• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Dover Penn ID trial

Darat said:
Out of curiosity does anyone have links to how the "other side" are commenting on the trial?
Click to expand...
Here's the Discovery Institute's site about the trial. Such baldly dishonest quotes as:
While Discovery Institute does not support efforts to require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it also strongly opposes the ACLU's attempt to censor classroom discussion of intelligent design.
Click to expand...
And one from the ironically-named Center for Science and Culture. A sampling of their cattle doo-doo:
The ACLU has gone from defending teachers to prosecuting them. In a federal courtroom this week, the ACLU argued that science teachers in the school district of Dover, Pennyslvania, are not free under the Constitution to question evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...
 
I've noticed it's been difficult to retrieve some of the pages above, particularly those hosted by Discovery Institute. Makes me think they get a lot of traffic. :(

I haven't found a good "other side" site with high traffic forums we can troll. Anyone else know of any?
 
OK. The plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated abundantly that ID is not good science (at least as far as most of us here are concerned). But I don't think that this is what they need to do in order to win the case. Is there anything in the US constitution that says that kids can't be taught nonsense?

I think, in fact, that what the plaintiifs need to demonstrate is that that ID is a religious idea. Have they done this?

Am I right in what I've said in this post?

I think we need a proper American lawyer here.

Brown, where are you?
 
Mojo said:
OK. The plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated abundantly that ID is not good science (at least as far as most of us here are concerned). But I don't think that this is what they need to do in order to win the case. Is there anything in the US constitution that says that kids can't be taught nonsense?

I think, in fact, that what the plaintiifs need to demonstrate is that that ID is a religious idea. Have they done this?

Am I right in what I've said in this post?

I think we need a proper American lawyer here.

Brown, where are you?
Click to expand...
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm completely speculating, but I'd think in order to demonstrate ID as religion, they'd first have to establish that it's not science. Otherwise, you get:
"ID is religion."
"Nah-ah, it's science."

It seems that as they've been aggressively thrashing ID as science (and Behe as an expert witness) they've also been laying groundwork for a solid legal argument for ID as religion by showing ID's historical connection to other forms of creationism. If I understand correctly, teaching other forms of creationism has been deemed unconstitutional on the basis of their demonstrable Christian Fundamentalist roots combined with their demonstrably unscientific nature.
 
OK, they've trashed ID as good science (and Behe as a sentient being). But saying that it's therefore religion is a false dilemma.

I really think they need to do more than that.
 
Mojo said:
OK, they've trashed ID as good science (and Behe as a sentient being). But saying that it's therefore religion is a false dilemma.

I really think they need to do more than that.
Click to expand...

I think that they have shown that ID=Creationism (thru really slimey subterfuge) and it has been found that Creationism=Religion. They have also shown that everyone and everybody in the least bit associated with ID has a religious political bias. I think that they demonstrated the link and it between the concept (very important) and religion.
 
I think that all they have to do is show that the case falls under the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard; and I think this has been adequately demonstrated. The rest of the trial is an amusing sideshow.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I think that all they have to do is show that the case falls under the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard; and I think this has been adequately demonstrated. The rest of the trial is an amusing sideshow.
Click to expand...
This seems to be the strategy. The held opinion in Edwards v. Aguillard states:
1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 585-594.
(a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." ....
(b) The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. ....
Click to expand...
The Behe bashing covers 1(a).
I have a feeling we'll see the focus of the case and the plaintiff's conclusionary statement crescendo on 1(b).
 
Mojo said:
OK. The plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated abundantly that ID is not good science (at least as far as most of us here are concerned). But I don't think that this is what they need to do in order to win the case. Is there anything in the US constitution that says that kids can't be taught nonsense?

I think, in fact, that what the plaintiifs need to demonstrate is that that ID is a religious idea. Have they done this?

Am I right in what I've said in this post?

I think we need a proper American lawyer here.

Brown, where are you?
Click to expand...

IANAL, but in order to win, the plaintiffs have to show that teaching ID does constitute teaching religion. The plaintiff's strategy thus far is to show that ID is fundamentally the same as creationism which has already been determined is a violation of the First Amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard.

But, knowing this case will be appealed no matter which side wins, the plaintiffs are going beyond that to show that the Dover Board of Ed's actions violate the Lemon Test all on its own without relying Edwards v. Aguillard so they don't have to rely on a similarity to creationism in the appellate court. If the plaintiffs win on just the similarity to creationism, they could lose the appeal if the defendants can successfully argue that ID is not creationism.

The reason for showing that it is not science is two-fold: first, if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religion (it has already been established that ID is a philosophical/theological argument as well as a "scientific" one, so there is no false dilemma); second, if there is no science, there is no loss by not teaching it in a science class. The ID'ers have been trying to hint at their persecution in the scientific community simply for suggesting that evolution might be wrong, when, in fact, their rejection is due to their lack of science.
 
New announcement on the ACLUPA Blog: Judge Jones has struck out the Discovery Institute's amicus briefs on the grounds that they were an attempt to introduce Meyer and Dembski's evidence without their being cross-examined.
 
Mojo said:
New announcement on the ACLUPA Blog: Judge Jones has struck out the Discovery Institute's amicus briefs on the grounds that they were an attempt to introduce Meyer and Dembski's evidence without their being cross-examined.
Click to expand...


Minor correction. The DI introduced two briefs, one in its own name, and one in the name of the eight or so "scientists" whom the DI could scrape up to sign a statement supporting ID. Only the first brief was struck -- stricken -- strucken -- striked -- thrown out.

Still, it's not a good sign for the defendants....
 
tsg said:
IANAL, but in order to win, the plaintiffs have to show that teaching ID does constitute teaching religion. The plaintiff's strategy thus far is to show that ID is fundamentally the same as creationism which has already been determined is a violation of the First Amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, is why the ID proponents are trying very hard to discredit Dr. Forrest; she's basically the only expert that can "connect the dots" in her testimony. She's the only expert to which the defense was unwilling to stipulate her qualifications. They worked very hard during the voir dire to undercut her credibiliity by connecting her with political groups such as the Council for Secular Humanism (to the point where the judge had to slam the attorney rather hard). They raised a completely inappropriate hearsay objection to her entire expert report and testimony (again, drawing a red card from the judge), and are now bending if not breaking the rules regarding amici briefs in order to get their rebuttal to Forrest into the record without risking having their own theologians undergo a searching cross-examination as Behe did.

And the reason can be summed up in a single question and answer:

Q. Dr. Forrest, is it your view, your opinion, that intelligent design is at its core a philosophical and theological claim?

A. It is my view that at its core intelligent design is a religious belief.
Click to expand...

She currently stands in the possibly unenviable position of being the only qualified "expert" on "methdological naturalism and the history and nature of the intelligent design movement." As such, the statement that "intelligent design is a religious belief" stands essentially unopposed and unrefuted in expert testimony.

ETA: If this case is decided for the plaintiffs, and then is appealed, the situation gets even worse for the defendants, because expert testimony tends to be even more believable when you're just reading the transcripts and not seeing the expert testify on the stand. So you can understand exactly how panic-stricken the DI folks are about being unable to get their counter-arguments to Forrest into the record....
 
drkitten said:
ETA: If this case is decided for the plaintiffs, and then is appealed, the situation gets even worse for the defendants, because expert testimony tends to be even more believable when you're just reading the transcripts and not seeing the expert testify on the stand. So you can understand exactly how panic-stricken the DI folks are about being unable to get their counter-arguments to Forrest into the record....
Click to expand...
This is one of the things that makes reading the transcripts so enjoyable. Real scientists are used to having their ideas challenged and are very experienced in defending them (that pesky peer review process). Watching them very calmly and cooly endure the cross without being flustered and then watching Behe almost come apart at the seams makes it readily apparent he's never really had to defend his ideas in a scientific setting. The judge, at the very least, has to have the impression that Behe hasn't really thought this through. It also sheds some light on why Meyer and Dembski may not have wanted to go through cross examination.
 
Determining whether something is religious is quite difficult, as anything could potentially be taken on faith and made the centerpiece of one's religious convictions.

Showing that ID isn't good science - or even science at all - effectively demonstrates that there's no real secular reason to mention it in science classes.

Let's just hope the judge can see that.
 
Mojo said:
I think Behe has published peer-reviewed papers, just not any about ID.
Click to expand...

He has, at least as recently as 2004. (His CV is on-line if you want to look at what he's done.)

On the other hand, despite what you might thing, peer review is usually a fairly friendly process if you're doing straightforward, non-controversial work. There's not much you will get criticized for in a paper entitled "PolyDevil's Advocate: "@poly[dT] forms very stable mucleosomes at higher temperatures," as long as your lab technique is acceptable.

I think what this really shows is that he's never tried to discuss his work at the "scientific meetings" he's been studiously avoiding. Because you know that if he opened his mouth and this kind of bilge came out of it, some top-flight microbiologist would pwn him like the n00b he is during the question period."
 
Melendwyr said:
Showing that ID isn't good science - or even science at all - effectively demonstrates that there's no real secular reason to mention it in science classes.
Click to expand...

But that's insufficient reason to ban a practice under US law. It's necessary to show that teaching ID "advances religion" in order for it to violate the Bill of Rights.

Fortunately, I think I disagree with your statement:

Determining whether something is religious is quite difficult, as anything could potentially be taken on faith and made the centerpiece of one's religious convictions.
Click to expand...

What you describe is essentially the definition of religion (as proposed by the Georgetown theologian whose name escapes me). If I can show that a substantial number of people have, in fact, taken "ID" on faith and made it the centerpiece of one's religious convictions" -- as Dr. Forrest testified, for example, in demonstrating how some of the ID proponents use John 1:1 as the starting poing for their "investigations" of evolution and the origins of life -- if I can show that, then I've basically demonstrated that it's a religion.
 
drkitten said:
Hmm, reading comprehension difficulties and context difficulties, all in ten short words.

Your ability to combine fallacious thought, factual inaccuracy, and pig-ignorance into the smallest possible expression continues to astound me. Have you considered writing Haiku?
Click to expand...
Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.
 
hammegk said:
Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the ID arguments are reasonable in the slightest?
 
Hey all, don't miss the article "Why Scientists Get So Angry When Dealing with ID Proponents" in the latest Skeptical Inquisitor. It analyzes one Dembski essay to show how fair and accurate IDers try to be when quoting biologists---not.

~~ Paul
 
drkitten said:
But that's insufficient reason to ban a practice under US law. It's necessary to show that teaching ID "advances religion" in order for it to violate the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not (to my limited understanding, at least). The first prong of the Lemon Test is that the government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose. Violating any one of the three prongs makes it unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Showing that it violates more than one prong certainly strengthens the case, though, so if they can also show that it advances religion it would violate the second prong as well.
 
Ed said:
Are you suggesting that the ID arguments are reasonable in the slightest?
Click to expand...
No, he didn't say that. He said the ID guys lack the "ability to ignore things because they are not by [drkitten's] standards logical & scientific". This could mean two things:

1. They have no ability to filter out things that appear illogical and unscientific.

or

2. They have no ability to make their argument without introducing their own standards for what is logical and scientific. (such that astrology makes the cut :D )
 
hammegk said:
tsg said:
if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religion
Click to expand...
Indeed, cards face up on the table: Science vs. Religion. :boxedin:
Click to expand...

Way, way, way out of context, but whatever...

hammegk said:
I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.
Click to expand...
There is no dichotomy: science does not address the supernatural, philosophical or theological. The people who constantly try to make it a dichotomy are those who can't reconcile their religious beliefs with known facts.
 
hammegk said:
Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.
Click to expand...

By what standard is ID "logical and scientific"?

For that matter, by what standard are any of your contributions in this thread "logical and scientific"?

I'm not unreasonable. If the problem is that I'm using the wrong standards to evaluate an argument, convince me. I fear the problem is that I have standards at all, and that I'm not willing to uncritically accept whatever drivel drips from your keyboard.
 
Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.
 
No. "If there is currently no known rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural."

You need to remove the verbal ambiguity. "Something that cannot be explained by rational means" implies that no such explanation is possible, rather than that no such explanation is known at present, which I think is what you meant.
 
Ed said:
Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.
Click to expand...
I would revise it thusly: "ID states that whether or not something can be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural."
 
Ed said:
Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.
Click to expand...
If you are a materialist -- whether you recognize it or not -- yes, of course.


chippy_monk said:
Well, well! Look who arrived late to the party, looking smashing as always.

Originally Posted by hammegk (I'm paraphrasing, of course) :
I'm no creationist, but I sure do like their arguments!
Click to expand...
You are as wrong as you are irrelevant. :)


mojo said:
Nope. It's American Constitution vs. religion.
Click to expand...
Other see it differently. BTW, are you even a US citizen? If not, what dog do you have in this fight?


dr.kitten said:
By what standard is ID "logical and scientific"?
Click to expand...
Unknown. I've never suggested it is or was.

For that matter, by what standard are any of your contributions in this thread "logical and scientific"?
Click to expand...
That depends on one's understanding, or lack thereof. :)
 
Melendwyr said:
No. "If there is currently no known rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural."

You need to remove the verbal ambiguity. "Something that cannot be explained by rational means" implies that no such explanation is possible, rather than that no such explanation is known at present, which I think is what you meant.
Click to expand...


I thought that is what I wrote. Perhaps taking out the "known" which is implied:

"If there is currently no rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural"

I could say

"If there is no rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural"

Which implies that we do not, nor is it possible, to have a rational explination. It seems that what they are arguing is that where we are now, from a scientific standpoint, is the pinnicle of understanding and that answers to things that Behe cited will never be forthcoming so we might as well not look.

so I go with... actually, I am not sure now. What is the guiding principle of ID? Once something is deemed to be "created" do they consider it blasphamy to investigate further?
 
hammegk said:
BTW, are you even a US citizen? If not, what dog do you have in this fight?
Click to expand...
We have creationist loons over here as well. Consider me as a sort of amicus curiae, if you will.

Anyway, do you claim to be a US citizen? If so, can you prove it to the sort of standard that you expect of others? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom