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

GP and Apollos: Excellent points! I would add to that, following Meyer and Loennig, that when we look at body plan level architectures as a principal feature of biodiversity, the same issue of accounting for organised functionally specified, information-rich complexity arises. Then, going beyond these, we infer back to "get your own dirt." It turns out that the cell-based, information-rich carbon polymer chemistry utilising life-facilitating cosmos we inhabit exhibits exquisitely fine-tuned, multidimensionally convergent organised complexity as to its underlying physics for that sort of life to exist. We have precisely one observed source of such functionally specified, information-rich, organised complexity. Namely, intelligence. Also, we see that there is a very good reason for that: the rapid exponentiation of the scale of configuration spaces required to host such information, leading to a rapidly expanding challenge to any random walk-based search strategy that begins from an arbitrary initial point/configuration, e.g. in whatever version of a prebiotic soup that is put up these days. For instance, DNA spaces go as 4^n, where n is chain length. That means that a DNA chain of 250 elements has 10^150 possible configs, and so giving generous room for islands of functionality and hill-climbing within those islands, once DNA chains get beyond about 500 elements [10^301 states], we are looking at pretty hopeless searches. Observed chains in life forms range from about 300, 000 [in "knockout-ed" organisms] to 500 k - 1 mn for simplest life forms (with 1 mn being more realistic for an independent life-form); up to in excess of 3 bn. 300 k bases is a config space of ~9.94*10^180,617. The search resources to get anywhere likely to be functional in such a space vastly exceed those of the observed cosmos. And, if one goes over into speculative quasi-infinite, unobserved arrays of sub-cosmi, one has crossed from science into metaphysics; on which one has even less excuse to lock out live option alternatives. In short, there is more than adequate educational reason to look at the design issue, not only as a scientific investigation, but to show the phil context and issues that lie in the core of scientific work and thought. Not to mention, the implications of that for how science and education work as institutions, and how that affects the public arena. To do less than fairly address that in light of the major perspectives and issues is to short-change a whole upcoming generation. Oh, about like the old Plato's cave game did. And, that has been, explicitly, an education and academic freedom issue since about 400 BC! Jus a pass tru . . . GEM of TKI PS: Compare the above to the always linked, in order, from sections A - D, then onward to E.kairosfocus_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

Isn’t this all a tacit acknowledgement that ‘examining the criticisms of evolutionary theory’ is where we’ve come to because ID has not been satisfactorily disentangled from creationism? It’s not just pasting out ‘creationism’ in ‘Of Pandas and People’ in exchange for ‘ID’. ‘Expelled’ is totally inconsistent on this (by all accounts – I have not had the chance to see it yet) in that during the first half it’s at pains to paint ID as a scientific theory (and only that), but in the second it’s quite openly a clarion call for religion. It’s all very well Sal bemoaning the actions of the Dover board but away from the relatively rareified world of the DI and UD, the ID constituency-at-large are in no doubt in their mind that, for them, this is a religious issue – they WANT it to be.duncan_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Design should be included on the list of possibilities for explaining the origin of life, in any classroom where OOL is being discussed. There are absolutely no viable origin of life theories that take us 'from gel to cell' by law or chance. Nobody can even begin to explain how the first self-replicating life form came about, period. End of story. This should be made absolutely clear to students in science classes. Arguably, we have a genesis event (or series of events) leading to the putative first self-replicating organism. There are two broad and competing explanations for this first life: design or law/chance. There are no other rational competitors, AFAIK -- there are no other players in the game. It's one or the other. There shouldn't be any problem making this clear to students. Until some OOL theory crosses the bridge from hocus-pocus-ville to empirical evidence land, there is no reason to exclude design from the list of possible explanations -- especially since design represents the best explanation by making a positive inference from the evidence. All other potential explanations thus far are nothing more than wishful thinking. This is where the "question-begging definition of science" does its violence. It seeks to disqualify one of two possible explanations before the evidence has had a chance to speak. Philosophical bias against design is the only reason for favoring some flavor of chemical evolution over a design inference (or at the very least, allowing that design is on the table of possible explanations). We have perfectly valid examples of intelligent agents producing complex, information processing systems. We have no evidence of law or chance producing anything even close to such systems (that is, without the question-begging inclusion of biological systems in the mix). There needs to be a clear delineation between OOL and everything else. For OOL, ID is -- by far -- the best explanation of the evidence. There can be very little rational, objective resistance to this notion. I could understand wishful thinking, or hoping beyond hope, that some universal law allowing for the spontaneous generation of abstract and complex specified information integrated with information processing systems would be discovered (and we should allow for, and search for, such properties in nature). However this fails the test for being anything more than a less-than-remote possibility. It certainly doesn't even approach being the only possible line of inquiry. Regardless of one's opinions of how ID is presented or evolution is criticized, design should be an open possibility for OOL and it should be vetted (along with other hypotheses) in any classroom where OOL is a topic of discussion. We needn't insist on, or worry about, teaching Biblical creation in class. It isn't a matter of formal ID, or some form of religious instruction; it's a matter of letting students in on the fact that design is scientifically a valid possibility for the origin of life, and the only one with any supporting evidence. Once OOL is laid bare for what it is -- examining, questioning, and criticizing neo-Darwinian models of evolution will be second nature, even for the average high-school student. OOL is the front line, and design has all the advantages of being the only explanation that fits the evidence. For the origin of life, materialistic explanations are shamefully naked. There are not too many possibilities for story telling about OOL. In Expelled, Ruse was left with nothing more than invoking natural selection (on the backs of crystals) to explain the first self-replicating organism (more question begging); and Dawkins confessed the possibility of an intelligent designer. Attacking where the armor is weakest seems like a viable strategy for inflicting the most damage.Apollos_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

jerry: About positive evidence. It is very simple. ID makes an empirical connection between a certain kind of information (CSI) and a certain kind of agency (intelligent designers). That's very positive indeed. It is so positive, that ID has effectively shown that no kind of CSI can derive form other known causal factors (necessity, randomness) in absence of an intelligent designer. That is a positive evidence at two different levels: logical (it is mathematically and statistically inacceptable); and empirical (it has never been observed). On the contrary, CSI is daily observed coming out of the agency of intelligent designers. What is there of negative in those argumentations? The negative part of ID is only a tool. As darwinist have been stating that they have a logically and empirically sound explanation for the origin of biological CSI in absence of a designer, ID is merely showing that that is not true. That's only "negative" in the sense that it is a falsification of a wrong theory. A very positive attainment, in my opinion.gpuccio_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT}

scordova, Scandal at the NIH
However Salvador Cordova, a famous activist in the intelligent design movement, just released this statement: "Walt Ruloff mentioned that in filming Expelled he observed there is active suppression of the exploration of RNA synthesis at ... the NIH. These discoveries would overturn much of neo-Darwinism but these medical advances can’t be funded because they violate the party line" . As yet there has been no further comment regarding this serious allegation. If these allegations can be confirmed it would perhaps be a matter amenable to congressional investigation! We urge anybody with information regarding suppression of potentially life saving research at the NIH or any other facility to speak out. We'll being you more news as we get it.
Salvador, it appear you are really making a difference! Congratualtions. Will you be speaking at any congressional investigation that does happen, if it comes to that?Uthan Rose_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

The identity of a designer or designers is not something that hampers the argument for design. "Bad design" carries no meaning, simply because we would not do something a particular way is not a proof that no one would. That line of reasoning is absolutely meaningless. It achieved function whether it was to the optimum function of the designer's intention would be seperate question, for a seperate subject.Stone_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

I don’t know scordova, I think that ID should be taught in the class room because it leads to differing meta-conclusions and meta-reasoning than DE. Notice I used the words meta-conclusions and meta-reasoning because I think that ID is about empirical natural phenomena not metaphysical beliefs. In other words its fine to talk about the Darwinian principles but in the end it is the work the Dembski with NFL, the origin of life problem etc that undermine the DE hypothesis at the very least in its completeness. I also think that the digital code in DNA, the NFL conclusion that intelligence cannot be purchased without intelligence, and less powerful observations make ID a reasonable scientific hypothesis. I would like to see it taught. God know that public schools aren’t currently doing a good job in promoting scientific literacy. Some people think that ID would undermined that further but I can think of a "scientific way" of proving whether ID would or would not promote scientific literacy. Let the school teach ID for 5 or 10 years and compare across school lines and historically with testing and SAT scores. IF ID improved the literacy KEEP IT. IF it didn't then discard it for the time being. To say that ID undermines science without a proper test is NOT SCIENCE as they like to say because IT IS NOT TESTIBLE. I’m quite sure that ID would improve scientific literacy because its metaphysical and meta-reasoning goes far deeper than regular evo-biology. OF course if it did it would be a nightmare for the Darwinists because they would loose another one of their phony excuses to keep ID out of the public. Ultimately this is not a battle about science it’s a battle about religion. While ID IS NOT religion it does lend the most import line of support for religious views- that is it touches ontological aspects of reality that point beyond matter and randomness to a higher intelligence. If science has found evidence for a higher plan, designer or purpose, there is no reason the people shouldn’t know it.Frost122585_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

scordova says, "Teaching the Bible is the mission of the church and not the government." True. And teaching children is the mission of parents, not the government. Remember that and the problems cited in this tread go away.Gerry Rzeppa_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT}

Sal It is probably best not to teach ID in public school science classes. What we should try to do is to get the poorly taught, often propagandized Darwinianism out of our science classes. (Along with probably a lot of other things. Pop psychology comes to mind.) But that's science. There is nothing wrong with treating the existence of God as an axiom in our public schools as in yup, Jefferson really meant that our rights are God-given in the DOI. There is nothing wrong with putting the Golden Rule on the classroom walls (or the 10 Commandments of whatever version) and saying these are the foundations of our morality. The only ones who would object would be the ones who hate that morality. There is nothing wrong with starting the day with a benediction being read over the loudspeaker. A true atheist would not object to this, btw. It's not hurting him. In fact, the way Christianity is interpreted here the wise atheist would understand that it is what protects his rights. God haters are a different story. In the cultural war it is the God-haters who brought religion into the science class.tribune7_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

Dr Williams sums up the reasons for school choice eloquently in Bitter Partisan Politics and Education (28 November 2007). He first points out that people have different preferences in cars and computers. He likes Lexus cars and Dell computers, but others might prefer Cadillacs and Macs. Then he asks what would happen if our choices for cars and computers were made by the government, even by democratic vote. Williams writes: "I guarantee you there would be nasty, bitter conflict between otherwise peaceful car and computer buyers. Each person would have reason to enter into conflict with those having different car and computer tastes because one person's win would necessarily be another person's loss. It would be what game theorists call a zero-sum game. How would you broker a peace with these parties in conflict? If you're not a tyrant, I'm betting you'd say, "Take the decision out of the political arena and let people buy whatever car and computer they wish." "Prayers in school, sex education and "intelligent design" are contentious school issues. I believe parents should have the right to decide whether their children will say a morning prayer in school, be taught "intelligent design" and not be given school-based sex education. I also believe other parents should have the right not to have their children exposed to prayers in school, "intelligent design" and receive sex education. "The reason why these issues produce conflict is because education is government-produced. … If one parent has his wishes met, it comes at the expense of another parent's wishes. The losing parent either must grin and bear it or send his child to a private school, pay its tuition and still pay property taxes for a school for which he has no use. "Just as in the car and computer examples, the solution is to take the production of education out of the political arena. The best way is to end all government involvement in education."Jonathan Sarfati_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

To Jerry @ #24, the postive evidence for ID is the analogy between patterns in nature and the patterns produced by human minds. When this analogy exists, and the pattern in question is too improbable to have been brought about by chance or natural laws, then you have the beginnings of a design inference. I think that what Dr. Dembski calls specification (comformity to an independently give pattern) is one way of explicating what is involved in such analogies (though I have never heard Dembski himself saying this, and this is just my own way of looking at the matter). Mike Gene has a number of criteria that indicate design in his book "The Design Matrix", but I can't recall what they are.Leo Hales_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

Scordova, CMI has long argued against compulsion for creation in schools, and one reason is precisely that atheopathic teachers are likely to distort it. You can see this for yourself in my section Mandatory teaching in public schools? in my rebuttal to the latest anticreationist agitprop from the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Science, Evolution and Creationism. S: "Teaching the Bible is the mission of the church and not the government." More to the point: teaching is not the role of the government! And as economist Dr Walter Williams points out in his small column Educational Vouchers (2002): One of the strongest arguments in favor of educational vouchers and choice is: When a society decides to publicly finance a good or service, it doesn't follow that it must be publicly produced. We publicly finance F-16 fighter jets, but there's no government F-16 fighter jet factory. That same principle applies to education. We can publicly finance education, but where it's produced should be determined on the basis of economic efficiency. Where can we get the biggest bang for the buck?Jonathan Sarfati_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

Let’s characterize this correctly. ... But more importantly, these laws are radically different than the Dover curriculum. Dover was a curriculum. These are bills protecting the rights of teachers to teach objectively.
So much or characterizing things correctly... Dover was a statement read by the superintendent. Four paragraphs with a mention of Of Pandas and People, a book that used to have the word "Creationism" in it before "Intelligent Design" became a term. Ol' "reservist" Jones couldn't restrain himself with the argument that only curriculum needed to be addressed, because--in an argument that would have impressed Gorgias--banning of items for curriculum was "not curriculum" and as such allowed him to rule on matters not concerned directly with curriculum. In fact, it is clear from the decision that Jones is acknowledging that this never touched curriculum. Dover was a stuffy superintendent reading a boring four-paragraph statement that said, among other things that the students would be tested on Evolution. Additionally, in the third paragraph it mentioned ID and offered the students the opportunity to read another text book (OPP) which would not affect their grade. Any reasonable figment of Jones' imagination--kidnapped by time-machine straight from Leave-it-to-Beaver-land--could tell that kids would be impressed with an authority figure reading a small statement and somehow be moved that it was "endorsed" by the school. You know how susceptible students are to their superintendent these days!jjcassidy_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Let's say hypothetically ID is taught in public school. This will raise questions of the identity of the designer and the problem of "bad design". Do we really want to go there? The creationists have their answer to these questions. But do we want to explore creationist ideas in public schools (or any of the other ID theories such as pan spermia or Omega Point theory)? Which lead to the hypothetical question: "Even if teaching the creation science, creation theology, or the Bible were legal in public schools, would it be wise?" And as far as my view of teaching Creation Science, Creation Theology, or the Bible in public schools -- I don't think it is the role of a secular government to do such things. As an evangelical Christian, it is distressing to even imagine the Bible being taught in public schools by teachers who despise the Christian faith. Teaching the Bible is the mission of the church and not the government. I think the church will suffer for letting others take over the mission which God gave the church. That's just my opinion. I'm not saying I'm right, but I think it would be a bad idea to try to get public school teachers who have no reverence for the Christian faith to teach the Bible or Genesis in public schools. Sure I'd be delighted to see all people teach what I think is true. But I'm not counting on this happening any time soon.... But with respect to exploring evolution, I think Darwinian evolution is just plain bad science and should be subject to critical analysis. To suggest Darwinian evolution is science is damaging to the enterprise of science.scordova_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

jerry @ 24 William J. Murray @ 14 RRE @ 15 I think that the point of RRE and William J. Murray is that since people design things today, we can infer a designer in the past. I believe that they see this as positive evidence. However, inference of past conditions from present results is irrational. I've addressed this issue before. Causal induction always proceeds from the conditions to the result, since going the other way results in underdetermined conditions. Evolutionists try to say this is the same problem as underdetermination of theories, but underdetermination of theories is a very different problem than underdetermination of mechanisms (which derives from underdetermination of conditions). In an experimental situation, there can be no underdetermination of a mechanism when experimental results are confirmed. The published experimental method identifies the mechanism precisely and the confirmation of results is a compelling epistemological credential. Real science relies upon causal induction, proceeding from known conditions to repeatable, confirmed results. Repeatability makes technological advances possible. This is why real science results in technological advances and evolutionary prehistoric philosophy (e.g., paleontology) doesn't. ID uses the same philosophical method as the oxymoronic "historical sciences" when presenting its positive evidence. When presenting positive evidence, it infers past conditions from results found in the present. ID's positive evidence can only be speculative, though its prima facie evidence can be very convincing.thogan_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

If evolution is such an ironclad theory, why are Darwinists so afraid of it being challenged?jinxmchue_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

A good start would be the school voucher system that Milton Friedman advocated; Dittos to that.tribune7_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

It's hypocritical that many academics would deny freedom to ID, but supported it for Ward Churchill's attack on the victims of 11-9 as "little Eichmanns", and support the professorships of Hussein Obama's unrepentant terrorist friends William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.Jonathan Sarfati_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

News Flash: The fight for academic freedom has now reached a 5th state in the union. Michigan Becomes Fifth State to Introduce Evolution Academic Freedom Billscordova_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

Scordova has a point. I am a firm supporter of separation of school and state. The government schools with their Democrat/Teachers Union monopoly, have no incentive to refrain from their humanist and leftist indoctrination, or improve downright abysmal academic quality. Making ID allowable in this system is putting a band-aid on a cancer. The solution that should be encouraged is getting the government out of education altogether. A good start would be the school voucher system that Milton Friedman advocated; if the government must be involved, then it is far better to subsidized the consumer than the producer. For more on why the controversy is caused by government compulsion, see Andrew Coulson, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, interviewed by Brandon Keim, A Libertarian Solution to Evolution Education Controversy: No More Public Schools, Wired Science, 23 January 2008.Jonathan Sarfati_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

An "Evolution Academic Freedom Act" has been introduced in the Michigan house (Fifth State) . It is going to be much harder to put the genie back in the bottle if a number of states pass this legislation. The ACLU will have a harder time making a case against the will of the people passed by state legislatures than sueing an individual school district.Robert L_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

"So what is the positive evidence for ID? I am not a skeptic but I fail to see any positive evidence. We tend to ignore the negative arguments against ID here but it is out there." A positive evidence for ID aside from artificial selection/selective breeding, genetic engineering, and the upcoming event of the first synthetic microbe? Hmm the fact that all matter is ordered by the most complex intelligible language ever devised(mathematics) would seem to fit that bill... but meh. As for Mr. Behe's argument, negative or not, it is a physical impossibility to gradually produce a system that is entirely interdependent through a direct path. It may not prove design but it certainly puts a knife through the hand of Neo-darwinian theory to a certain extent. On that note, why then do we teach the Neo-Darwinian theory as having a reach that extends through all biology? We don't teach that the earth is flat, I could argue that the pics from Nasa satelites are a government hoax and demand that a someone show me the planet for my own satisfaction, but once you point out the fact that lunar eclipses being round must indicate that our planet is spherical, argument is dead, isn't it? Behe is just a modern pythagoras. No reason to try and hang him over it, just acknowledge 19th century biology has it's limitations.Stone_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Larry:
specs said,
Yikes. House bill sponsor Alan Hays was quoted as saying: “Find for me where a fly turned into a monkey or a monkey turned into a man.”
He was probably thinking of the science-fiction movie “The Fly,” where a man was turned into a fly as a result of a botched teleportation experiment. Yeah, maybe so, but I'd suggest he probably isn't the guy you want carrying water on a bill seeking to influence science education. You think they could have found someone with a little more candlepower.specs_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

scordova says, "...would you also want non-Chrisitans teaching your kids the Bible? How are you going to control the quality? I’d prefer not to entrust certain things to the government." We home school, and send the kids out to both private and public institutions for classes we can't supply (we don't, for example, have a ceramics kiln or an hydraulics lab). And we intentionally expose the kids to the positions and arguments of the other side. But I am always the responsible party, and in full control of the quality: teacher, dean of discipline, principal, father.Gerry Rzeppa_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Let's characterize this correctly. Judge Jones did not "lose" anything here. FL and LA are not within his jurisdiction. But more importantly, these laws are radically different than the Dover curriculum. Dover was a curriculum. These are bills protecting the rights of teachers to teach objectively. He didn't even rule on the issue addressed in these laws. Perhaps more importantly, these laws are subject to the same sort of judicial review as the Dover curriculum was. Chances are relatively good these laws will be challenged -- maybe not immediately (they wouldn't want to risk taking this to the now-very-conservative Supreme Court) -- but probably at some time in the future when the ACLU thinks they've got a Supreme Court that will rule them unconstitutional. And with little Judge Jones clones running around everywhere, there's a decent chance they'll prevail before the right judge.ungtss_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

There is no question that the Dover decision has had an intimidating effect on legislatures and school boards that want to include or allow criticism of evolution in the school curricula. Politicians are especially fearful of a backlash from tightwad taxpayers over the potential legal costs of a lawsuit. I cannot recall any other instance in American history where an unreviewed opinion of a single judge has had such a great influence. The Darwinists are wrongly applying the name ID to all criticisms of evolution in an attempt to get maximum mileage from the Dover decision. specs said,
Yikes. House bill sponsor Alan Hays was quoted as saying: “Find for me where a fly turned into a monkey or a monkey turned into a man.”
He was probably thinking of the science-fiction movie "The Fly," where a man was turned into a fly as a result of a botched teleportation experiment. Reg said,
"Jones viewed himself as the person who would settle the question of Darwinism for all time an eternity" He did?
The Dover opinion said (pages 63-64)--
. . .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. . . . . we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us. -- from http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Earon said (#4)
I don’t seem to remember reading anywhere in his ruling that it is unconstitutional to question the theory of evolution.
The Dover opinion said (page 138) --
. . . .we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. -- from http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
However, the words in bold were not included in the final order at the end of the opiinion.
"He even went on the talk show circuit boasting of his brilliant cut-and-paste of ACLU opinions." This may be incorrect but Steve Mirsky from Scientific American had the following to say about Mark Mathis’ statements the issue of the ACLU writing Jones’ ruling. Maybe someone could clarify which side is right:
The DI report charging that the ID-as-science section of the opinion was ghostwritten by the ACLU is here -- http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1186 My blog discusses the issue here -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/04/scientific-american-duped-by.htmlLarry Fafarman_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

but would you also want non-Chrisitans teaching your kids the Bible? I think a non-Christian could teach the Bible in a useful way. The matter, as always in education, boils down to integrity and competence. Non Christians can certainly have integrity and competence. How are you going to control the quality. And that is the big question with regard to just about everything with our public schools.tribune7_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

gpuccio, What is the evidence for ID that is not negative. All of Behe's work is negative, showing that gradualism could not produce certain biological constructs which he calls irreducibly complex. But that is not positive evidence for ID. In the Edge of Evolution he showed that naturalistic processes failed to build complex structures in uni-celled organisms. Again negative. Dembski's explanatory filter is negative also. It is saying that other processes are not possible and therefore what is left must be intelligent. It is essentially an argument against other mechanisms. But very convincing. Also the remarkable organization of the complexity of the cell is amazing but this is not positive evidence for ID. We come to ID for OOL by arguing against any naturalistic mechanisms. Again negative arguments. So what is the positive evidence for ID? I am not a skeptic but I fail to see any positive evidence. We tend to ignore the negative arguments against ID here but it is out there.jerry_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

"I could be wrong but didn’t the effect of Jones’ ruling state Intelligent Design is religious in nature and not science?" I wonder if Jones has seen the clip where Dawkins acknowledges extraterrestrials could have been responsible for earth life. Religious indeed. What a dolt.mike1962_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

There's no good reason, legal or otherwise, why teleology shouldn't be discussed in philosophy classes along side of philosophy of science. And these should be required. And in the science class, show the kids everything that has been discovered about the innards of cells. That should work wonders without even mentioning the dreaded G-word.mike1962_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply