Judge Jones loses in Florida and Louisiana

_{Salvador Cordova

April 29, 2008

Constitution, Courts, Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Judge Jones (the former liquor control board director famous for his involvement with Frog Beer) ruled in 2005 that it was unconstitutional for teachers in the Dover school district to question Darwinism. Jones viewed himself as the person who would settle the question of Darwinism for all time an eternity. He even went on the talk show circuit boasting of his brilliant cut-and-paste of ACLU opinions.

Thankfully Jones does not speak for all of the United States, and his cut-and-paste ruling apparently has not been able to stifle the first amendment rights of students in other states.

Casey Luskin reports in Florida House and Louisiana Senate Pass Evolution Academic Freedom Bills.

Academic Freedom bills have now passed both the Florida House of Representatives and the Louisiana State Senate. The bills protect the rights of teachers to teach controversial scientific theories objectively, where scientific criticisms of scientific theories (including evolution) can be raised as well as the scientific strengths. The Darwinists in those states do not like this. First Florida Darwinists called academic freedom “smelly crap.” Then Louisiana Darwinists called academic freedom protections a “creationist attack” that is “Just Dumb.” Most recently Florida Darwinists used the “enlightened British will laugh at us argument” to oppose academic freedom. All I can say is, you heard it here first: “For the Darwinists who oppose the bill, this battle is about falsely appealing to people’s emotions and fears in order to suppress the teaching of scientific information that challenges evolution.”

The creationists at Dover did a great disservice to the cause of ID by refusing to heed the wise counsel given to them by the Discovery Institute. The creationists on the Dover school board represented themselves as proponents of ID when they themselves couldn’t even explain the basics of ID. Their indiscretions destroyed the fine work of many in the ID movement.

But finally legislatures are heeding wise counsel. While ID is not explicitly advocated in the latest bills, criticisms of scientific theories (including evolution) can be raised. And that is good enough as far as I’m concenred.

I am ambivalent to the idea of teaching of ID in public schools, and I’m definitely negative on pro-Darwin NEA teachers teaching creationism in public schools.

However, I am a gung ho about exploring evolution in public schools. [A very good outline of how to explore evolution is provided in the book: Explore Evolution. ]. I am also in favor of ID being explored and taught in the court of public opinion and in university contexts like Allen MacNeill’s Evolution and Design course at Cornell…

Freedom has visited the children of Florida to explore evolution! May this freedom visit all the children of the USA one day!

Comments

None, apart from the fact that nobody has observed “intelligence” without material brains supporting it. This is interesting, but judging by what you said right after: "Do you mean ghosts?", you probably have misunderstood what gpuccio has stated regarding "immaterial intelligence". I guess an analogy might help. Computer software is immaterial in the sense that it cannot be explained by they're lowest functional physical units ie: chips (memory, ALU, control unit etc..) to gates to switches (transistors) flipping on and off. It is at this same level of abstraction intelligence cannot be explained by the physical brain. Sure, you need a brain to support it, but to explain intelligence in the physical material sense is ludicrous. I believe thats what gpuccio means. I could be wrong.godslanguage_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

opps, my apologies to the moderators.Upright BiPed_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Bold = text Italics = text
The same scenario applies to blockquotes
Upright BiPed_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

jerry, Interesting. I would just like to know what your definition of "positive" evidence is. Also: Can anybody tell me how to manipulate text in these discussions? (bold, italic, quotes, lists, whatever else)QuadFather_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

gpuccio
You are assuming a lot. Human intelligence is everywhere, and there is no reason to believe that it is material.
None, apart from the fact that nobody has observed "intelligence" without material brains supporting it. Do you mean ghosts?
I am afraid that everybody seems enchanted by the word “evidence”.
Ok, but if you discount "evidence" then you can run wild with any speculation and call it science.
Besides, the concept itself of “material” is very tricky. After all, matter is only one aspect of our perception of reality. Is quntum void (if it exists) matter? Was the big bang singularity (for those who believe in it) matter? Is dark energy (if it really is the biggest part of what exists) matter?
Are you by any chance sitting in a model pyramid? If the concept of "matter" is so ill-defined then how can the "materialist" label be thrown around here with such confidence?
Finally, the principles of logic themselves, non contradiction, identity, and so on, and the same mathemathical objects, are in no way material. And yet, all our scientific knowledge is based on them.
The speed of gravity on a body of a given size is also not "material". In any case, there is ongoing debate on if maths is discovered or invented. I don't believe this is relevant to that however.
and their material nature is only a far fetched inference (and, in my opinion, a completely wrong one).
If it's wrong, can you name the biggest difference that would happen if you corrected that error? If you convinced the world of your POV what changes would we see? Would there be new things discovered in physics for example? World peace? Faster computers (no speed of light limit on the non-material).What?Uthan Rose_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

I can tell you that the biggest thing going for ID is the negative information against Darwinian macro evolution.
So you don't think the Biologic lab stuff will amount to anything of significance then? I would have thought a small amount of "positve" proof would outweigh much larger amounts of "negative" proof.Uthan Rose_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Quadfather, You said "You can twist and turn all you want, but the fact remains: Intelligent Design is the best explanation for the fundamental features of biological life." You are new here. No where do I dispute ID is the best explanation for life. In fact I am one of the biggest supporters here of it. I have been commenting here for 2 1/2 years and all my posts are supportive of ID. I can tell you that the biggest thing going for ID is the negative information against Darwinian macro evolution. Without that there would be no ID movement, no books on ID and no Dembski blog.jerry_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap, You may have no difficulty with the *concept* that Darwinian Evolution can produce certain things, but this doesn't mean that it actually can. When our experience says that intelligence can produce those things, and our experience does NOT say that Darwinian Evolution can, then it is perfectly fair to ask you to demonstrate that DE is capable of the same feats as intelligence. Is it fair to expect us to believe that DE can do something that it is NOT known to do when we already know that intelligence IS known to do that same something?QuadFather_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

And I think my earlier comments already settle the issue: "... as somebody else pointed out, any positive evidence is inextricably coupled with a negative implication. If we have positive evidence for this thing, then it implies that it was not that other thing. But that does not change the positive nature of the evidence ... you are conflating the positive evidence for design with its negative implication, and I think this is why you have difficulty explaining what positive evidence would even look like." It doesn't seem like you believe that positive evidence can even exist at all.QuadFather_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

jerry, No, logic points to a designer because we have experiential evidence that it CAN produce certain effects. Tell me, which of these is positive, and which is negative: CAN ... can NOT Another example: IS ... is NOT ID: Intelligent activity CAN produce these things. Intelligent activity IS known to produce these things. You can twist and turn all you want, but the fact remains: Intelligent Design is the best explanation for the fundamental features of biological life.QuadFather_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Uthan Rose: "why does ID not start from the position that humanity was the designer?" Because: 1. Humanity is the extraneous property of an intelligent agent. One must be intelligent to produce the effects in question, but you don't necessarily have to be human. 2. Our knowledge about human history suggest that humans did not yet exist when these certain effects came about. What's left is: intelligence.QuadFather_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Uthan Rose: "I’m not assuming anything. I’m saying that there is no evidence for non-material intelligence." You are assuming a lot. Human intelligence is everywhere, and there is no reason to believe that it is material. "Do you know better? Please enlighten me? How does one obtain material evidence for the non-material?" I am afraid that everybody seems enchanted by the word "evidence". For the nth time, I must remember here that evidence is not proof, least of all demonstration. Indeed, the meaning itself of evidence is not so well defined. Let's say, to stay simple, that we call "evidence" those facts which are well explained by a theory, and so are of some support to the best inference. Facts are usually observed by senses, or by some extension of them, but many "facts" observed in modern science are really, as Berlinski says, at the end of a long chain of inferences. Some of the "facts" observed through complex quantum experiments are so abstract that we could not even make a mental representation of what they mean, without the help of mathematics. Besides, the concept itself of "material" is very tricky. After all, matter is only one aspect of our perception of reality. Is quntum void (if it exists) matter? Was the big bang singularity (for those who believe in it) matter? Is dark energy (if it really is the biggest part of what exists) matter? Besides, there are certainly facts wich are "observed" without the instruments of the senses, and therefore are not necessarily material. The main and fundamental one is consciousness. Many seem to forget that one's consciousness is perceived directly, and that it is the one basis of every other cognition. Similarly, modifications of the mind (feelings, emotions, thoughts) are perceived directly in consciousness (or, if you prefer, in the mind), and their material nature is only a far fetched inference (and, in my opinion, a completely wrong one). Finally, the principles of logic themselves, non contradiction, identity, and so on, and the same mathemathical objects, are in no way material. And yet, all our scientific knowledge is based on them. Finally, to Jerry: you may go on thinking as you please about positive and negative evidence. No harm done, after all. But, certainly, I (and, it seems, others here) cannot agree.gpuccio_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Quadfather, "It does if intelligence is the only known cause of those sorts of systems. The only way you get to that conclusion is the negative evidence against the alternatives. That is what the Explanatory Filter is all about. It is a process of elimination or providing evidence against the alternatives. When the opposition claims that the alternatives work that is one of the main avenues of analysis. There is nothing that points to a specific designer, when it was done or how it was done. There is no forensic evidence for a designer. Congregate was sarcastically referreing to that when he asked where is the space ship or blue prints. Don't confuse logic with positive information. Logic points to a designer only because the alternatives are so improbable. But that isn't positive information.jerry_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

StephenB
and embrace the cynical notion that design is “illusory,”
If we take it as given that "design" is in fact design as we understand it, then in your opinion are there any biological structures that were not directly or indirectly "designed"? Is everything designed or just some things?Uthan Rose_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

DLH, I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that there is no evidence for non-material intelligence. Do you know better? Please enlighten me? How does one obtain material evidence for the non-material?Uthan Rose_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

I appreciate the speculation on my motives, but I am quite serious. 'Easy' was perhaps the wrong word. What I mean is that I can see no difficulty in forming, for example, the eye, or the flagellum, by a process of random mutation, and natural selection. I know, when anyone says this, the immediate response is 'well that means Darwinism can predict ANYTHING!', which to me rather seems to overlook the clear constraints OF that process. But I'm not saying it on sheer blind faith. I have tried to understand the process - if I didn't, I'd be a mere sheep of a believer. I've written programs to simulate the kinds of evolutionary mutation seen in life, and I've seen what comes out of them. When you bring up Behe's examples of ultra-complex pathways in the eye and so forth, I don't see complexity. I see the kind of hideous kludge that evolution is famed for. It's all very well to say 'look how complicated this is! nature can't do that!', but have you actually looked at what nature can do? If one keeps adding parts to a system that's repeatedly trying to do the best with what it has, do you really believe that something like eye pathways wouldn't emerge? On Irreducible Complexity: Behe says that irreducible complexity is the state wherein removing a part destroys the function. He then says there are lots of these structures in biology. He also adds that intelligent beings can produce structures with this property. All of that's probably true. But now, people are saying 'show that evolution can do this, or ID is the better explanation!' Leaving aside the non-mechanistic nature of ID and its explanatory power, is it really fair to demand of evolution an explanation for something that has no relevance to it? You have all, after all, admitted that the definition of IC is totally irrelevant to evolution (which works by more than simple addition) - indeed, it seems to me like a total red herring. I mean, I can do this too. Dolphin sonar. Intelligent beings are known to be quite capable of making this technology, and we didn't see it evolve... looks like ID wins again! Add to that any technology inspired by nature that humans have duplicated, and why not circulatory systems, valves... we've made neural networks too, so we may as well throw brains in there. Analogy makes it very easy, doesn't it? Who needs to bother with modelling?Venus Mousetrap_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Uthan Rose
the only intelligent agency we’ve ever encountered is humanity
On what basis do you dismiss all evidence to the contrary? You appear to a priori assume materialism without addressing the issue.DLH_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Seems to me the only intelligent agency we've ever encountered is humanity. So logically the "designer" is a human, just like us! I don't believe there is any evidence that the "designer" is immaterial. Quite the opposite in fact - every intelligent design we are aware of had a material cause. So, my question is why does ID not start from the position that humanity was the designer? After all, it's not as if we have a videotape of history, for all we know we're descendents of a crashed spaceship and all knowledge of previous technology was lost in the fight to survive. Anybody watching Galatcia? So say we all!Uthan Rose_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

jerry, It does if intelligence is the only known cause of those sorts of systems.QuadFather_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Joseph, "Let’s see- DNA not only has to replicate but parts of it also have to be unzipped so that another molecule can be made. In turn this molecule can be edited and transported to another awaiting system that takes the edited molecule and translates that into a polypeptide (amino acid) chain." That is evidence for a complicated process not positive evidence for its origin.jerry_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

StephenB actually makes a good point: Design would not be apparent if there weren't positive reasons for recognizing it in the first place.QuadFather_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

-----“The negative approach is the chief method of getting at ID.” This statement confuses the ID movement, which laments materialist ideology, with ID methodology, which detects functionally specified complex information. One may interpret the former as a negative reaction to ideology, but no one should interpret the latter as anything other than a positive affirmation. Even the ID movement is positive in the context of the big picture, since it seeks to recapture a positive theory about the universe that has been lost due to materialist ideology. In other words, we got there first. When history’s great scientists insisted that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him,” they were making a positive affirmation. When Darwin suggested that an impersonal process could do what only God can do, he was reacting negatively to a positive affirmation. When ID scientists seek to draw inferences about intelligent agency, they are making a positive affirmation. When anti-ID zealots invent “methodological naturalism” to discredit ID, they are reacting negatively to a positive affirmation. To believe in a rationally, intelligently designed universe is to make a positive affirmation; to disbelieve it and embrace the cynical notion that design is “illusory,” is to react negatively to a positive affirmation.StephenB_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

There is no positive evidence for ID.--Jerry
Let's see- DNA not only has to replicate but parts of it also have to be unzipped so that another molecule can be made. In turn this molecule can be edited and transported to another awaiting system that takes the edited molecule and translates that into a polypeptide (amino acid) chain. Now in transcription the two strands of DNA are exposed but the mRNA only and always forms on one. And in translation the tRNA that grabs the amino acid is the anti-codon (the reverse) of the edited mRNA that is in the ribosome. IOW the nucleotides do not make the amino acid there is free amino acids in the cytoplasm that connect to the tRNA only when signaled and then ferry that amino acid to the ribosome so it can be configured in the chain. Add on to that the regulation of the process, tool-kit genes, genetic switches and combinatorial logic (being able to use different combinations of existing parts to accomplish different tasks) and the positive evidence for ID is solid. And that is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg...Joseph_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

jerry, Ah, ok. Well given my attempt to explain how the evidence for design is positive, I suppose we may have to agree to disagree on this one. But as somebody else pointed out (can't remember exactly where), any positive evidence is inextricably coupled with a negative implication. If we have positive evidence for this thing, then it implies that it was not that other thing. But that does not change the positive nature of the evidence. I think you are conflating the positive evidence for design with its negative implication, and I think this is why you have difficulty explaining what positive evidence would even look like. In pointing out that intelligent activity is the only known explanation for certain effects, we are not singling out any particular possibility; no other theory is specified in the argument that the only explanation for *this* effect is intelligence. So it is hard for me to accept that ID makes its case only by singling out Darwinian Evolution. Perhaps the case for ID would be negative if we ONLY tried to bring down other theories ... but that is not the argument. It remains true that ID is the only known explanation for certain effects, and this does constitute a *positive* logical advantage over Darwinian Evolution.QuadFather_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Quadfather, I am merely pointing out that all the players in the evolution debate use negative arguments against their opponents' positions. It is true of ID, it is true of the Darwinists. There is no positive evidence for ID. There is no positive evidence for Darwinan macro evolution. There is no positive evidence for a naturalistic method for OOL. There does seem to be a lot of positive evidence for Darwinian micro evolution but ID accepts this. What each side does is essentially point out the lack of positive evidence for the other side. The Darwinist will often emphasize this by mocking ID and its dependence on some unknown intelligence, hence the reference to the "poof theory" for the origin of gene pools for various organisms. Essentially the mechanism for evolution is a mystery.jerry_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

jerry, Sorry, did I misinterpret your last comments as an argument against ID?QuadFather_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

quadfather, I haven't a clue what you are talking about.jerry_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

I think that the definition of irreducible complexity that you quote excludes the possible evolutionary pathways known in this context as scaffolding and co-option.- congregate
I doubt that as both scaffolding and co-option are covered in NFL prior to the definition I quoted. Just how does a blind process build a scaffold for a future structure?
Why does a system’s “basic” function (whatever that is) have to be the same as it’s original function?- congregate
If you have a functioning system- a system that an organism requires to live- then how does a blind process change that structure for a new function without harming the organism?Joseph_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

News Flash Dr. John West reports: Missouri House Committe Passes Evolution Academic Freedom Bill
The Missouri House of Representatives' Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education just approved a proposed academic freedom act on evolution by a bipartisan vote of 8-3. The bill now moves to the full House for consideration. Sponsored by Rep. Wayne Cooper
Now Judge Jones has lost in Missouri. Maybe an academic freedom bill needs to be introduced in Pennsylvania, the state that governs the Dover school district. :-)scordova_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

jerry, I think it is a far more negative approach to say that unintelligent activity produced CSI when it is NOT known to do so, than it is to say that intelligent activity produced CSI when it IS known to do so. When you infer a cause based on the *presence* of experiential data - not its *absence* - this is a positive inference, not a negative one. When you say "POOF evolution dunnit" based on the *absence* of experiential data, this is a negative inference, not a positive one. I believe that is even called an argument from ignorance.QuadFather_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply