Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Torah and Science Conference with the Lubavitchers

William Dembski
December 19, 2005
Intelligent Design, Religion, Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I reported earlier on this blog that I was to be the only gentile speaker at an Orthodox Jewish (Lubavitcher) conference on Torah and science (go here, here, and here). That conference took place in Miami last week, and I gave a talk there on ID (December 14th). The talk was very well attended with several high school senior classes from the local Jewish schools attending along with a fair amount of press. I felt very much at home with the Lubavitchers, and I was extremely gratified by their receptivity to ID. These are well-educated thoughtful people with a great stake in not letting a materialistic view of science steamroller their religious faith. They will be significant allies in coming years and open a new front in this culture war. Indeed, as they enter the battle on the side of ID, it will be that much more difficult for critics of ID to characterize it as a purely “Christian thing.” ID is not only going international but it is also going interfaith.

Comments
Ah, erasing posts are we?Rashbam
December 26, 2005
December
12
Dec
26
26
2005
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PST
A judge does not determine the direction of science. Observations, hypotheses, theory, experimentation and scientific methods do this. A paradigm change is underway at the top universities in the nation. See this article for reference of a new shift supported by the Howard Huges Medical Insitute: http://www.ics.uci.edu/community/news/press/view_press?id=35 Honestly I would not want to send my child ever to a public school in the USA anymore. There is no such thing as freedom of speech in a public school. If a child were to ask about ID, a teacher could be sued by the ACLU for leading a discussion about it. This is wrong. It is un-American at its core. There is no avenue for imagination - the most important part of creative thought is shut down entirely by a few. Elitist, ACLU and a few Judges determine what you say, what you study, what you see, what you learn. Parents who elect school board members are not allowed to decide for their own children. Fruit of the tree of our Public schools thanks to ACLU and others: 1) You cannot think of anything except an unproven theory in macro-evolution. You are not allowed to ponder or even look into other theories put forth by scientifically qualified people(some are world renown) with credentials, highly qualified and recognized as leaders in their fields of study and work. 2) They are taught to have sex with anyone 3) Have abortions if you want to, its no big deal, don't hold anyone responsible, the man is free to go without any consequences and may go get another girl pregnant who may go get another abortion 4) They are taught they do not have to tell parents they have sex 5) Taught they don't have to tell parents they got pregnant 6) and certainly don't tell them you intend to kill the child 7) Government and school rights trump a parents in science, morals, and physical control of a child's body. Fruit of the Tree? Lie to your parents. Take no responsibility for yourself. Afterall, there are no such things as morals, thats just religion. Because according to a few people the parents who created you, feed you, clothe you, put a roof over your head, educate you and determine how you will grow up in this world have absolutely no right at all to know what their children do anymore. Nor do parents have a right to be critical of an unproven theory - macro-evolution is just that - unproven. Fruit of the tree grows uglier in all directions - In fact, the great ACLU insist that Child Porn is OK and they support NAMBLA. Fruit of the tree - you are not special, you're no more than an ape and therefore as in PETA, you should have no more rights than an ape, a dog or a rat. Your Parents tell you that you are fearfully and wonderfully made by the hand of God. School says you are made from some dribble that supposedly crawled out of the ocean, followed by some other critter, a reptile, which then 'evolved' eventually into some form of mamal only unlike a bear or wolf or some other creature - we did not go back into the ocean like a whale. No, for some 'random chance' reason, we evolved into mankind, the kind which says you do not have to obey your parents. Your parents say there is a new SCIENTIFIC THEORY which says that it may be true we are designed, beautifully created. Many leading scientist with great contributions in all aspects of society and in science give the theory credit as one possible explanation as to our existence. Schools and the ACLU say you have no right to talk about it in school. Your parents are wrong - it teaches kids not to listen to their parents, it says their parents are stupid. One judge makes a decision not based on any constitutional law with objectivity - only that it appears to be leaning to - 'one form of religion, namely Chrisitan', although this is false, he squashes any talking allowable by teachers to the students and by order states that only one form of creation is allowed - not one that is proven, but just one that cannot possibly lead to any religious significance in the future. Fruit of the tree - You have no right to free thought in school. You will only think and say what we tell you to discuss by the court rulings of one judge or two and powerful groups who get paid by tax payers dollars if they win the suit they brought forth against the people. There is no real freedom. It does not matter that a majority want to be able to look at other theories in science. It only matters what the minority think and a few judges. You have no will over your life in public places paid for by your own taxes. The government does not really represent you or your parents. In fact it is a lie. They tax you and then force you to learn something which is not proven. But the other theories? You can't talk about those. Effectively you live in a police state of science. Although leading scientist - evolutinist themselves have admitted for decades now that the theory of macro-evolution is in serious trouble. Taxation for schools is unfair when it will not represent the majority of people will and the parents who pay for their childrens lives, who love them and want them to grow up with free minds and not be oppressed by a few. There is a very simple answer. Pull your children out of such schools. Build up a network of private schools. Make the sacrifices you must make, but do not allow the government to rule your children through proxy by a school system that is corrupt and will enforce laws that cause your children to lie to you, doubt you and call you stupid. If you boycot the public schools, the teachers, the principals will have no where to go, these places will stop receiving money. Private schools are not for the rich only if parents really care. Parents - take back your children. Give them truth. That they are loved, special, unique and that God gave them rich gifts, gifts of creative power unlike any other 'beast' on this earth and their future is not dependent upon a few people to control their thoughts. One only need to look at the fruit of the tree to understand if it is dead fruit or fruit which gives life...Michaels7
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PST
"Logan, I think you’re unfairly taking your anger at Jones’ decision on Mr. Christopher. Simply asking for a comment isn’t the act of a troll." First, I feel no anger at Jones' decision. Second LOL @ "simply asking for a comment"!!!Logan
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PST
Judge Jones wrote: "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." So then, if some aspects of nature were designed, scientists would be unable to detect evidence of that design without resort to religion? Does that mean that teaching Archaeology or Forensic Science in public schools is now unconstitutional?russ
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PST
Logan, I think you're unfairly taking your anger at Jones' decision on Mr. Christopher. Simply asking for a comment isn't the act of a troll.Gumpngreen
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PST
DC Hammer, off topic but if you're ever up in Dallas we should meet fo beers and discuss your prosperity for Iraq citizens idea posted on your web site :-) Secondly, I think you would enjoy coming to an informed conclusion regarding the Judge's ruling. Mr Dembski just posted a link to the entire ruling and even though it is long it actually reads quickly. Jones DID rule that ID is not science, and on the subject of religiosity he wrote "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." This is history in the making, we could be telling our grandkids we remember this trial one day. You need not come to the same conclusions I or others came to, but to heck with press reports and "spin zones" read the ruling yourself! Cheers!Mr Christopher
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PST
