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

gpuccio, you've hit the nail on the head. The origin of biological information is the number one item that should be investigated. More funds are needed!Uthan Rose_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

We definitely have scientific evidence (not "proof", as many times debated) that ID is a very valid scientific theory. On the contrary, darwinian evolution is a very bad scientific theory. That's the point of ID. A good scientific theory against a bad scientific theory. The only reason why ID should not be "taught" in schools is because, at present, it is a minority theory in the academic world. When it becomes the main theory about biological information (soon, I hope), it will be taught as such. In the meantime, we have all the rights in the wordl that it be at least mentioned briefly as a minority scientific theory about the origin of biological information. That's all.gpuccio_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

It'll be a while yet before these bills become law from what I understand.Uthan Rose_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Actually, from what I've read, the bills that passed the house and senate are two different bills and now they need to meet to make the wording of the two bills the same before they can pass them through both the house and senate before they can be signed into law by the governor.Marie_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

I'd just like to say Hear Hear. Gerry hit the nail on the head. if something is false, we need not say "well its still OK to teach it by me, since I can't really deal with proving that it is false or i don't know that much about how to teach it". Since we have long known that evolutionary materialism is false (aye all men know their Maker) why are saying that we don't want the government to be on our side? we should use the government and every single other advantage we can gain to throttle the evolutionary chance worshippers back into the covens and saloons from whence they came. if the government will not bow to the will of the people, then we must take it over, again. fortunately that is what seems to be happening in Florida and Louisiana. unfortunately so many of our legislators just want to listen to facts and this plays right into the materialists hands. Thus I think we need prouder american citizens that are willing to go to bat for their Faith. We don't need ridiculous excuses for why we can't force the soulless dead in christ materialists to give in.irreducible_complacency_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Cordova, Good article. It’s good to see that people are back on the march. You know, we do live in the US where people have a right to be heard and express what they think within reason. A theory as sketchy as Darwin’s, which chalks up life to a random process of sorts that requires a schizophrenic foundational theory of “multi-universes” (which there is not a shred of evidence for) in order to account for the complexity, specification and diversity of life, is to say the least quite worthy of some heavy criticism. Not to mention the fact that Darwinists themselves are in constant disputes about the character of the evolutionary theory they think is right. Moreover, IDists have a completely separate view of the entire matrix of historical data. And they say there is no controversy?! And I remind us all that in this country the majority rules but the minority’s rights are to be protected. Most people in this country for whatever reason DONT think DE is the full answer to life’s origins. So let them teach it! The problem is because of radical politics and a very agenda driven media, people have been purposely misinformed about ID. If people really understood what ID was in fact about, and the scientific methods used to come to some to its conclusions, people would realize that ID is far from creationism and a lot closer to pure empirical science then they are being told. What Judge Jones did was disgraceful but its assuring to see that people are not giving up the good and most important fight. On another thread last night people posted a few good G.Orwell quotes. The first with thanks to JPCollado “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” And then these two from myself- “Whoever is winning at the moment will always [seem] to be invincible.” and “Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.” I think, we need not bow down to a politic driven mainstream society with plans that are reminiscent of 1984. People have a right to know and hear the truth and in the case of DE the dissent is flowing from all conceivable directions except the government controlled education establishment.Frost122585_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

If the genetic code only appeared in the known universe once, then by definition, its metaphysical. So wouldn't we have to then infer to the best possibility when analyzing its origin since we ourselves cannot go back to empirically show its cause? Shouldn't we be finding causes that can produce codes and machines to infer this answer? Doesn't experience tell us then, that an immaterial mind acting on a machine body was that cause since this is the only cause that has been shown in the lab to produce a machine or code?RRE_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

The teaching of ID in public schools is an important question. I'm simply unqualified to argue for what should or should not be done regarding public schools regarding ID. I'd prefer to leave the issue to people more qualified to address the issues... I'm happy to teach or explain to ID to people who ask me. I'm happy to answer their question about creation science or theology. However, dictating what public school teachers will teach regarding ID, the Bible, or whatever else, that's another story, and it is out of my domain of expertise and comfort...scordova_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

...paragraph of English onto a computer (placing a code onto another code using a machine).RRE_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Isn't ID science based on what we know about the characteristics of codes and machines, and how they originate? I realize that one can step further in their analysis of intelligent design and find better terms to quantify and qualify design detection (EF, CSI, IC), but at the basic level of the machine and code, isn't it just logical to say codes and machines require a mind precisely because this is all that we observe in the universe when investigating the origin? Isn't that scientific if we can observe the characteristics of those concepts ONLY COMING INTO EXISTENCE THROUGH THE ACTION OF AN INTELLIGENT AGENT (ID)? This is what makes no sense to me. How can someone say ID is not science when they are using intelligent design to write a paragraph of English (placing a code onto a machine).RRE_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

I don't understand the position that I.D. isn't science, or shouldn't be taught as science. Humans employ intelligent design - we know this to be a scientific fact. Artifacts of I.D. - the human variety - exist; we know this to be a scientific fact. Science itself could not be conducted without human intelligent design. Unless the scientific community and academia consider humans to be supernatural creatures, and human I.D. to be a mystical phenomena; or, if mainstream science wishes to reverse their adoption of the Copernican Principle and claim that humans are special and unique in the universe, I can hardly understand why I.D. as a human commodity, and as a potential commodity found or in play elsewhere, is forbidden from science. I.D., as it is stated, is a scientific fact, if one can keep their preconceived notions of supernatural implication out of the mix - because we know it exists.William J. Murray_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Leo: See Statement by Seth L. Cooper Concerning Discovery Institute and the Decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover
In the hopes of persuading Buckingham away from leading the Dover Board on any unconstitutional and unwise course of action concerning the teaching of evolution, I sent Buckingham a DVD titled Icons of Evolution, along with a companion study guide. Those materials do not include arguments for the theory of intelligent design, but instead contain critiques of textbook treatments of the contemporary version of Darwin's theory and the chemical origin of the first life. The content of the materials is in keeping with the U.S. Supreme Court's pronouncement in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) that public school students may be taught prevailing scientific theories along with "scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories."
scordova_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

I'm interested to know more about this: "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." What was the wise advice that these creationists did not heed? Thanks.Leo Hales_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

But why not? As I said above, if a thing is true, or likely to be true, or even a plausible hypothesis, it ought to be passed on. Whence this hedging, this evasion, this ambivalence? Is Mr. Valiant-for-Truth dead?
You have a valid question, but 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.scordova_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Ekstasis@7
Why not start with the open questions raised in regards to Darwinism.
Yes, of course, however time is limited. Subjects that deserve weeks of attention may only be mentioned in passing - there is too much to learn! So, given that, how would you prioritise? What must be taught explicitly and what can be left to resources outside the classroom?Uthan Rose_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

We also have negative arguments against natural mechanisms as the cause for the origin of life.jerry_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

We have no scientific proof of ID. So we do not know it is true based on science. As such it should not be part of a science curriculum. All we have is scientific evidence that gradualism does not work to produce macro evolution. And no other natural mechanism has shown up to take its place. Essentially all we have is negative arguments against the alternatives. If we get the discussion of the negative criticism of Darwinian macro evolution included in the textbooks and curriculum, then we have won a major victory.jerry_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

ID needs not be taught in schools, but it certainly could and should be mentioned, together with other forms of critics of traditional darwinism. ID is part of the cultural and scientific scenario, and it cannot be censored or ignored. Anyone should be able to know objectively of its existence, and freely choose if he wants to know more about it.gpuccio_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Maybe it is not hedging or evasion, maybe it is considered a wise strategy. Why not start with the open questions raised in regards to Darwinism. Incremental progress is almost always the winning strategy.Ekstasis_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

jerry says, "ID does not have to be mentioned..." But why not? As I said above, if a thing is true, or likely to be true, or even a plausible hypothesis, it ought to be passed on. Whence this hedging, this evasion, this ambivalence? Is Mr. Valiant-for-Truth dead?Gerry Rzeppa_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

"I am ambivalent to the idea of teaching of ID in public schools." ID does not have to be mentioned, just critical analysis of Darwin macro evolution and origin of life theories. If that is objective, then common sense will prevail if an accurate analysis is presented.jerry_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Judge Jones ruled in 2005 that it was unconstitutional for teachers in the Dover school district to question Darwinism.
I could be wrong but didn't the effect of Jones' ruling state Intelligent Design is religious in nature and not science? I don't seem to remember reading anywhere in his ruling that it is unconstitutional to question the theory of evolution.
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:
Mathis charged that some 92 percent of the judge’s decision in the Dover intelligent design trial was copied directly from papers filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). We said we would follow up and find out the truth. We did. In fact, Mathis was wrong in three ways. One, even the Discovery Institute’s own charge is that the judge copied 90.9 percent of ACLU material for one specific section in the judge’s decision. Second, a correct statistical workup finds that the number is as low as 35 percent, depending on whether you include material filed that is not included in the decision and the length of word strings. But the most important point is one that I guessed at in the conversation. We spoke to actual legal experts who told us that when the sides in a trial file their facts, it is with the hope that they make the case strongly enough for the judge to incorporate their texts into the finding of fact section of the decision. Therefore the charges that Mathis makes against Judge Jones are both incorrect in detail and spurious in spirit. For more information, you can go to footnote 88 in the Wikipedia entry on the Discovery Institute. There’s more info on the permissibility of using filed facts in a decision at The Panda’s Thumb Web site, pandasthumb.org. It’s an entry called "Weekend at Behe’s" dated December 12, 2006.
Earon_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Jones viewed himself as the person who would settle the question of Darwinism for all time an eternity
He did? I thought he just examined evidence and precedent, and applied them to the case before him. But Sal Cordova knows more: Sal knows the inner workings of the mind of Judge Jones.
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.
The writers of 'Pandas and People' didn't help much either by taking a creationist book and just replacing mentions of "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design" and "creationists" with "design proponents", then passing the result off as an ID book.Reg_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

scordova says, "I am ambivalent to the idea of teaching of ID in public schools..." Statements like the one above always baffle me. If something is true, or is likely to the true, or is even just a plausible hypothesis, it ought to be passed on to the next generation. Whence this ambivalence? Do the right thing. Let God handle the consequences.Gerry Rzeppa_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

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."
Someone should have coached him better about what he was arguing against.specs_{April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply