


The Discovery Institutes "Dover Intelligent Design Trial Information" index page
Found this via Jar's link:
Dover Intelligent Design Trial Information
Lots of links to various aspects of the whole affair. Offhand seems that all are hosted by the DI site - Are not links to off-site information.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 12-20-2005 3:53 PM jar has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 128 of 164 (271156)
12-20-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
12-20-2005 3:53 PM


Re: The Discovery Institutes response is even funnier...
I love how the DI rep did exactly what the judge predicted they would do, calling him an activist.
On the question of being liars, they did say...
Reaching well beyond the immediate legal questions before him, Judge Jones offered wide-ranging and sometimes angry comments denouncing intelligent design and praising Darwinian evolution.
Which flies in the face of the judge's actual decision, that suggested ID could and should be explored further by those with an interest in it.
Well this is certainly a holiday present.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 12-20-2005 3:53 PM jar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22947
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 129 of 164 (271159)
12-20-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Wounded King
12-20-2005 11:40 AM


Key excerpts from the opinion...
...with my comments.
Judge Jones on page 25 writes:
The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world.
Key phrase in the above: "the tactically unnamed designer is God". This comes up in discussions here time and time again. "The designer is not known and cannot be determined," say IDists. "Who do you think you're fooling?" comes the reply. Obviously not the US courts.
The transparency of the claim is so obvious it is hard to believe it can be advanced with a straight face, but it is, and it is a source of much frustration here. The claim is so simple, so direct and so obviously wrong.
Judge Jones on page 25 writes:
Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)).
It's just amazing the attacks of honesty that overwhelm some people when they pledge an oath on the Bible.
Judge Jones on page 26 writes:
A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.
IDM is the acronym Jones uses for Intelligent Design Movement.
Judge Jones on page 28 writes:
Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added).
Once again Behe gets his comeuppance.
Judge Jones on page 31 writes:
It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition.
This point hints at something that every IDist who has come here has refused to address, namely how the designer acts.
Judge Jones on page 31 writes:
A “hypothetical reasonable observer,” adult or child, who is “aware of the history and context of the community and forum” is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism.
How many IDists have come here claiming that ID is not a form of creationism?
Judge Jones on page 31 writes:
Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work.
This hints at something else that IDists always tell us, that despite that the vast majority of ID advocates are conservative Christians, that's just a coincidence. There's nothing religious about ID, they go on, its development by Christian conservatives derives solely from their love of science.
Judge Jones on page 32 writes:
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and “creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas.
This is a biggie. When it comes to promotion of their religious beliefs, these particular Christians can't tell the difference between truth and lies.
Judge Jones on page 35 writes:
Moreover and as previously stated, there is hardly better evidence of ID’s relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism.
Shame on Fuller for being truthful! He probably isn't a very popular guy among IDists these days.
Judge Jones on page 35 writes:
Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion...
Gee, where have we seen that before?
Judge Jones on page 40-41 writes:
The second paragraph of the disclaimer reads as follows:
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
This paragraph singles out evolution from the rest of the science curriculum and informs students that evolution, unlike anything else that they are learning, is “just a theory,” which plays on the “colloquial or popular understanding of the term [”theory’] and suggest[ing] to the informed, reasonable observer that evolution is only a highly questionable ”opinion’ or a ”hunch.’” Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1310; 14:110-12 (Alters); 1:92 (Miller). Immediately after students are told that “Darwin’s Theory” is a theory and that it continues to be tested, they are told that “gaps” exist within evolutionary theory without any indication that other scientific theories might suffer the same supposed weakness. As Dr. Alters explained this paragraph is both misleading and creates misconceptions in students about evolutionary theory by misrepresenting the scientific status of evolution and by telling students that they should regard it as singularly unreliable, or on shaky ground.
Nothing new here, I just thought this was an especially effective way of making this point.
Judge Jones on page 41-42 writes:
Paragraph three of the disclaimer proceeds to present this alternative and reads as follows:
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
Students are therefore provided information that contrasts ID with “Darwin’s view” and are directed to consult Pandas as though it were a scientific text that provided a scientific account of, and empirical scientific evidence for, ID. The theory or “view” of evolution, which has been discredited by the District in the student’s eyes, is contrasted with an alternative “explanation,” as opposed to a “theory,” that can be offered without qualification or cautionary note. The alternative “explanation” thus receives markedly different treatment from evolutionary “theory.” In other words, the disclaimer relies upon the very same “contrived dualism” that the court in McLean recognized to be a creationist tactic that has “no scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose.”
Again, nothing new here, but the point is made especially well.
This next is from a footnote:
Judge Jones on page 46 writes:
In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath...
Holy whoppers, Batman, conservative Christians lying under oath in an American courtroom! What could be next?
Judge Jones on page 49 writes:
In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere.
Nicely put!
Judge Jones on page 63 writes:
We find it incumbent upon the Court to further address an additional issue raised by Plaintiffs, which is whether ID is science. To be sure, our answer to this question can likely be predicted based upon the foregoing analysis. While answering this question compels us to revisit evidence that is entirely complex, if not obtuse, after a six week trial that spanned twenty-one days and included countless hours of detailed expert witness presentations, the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area.
Judge Jones is one confident sonofabitch: "No other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than we are to traipse [traipse?] into this controversial area."???
True or not, it seems somewhat unjudicial to say so.
Judge Jones on page 64 writes:
We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.
'Nuf said.
Judge Jones on page 75-76 writes:
By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument...Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.
That gasping sound you hear is the dying breaths of Behe's credibility. I'll add a little editorial comment. The same arguments that IDists bring here and that we argue over for pages and pages were brought to Dover, and the judge saw through them like they were so much tissue paper.
Judge Jones on page 80-81 writes:
Unlike biological systems, human artifacts do not live and reproduce over time. They are non-replicable, they do not undergo genetic recombination, and they are not driven by natural selection. (1:131-33 (Miller); 23:57-59 (Behe)). For human artifacts, we know the designer’s identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer’s abilities, needs, and desires. (D-251 at 176; 1:131-33 (Miller); 23:63 (Behe); 5:55- 58 (Pennock)). With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. (38:44-47 (Minnich)). In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. (23:61-73 (Behe)). Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.
What must it be like for Behe to read this trouncing of his views. Well, I suppose he can always attend a prayer meeting and receive the huzzahs of his fellow conservative Christians. I wonder if there are any meetings going on at Lehigh concerning the possibility of revoking tenure. Perhaps they could invoke some "terminally embarrassing" clause.
Judge Jones on page 81-82 writes:
It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed. This inference to design based upon the appearance of a “purposeful arrangement of parts” is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system...
Accordingly, the purported positive argument for ID does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based upon natural explanations. (3:101-03 (Miller)). ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in this world. While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory.
So true, so true!
Judge Jones on page 83-84 writes:
Despite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution, Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence. Plaintiffs’ science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how ID proponents generally and Pandas specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument.
I guess all IDists think alike, eh, Randman?
Judge Jones on page 86 writes:
In addition, Dr. Miller refuted Pandas’ claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes.
This information argument comes up here a lot, but not one IDist has been successful with this argument.
Judge Jones on page 87 writes:
Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurately, meet the standards of the scientific method, and are relevant to other scientists in the field. (1:39-40 (Miller)). Moreover, peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field, journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field and deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures, employed up-to-date methods, considered and cited relevant literature and generally, whether the researcher has employed sound science.
The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.
I'm shocked, shocked I say, to discover that there's no science going on in ID!!! Start reading at page 87 if you want to see yet another fatal Behe concession, because I'm going to stop citing them.
Judge Jones on page 97 writes:
It is notable, and in fact incredible that Bonsell disclaimed any interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel in Defendants’ opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest. Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and other subjects.
When oh when will I cease being surprised by Christian misbehavior in the name of God?
Judge Jones on page 105 writes:
Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points.
Okay, I'm building up an immunity to this. I'm beginning to see that lying and misrepresenting are just "business as usual" for creationists.
Judge Jones on page 115 writes:
As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas...
I move for a public stoning!
Judge Jones on page 121 writes:
In fact, one unfortunate theme in this case is the striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst Board members. Conspicuously, Board members who voted for the curriculum change testified at trial that they had utterly no grasp of ID.
Why am I not surprised?
Judge Jones on page 130 writes:
Although Defendants attempt to persuade this Court that each Board member who voted for the biology curriculum change did so for the secular purposed of improving science education and to exercise critical thinking skills, their contentions are simply irreconcilable with the record evidence. Their asserted purposes are a sham, and they are accordingly unavailing, for the reasons that follow.
A sham? Christians involved in a sham? Who woulda thought?
Judge Jones on page 132 writes:
Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.
The judge sounds pretty upset about this, believing the falsehoods presented by the defendants to be "flagrant and insulting".
Judge Jones on page 137 writes:
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.
Tut, tut, tut!
Judge Jones on page 138 writes:
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.
Of course, we here are not wasting our time because we're serving an educational purpose.
I have not yet heard whether anything will happen to those the judge felt lied under oath, but I hope action will be taken.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Wounded King, posted 12-20-2005 11:40 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Trixie, posted 12-20-2005 4:39 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 132 by Brad McFall, posted 12-20-2005 10:40 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 134 by arachnophilia, posted 12-21-2005 1:56 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 135 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 7:02 AM Percy has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3960 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 130 of 164 (271163)
12-20-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Percy
12-20-2005 4:19 PM


Re: Key excerpts from the opinion...
I've reached page 63 of the judgement and I've been gobsmacked at the forthrightness shown by the judge so far. Boy, he doesn't mince his words.
I heard the judgement on the car radio about 4 hours ago tonight driving home and bounced about so much in glee that I nearly put the car in a ditch.
This is a post very weak on substance, but I just wanted to let you all know that on this side of the Atlantic there are people reading this judgement with relief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 12-20-2005 4:19 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ramoss, posted 12-21-2005 11:47 AM Trixie has not replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 164 (271214)
12-20-2005 9:05 PM


I too am so relieved, even though I felt this decision in favor of the plaintiffs was likely. What wasn't seen, however, was just how much of a slam dunk it was. This was nothing shy of a direct knock-out blow to the IDers. As one law professor on NPR had said, this judge (who was appointed by Dubya and has run as a Republican for Congress in the past) laid out such an incredibly descriptive and in depth decision, leaving no stone unturned, that it would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to try to appeal such a decision.
I sincerely hope that's true, because this decision should be carried in the hands of the lawyers here in my state of Kansas to our state BOE and slapped across their faces 'till their heads fall off. This is the ideal weapon to utilize for every argument against nutbag BOE's like mine, and the sooner the better.

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by ramoss, posted 12-21-2005 11:49 AM MisterOpus1 has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5287 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 132 of 164 (271224)
12-20-2005 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Percy
12-20-2005 4:19 PM


Re: Key excerpts revealed "after" was not 'before' the COURT.
I thought I had noticed a change from creation science to scientific creationism but this appears to have come out misrepresentable at trial. ID came LATER(and religiously after the soul was already food for ANY scientific thought. I confirm this by lack of response to my query on EVC about the probabilities underlaying ID’s so-called master OR evos use of versimultude where plausibility is more probable(http://EvC Forum: Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory -->EvC Forum: Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory)) and then could not be avoided in public discourse, as do various schemas of creationistic history as far as I have read it.
quote:
insofar as creation science or scientific creationsm (and I do not know which nor is the distinction so clear in my mind as I type this today) has influenced my scientific attitude that
quote:
http://EvC Forum: why creation "science" isn't science -->EvC Forum: why creation "science" isn't science
quote:
that Creation Science is not SCience and that Evolution hasnt been given a chance to "evolve" with these two other guys I was talking to KNOWING that i knew more about evolution theory than either of them and yet I still think that IT CAN NEVER be said "ICR does not interest science" etc to parapharase you. Let us even say that Scientific Creationism is primarily evangelistic (it is not the same thing as Biblical Creationism which more properly IS)this does not mean that the DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS of the same evidence IN THE MIX do not lead to a yielded anthropology
quote:
http://EvC Forum: What is more faith than religion? -->EvC Forum: What is more faith than religion?
quote:
I undetstand the difference between Scientific Creationism and Creation Science but Ruse, maybe like you, thought this was something akin to a philosophers real word play. Problem is that philosophy of biology as philosophy of science has not done its job but remains attached largerly to the idea post-Russel that Kant had been chained out of all but asthetic interest. This was and is not true.
quote:
http://EvC Forum: One Question for Evo-Bashers -->EvC Forum: One Question for Evo-Bashers
quote:
there are undoubtedly better Scientific Creationists aboard this ark than me
quote:
http://EvC Forum: Lineage of Jesus -->EvC Forum: Lineage of Jesus
Using search words BRAD SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM CREATION SCIENCE I find that the Court noticed in my sense
(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID;
quote:
http://EvC Forum: Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer -->EvC Forum: Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer
(Percy quoting Jjones page 32)
that there IS a difference between creation science (appearing as ID) and scientific creationism but failed in my semantic tranferablility to even track out the difference to this fourth found link in the search that I wrote already, all ready back in 2003!!
For instance I do not think the Court would have been able to differentiate my sentence,
His citation of the Kinetic Theory of Gases could actually become a part of strict Biblical Creationism should Crooke's and others' rather mystical interpretation of the physicality underlying some of the experiments find a rigours creation science following scientific creationally...
quote:
http://EvC Forum: Creationists and molecular biology -->EvC Forum: Creationists and molecular biology
from any plausibility potential or actual for ID as it appeared in Penn.
I may have more to say as I read the material further but I doubt I will find any evidence that the trial furthered what I consider crucial for any progress;information related to “organizational complexity.”
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-20-2005 10:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 12-20-2005 4:19 PM Percy has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1243 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 133 of 164 (271231)
12-20-2005 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by FliesOnly
12-20-2005 3:44 PM


I agree. I read the entire judgement and Behe and the rest of the IDists, along with The Wedge Document, really blew it BIG time. What a fantastic read!!
Abe: Oh, and what I wasn't previously aware of was that the Fundamentalist movement began subsequent to and as a direct response to Darwin's theory.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-20-2005 11:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by FliesOnly, posted 12-20-2005 3:44 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1598 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 134 of 164 (271244)
12-21-2005 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Percy
12-20-2005 4:19 PM


how's this for a "noise" message
liberal activist judges!
{Adminnemooseus says: Pure noise / no signal posting. Shame on you. Members should not respond to this message.}
{Also changed subtitle. - AM}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-21-2005 02:10 AM
alright, fine, moose.
quote:
"The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design.
Discovery Institute | Public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation....
quote:
"...Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."
Ibid.
"Judge Jones" writes:
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.
it should also be pointed out that he's not offering up an anti-religious agenda:
quote:
Jones is a Lutheran
John E. Jones III - Wikipedia
and that his ruling was not politcally based, casting doubt on that whole "activism" thing:
quote:
A Republican, Jones was appointed by President George W. Bush
Ibid.
that "noise" isn't coming from this direction.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-21-2005 03:12 AM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 12-20-2005 4:19 PM Percy has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 135 of 164 (271267)
12-21-2005 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Percy
12-20-2005 4:19 PM


School board replies...
You pointed out that the Judge said this...
Although Defendants attempt to persuade this Court that each Board member who voted for the biology curriculum change did so for the secular purposed of improving science education and to exercise critical thinking skills, their contentions are simply irreconcilable with the record evidence. Their asserted purposes are a sham, and they are accordingly unavailing, for the reasons that follow.
It is interesting to read what one of the school board members has to say in light of the decision.
Former school board member William Buckingham, who advanced the policy, said from his new home in Mount Airy, N.C., that he still feels the board did the right thing.
"I'm still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where there's a separation of church and state," he said. "We didn't lose; we were robbed."
If that's not an admission that ID was religious in nature and he knew it, I'm not sure what could be. So instead of lying low and admitting errors were made, the plan is to be defiant and pretend the court was supposed to prove something to him, regarding something they had claimed was not at issue in the first place?
Smooooth. After hanging themselves with the length of rope they were given, they beg for some more.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 12-20-2005 4:19 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 7:54 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 140 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2005 3:10 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 142 by arachnophilia, posted 12-21-2005 4:03 PM Silent H 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