Dr. Dembski, as an Orthodox Jew from Israel, I'm glad to see your discovery of the support for ID within Orthodox Judaism. I'm no Lubavitcher, not by a long shot, but I do belong to Haredi Judaism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_Judaism (pejoratively known as Ultra-Orthodox Judaism). For the past few years, I've been following ID in general and your writings in particular. Although I’m very much at odds with most things Christian (Catholic, Protestant, or any other denomination), and although I’m opposed to most forms of interfaith cooperation, I see no problem with ID since I can’t find in it any uniquely Christian. I don’t know about Hinduism, but as far as monotheism goes, ID seems totally neutral. Despite my skepticism and disagreements with Neo-Darwinism, in the past I was very careful to dissociate myself from Christian Creationism. I obviously don’t agree with most Christian interpretations of the Bible and I found Christian Creationism sorely lacking metaphysically and scientifically. ID was a breath of fresh air! On the one hand, decoupling design from a particular designer, on the other, decoupling modern science from the dogmatism of metaphysical or methodological naturalism. This exactly the type of theory I’ve been waiting for to shaken the NDT orthodoxy, and usher the next big paradigm shift in biology. If you ever chance to visit Israel and give a lecture/speech on ID, be sure to let me know, I will definitely attend. BTW: I’m a real science-fiction fan, can’t stop reading the genre. I would like to share one interesting observation: Sci-Fi authors have no problem pushing the envelope on physics, chemistry, astrophysics, cosmology, planetology, genetics, nanotech, biotech, neurotechnology, information technology, longevity, robotics, xenology etc. they regularly eat Einstein or the speed-of-light barrier for breakfast. But one staple of modern science is consistently taken for granted, never questioned, never paradigm shifted, pushed beyond its current state: the Neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution. In science-fiction ligature every thing seems to evolve: physics, politics, language, culture, philosophy, fashion, morality, religion, entertainment, transportation, music, psychology, sociology, etc. etc. with one glaring exception: the science and theory of biological evolution! I find this hilariously ironic; the science and theory evolution itself is an axiomatic constant. What do you make of this glaring anomaly?GrifiN
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PST
To which I say, so what? Since when are U.S. courts the arbiters of truth? This is the self-same judiciary system that hands out seven-figure judgments in favor of McDonalds customers who spill their coffee, for goodness sake. BTW, who’s brilliant idea it was to forego a jury trial in Dover? Why leave it to a judge? Jones wouldn’t have been able to look his country club chums in the eye (who even now are backslapping him as they knock back a few) had he ruled in ID’s favor. BTW, that’s not “name calling.” That’s an honest evaluation of the poll numbers of the general public over against those of our ruling so-called elite. An elite which – as a class across the entire political spectrum – has just as a big philosophical stake in Darwinism as the academic and scientific elites. It’s the cornerstone of their rule. But that’s another post altogether…dchammer
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PST
To which I say, so what? Since when are U.S. courts the arbiters of truth? This is the self-same judiciary system that hands out seven-figure judgments in favor of McDonalds customers who spill their coffee, for goodness sake. BTW, who’s brilliant idea it was to forego a jury trial in Dover? Why leave it to a judge? Jones wouldn’t have been able to look his country club chums in the eye (who even now are backslapping him as they knock back a few) had he ruled in ID’s favor. BTW, that’s not “name calling.” That’s an honest evaluation of the poll numbers of the general public over against those of our ruling so-called elite. An elite which – as a class across the entire political spectrum – has just as a big philosophical stake in Darwinism as the academic and scientific elites. It’s the cornerstone of their rule. But that’s another post altogether …dchammer
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PST
To which I say, so what? Since when are U.S. courts the arbiters of truth? This is the self-same judiciary system that hands out seven-figure judgments in favor of McDonalds customers who spill their coffee, for goodness sake. BTW, who’s brilliant idea it was to forego a jury trial in Dover? Why leave it to a judge? Jones wouldn’t have been able to look his country club chums in the eye (who even now are backslapping him as they knock back a few) had he ruled in ID’s favor. BTW, that’s not “name calling.” That’s an honest evaluation of the poll numbers of the general public over against those of our ruling so-called elite. An elite which – as a class across the entire political spectrum – has just as a big philosophical stake in Darwinism as the academic and scientific elites. It’s the cornerstone of their rule. But that’s another post altogether…dchammer
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PST
To which I say, so what? Since when are U.S. courts the arbiters of truth? This is the self-same judiciary system that hands out seven-figure judgments in favor of McDonalds customers who spill their coffee, for goodness sake.dchammer
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PST
From the news reports I've heard, the judge ruled along the lines of our most hospitable host's third (and worst) "possible outcome" in his Life After Dover post. I say “along the lines.” Those who’ve read the 139-page opinion can correct me if I’m wrong. (Me, I’d rather slide naked down a 50-foot razor blade than be forced read the thing). But from news reports, it appears that Judge Jones didn’t rule that "ID is nonscientific" per se, but that the Dover board's policy violates church/state separation. So it appears the judge ruled that “ID is religious.” Which is, in effect, the same thing; it’s number three as a reversible coat turned the other way out.dchammer
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PST
From the news reports I've heard, the judge ruled along the lines of our most hospitable host's third (and worst) "possible outcome" in his Life After Dover post. I say “along the lines.” Those who’ve read the 139-page opinion can correct me if I’m wrong. (Me, I’d rather slide naked down a 50-foot razor blade than be forced read the thing). But from news reports, it appears that Judge Jones didn’t rule that "ID is nonscientific" per se, but that the Dover board's policy violates church/state separation. So it appears the judge ruled that “ID is religious.” Which is, in effect, the same thing; it’s number three as a reversible coat turned the other way out. To which I say, so what? Since when are U.S. courts the arbiters of truth? This is the self-same judiciary system that hands out seven-figure judgments in favor of McDonalds customers who spill their coffee, for goodness sake. BTW, who’s brilliant idea it was to forego a jury trial in Dover? Why leave it to a judge? Jones wouldn’t have been able to look his country club chums in the eye (who even now are backslapping him as they knock back a few) had he ruled in ID’s favor. BTW, that’s not “name calling.” That’s an honest evaluation of the poll numbers of the general public over against those of our ruling so-called elite. An elite which – as a class across the entire political spectrum – has just as a big philosophical stake in Darwinism as the academic and scientific elites. It’s the cornerstone of their rule. But that’s another post altogether…dchammer
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PST
From the news reports I've heard, the judge ruled along the lines of our most hospitable host's third (and worst) "possible outcome" in his Life After Dover post. I say “along the lines.” Those who’ve read the 139-page opinion can correct me if I’m wrong. (Me, I’d rather slide naked down a 50-foot razor blade than be forced read the thing). But from news reports, it appears that Judge Jones didn’t rule that "ID is nonscientific" per se, but that the Dover board's policy violates church/state separation. So it appears the judge ruled that “ID is religious.” Which is, in effect, the same thing; it’s number three as a reversible coat turned the other way out. To which I say, so what? Since when are U.S. courts the arbiters of truth? This is the self-same judiciary system that hands out seven-figure judgments in favor of McDonalds customers who spill their coffee, for goodness sake. BTW, who’s brilliant idea it was to forego a jury trial in Dover? Why leave it to a judge? Jones wouldn’t have been able to look his country club chums in the eye (who even now are backslapping him as they knock back a few) had he ruled in ID’s favor. BTW, that’s not “name calling.” That’s an honest evaluation of the poll numbers of the general public over against those of our ruling so-called elite. An elite which – as a class across the entire political spectrum – has just as a big philosophical stake in Darwinism as the academic and scientific elites. It’s the cornerstone of their rule. But that’s another post altogether…dchammer
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PST
Uh oh. You better alert these Jewish supporters that ID is a particular version of Christianty. That's precisely what the federal judge ruled today. Same goes for the Muslim supporters of ID you have posted about before. Afterall, a federal judge can't be wrong and couldn't possibly rule dishonestly could he? Nah...never.
A federal judge ruled today that a Pennsylvania school board's policy of teaching intelligent design in high school biology class is unconstitutional because intelligent design is clearly a religious idea that advances 'a particular version of Christianity.'"
Josh Bozeman
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PST
Mr. Christopher wrote: "No worries I’m sure Mr Dembski will address the ruling and what it means to the ID proponents soon enough." Interesting you seem so SURE when just three hours earlier you questioned Dr. Dembski as follows: "Mr Dembski, why are you so silent on the Dover trial results?... ... Do you plan to address this at all? Do you plan to address the specifics of the ruling that is, what TMLC and the DI are ignoring? The substance of the ruling and not simply resorting to name calling?" Why this quick change in surety, from being unsure whether Dr. Demsbki was going to address the Dover ruling to suddenly being sure he will do so soon enough? Go away TROLL.Logan
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PST
Thanks Gumpngreen, I had already read that piece though. No worries I'm sure Mr Dembski will address the ruling and what it means to the ID proponents soon enough. Cheers!Mr Christopher
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PST
"And I have no doubt Dembski has a life, ID is obviously central to that life. I believe his profession is somewhat ID centric, no? In fact i think he has written numerous books and papers on ID, no?" If you bothered to read Professor Dembski's numerous books and articles, you would be able to figure out for yourself what Professor Dembski has to say regarding the judge's opinion. And then you might also see why it is kind of superfluous for Professor Dembski to venture an opinion, (since the judge does little more than rehash philosophical confusions that it has been Professor Dembski's work to refute.) But of course that doesn't change the fact that it is patent stupidity to demand that someone with a full-time job at a university, not to mention numerous other responsibilities, should have read a 139-page legal document on the very day that it has been released (let alone several times..yikes!) "So yeah, Mr Dembski, logans curious antics aside, what is your take on the Judge’s ruling?" One more curious antic for the record: Mr. Christopher should be banned from this blog immediately. How do you like them sour pickles?Logan
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PST
Mr. Christopher, See this: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371Gumpngreen
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PST
logan, I have time to study a legal document that will have a huge affect on ID and its role in the public science classroom. I prefer to know the facts versus getting them from USA Today so I do nutty things like read transcripts and such. Keep in mind what free time I have to learn about and understand this subject should not be confused with having free time to entertain questions from people such as yourself. Trust me when I say I'm here to read Dembski, not logan. And I have no doubt Dembski has a life, ID is obviously central to that life. I believe his profession is somewhat ID centric, no? In fact i think he has written numerous books and papers on ID, no? So asking him where he is on this historic day makes_sense now doesn't it? Although he did not testify he still played a role in the trial. A trial he has spoken about more than once. So yeah, Mr Dembski, logans curious antics aside, what is your take on the Judge's ruling?Mr Christopher
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PST
Mr. Christopher, I just checked the Discovery Center news releases and didn't see what you are referring to. They criticized the judge's ruling and logic but I did not see them trying to make him out to be a bad person. Also I checked the Thomas More Legal Center site and they had nothing on the case. I suggest you be specific. Have you read all 139 pages several times? In what ways does Behe, Dembski come out looking bad and was it a fair assessment? Did you read Behe's testimony and I thought Dembski did not testify. I read excerpts of what the judge supposedly said and if they are true then he was not giving an accurate assessment.Jerry
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PST
"Mr Dembski, why are you so silent on the Dover trial results?" That's Dr. Demsbki to you. Dr. Demsbki has a life, unlike somone who admits he had the time to read 139 pages several times over during the course of a single day. "I have read the ruling several times now (all 139 pages) and ID, Behe, Fuller, the Discovery Institute, Thomas More Legal Center, the Dover School Board, and even yourself all come out looking very terrible." The Americans also came out looking "very terrible" in the Ayatollah Khomeini's speeches. Protestants usually come out looking bad when you read Catholic literature as well. Your point?Logan
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PST
Mr Dembski, why are you so silent on the Dover trial results? Many people like me are eager to read your thoughts. I have read the ruling several times now (all 139 pages) and ID, Behe, Fuller, the Discovery Institute, Thomas More Legal Center, the Dover School Board, and even yourself all come out looking very terrible. The Discovery Institute is ignoring all of the ruling and instead resorting to calling Jones names and making him out to be a bad person. They are also distorting the ruling. The Thomas More Legal Center is pretty much doing the same, ignoring what was found by the court and instead calling Judge Jones names. Do you plan to address this at all? Do you plan to address the specifics of the ruling that is, what TMLC and the DI are ignoring? The substance of the ruling and not simply resorting to name calling? I hope so, I am looking forward to reading your comments. ChrisMr Christopher
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PST
Jerry, Your points 1-4 are accurate assesments and serve as a valid framework from which to challenge Darwinian evolution in public schools. I do, however, have a few comments to make about young earth creationism. First, no individual, including scientists, possesses a truly objective point of view. That is a fallacy that continues to be inaccurately promulgated. We all hold certain presuppositions and worldviews that affect our analysis of the scientific evidence. These biases serve as a lens by which we critically analyze the very same evidence that confronts us all. Yes, young earth creationism, though possessing strong scientific support, will never be allowed to present its case in a public education system due to constitutional constraints. However, many of intelligent design's scientific tenets were first developed and disseminated by young earth creationists. Things such as natural selection, design complexity, the Cambrian explosion, common design blueprints, etc have been stalwarts of creation science. Although intelligent design is more secular and is the rightful challenger to Darwin in a public setting, let us not forget the valuable contributions creation scientists have made to the scientific principles of intelligent design theory.Ryan Jaroncyk
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PST
By wrapping yourself in a Lubavitcher talis, you only further the notion that ID is religion not science.doctormark
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PST
Jerry said: "Have any mention of anything to do with the first three tiers as speculation and any belief in them as much based on faith as any religion." Also in his ruling the judge found this: "4. Whether ID is Science After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. 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." Unfortunately, saying there are problems with these "tiers" does not make it so. As an objective judge ruled, the so-called "problems" with evolution "have been refuted by the scientific community." That's also a precedent. If you noticed, Judge Jones based his ruling that ID is not science, not on the plaintiffs expert witnesses, but on testimony by Behe, Fuller and Minnich.Mister Short
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PST
Judge bans teaching of ID in PA: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051220/pl_nm/life_evolution_dcmtgcsharpguy
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PST
Unfortunately Jerry, I don't think you read the whole ruling. The judge ruled as follows: "To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, 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." If you read that really carefully you will notice that part of the ruling is that a school board CANNOT "....[require] teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution..." What that means legally, is that anytime a school board tries to question evolution, or pass state standards that question or put parts of evolution in a bad light, plaintiffs will just have to fall back to this ruling and say "look, you can't denigrate evolution." Unfortunately, this was a rock solid ruling that covered all those bases.Mister Short
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PST
My initial reaction is that any association of Intelligent Design with a fundamentalist religion is negative for increasing understanding of what Intelligent Design is about. If as it claims, ID has no connection with any religious doctrine then it should distance itself from these associations. All it does is feed the anti ID people with more arguments against ID. I get a little queasy when I find a lot of the arguments against Darwinism are on new earth creationist sites. They may be the best of people and very smart but if their science is constrained by a religious belief, then you will not know if you are getting an un biased argument and presentation of facts. It is at the point these days that if you try to have an intelligent discussion on this topic, the other person immediately thinks you are some sort of kook. After the Dover decision today I believe the best approach is not to get ID into the schools but to get Darwin out except for micro evolution. Make the distinction that evolution is a multi-tier theory; 1) origin of life, 2) forming multi-cell organisms with differentiated functions (eyes, nervous systems, appendages etc), 3) macro evolution and then separate from these first three tiers 4) micro evolution which we all agree on and emphasize that this is the only thing that Darwin witnessed on the Beagle. Get the diagrams of species turning into man or each other out of the text books, get the Darwin tree out of it etc. Have any mention of anything to do with the first three tiers as speculation and any belief in them as much based on faith as any religion. Micro evolution is overwhelming accepted and while some of it may be still speculation most is reasonably based and not speculative. Make the distinciton at every turn and keep away from religious groups that have doctrines dependent upon certain views of science no matter how sincere they are. The key is to take the same approach as the Darwinists and insist that faith based science be tossed from the school curriculum. I believe that tiers 1-3 are as much faith based as the new earth creation scientist's beliefs are.Jerry
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PST
Except Dawkins´ faith. Too bad.Marcos
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply