ID KO'd in Pennsylvania

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

See, that is where you and I disagree. I don’t believe that the goal of science is to find God, just as geometry or economics or spelling are not tools to find God.
Actually, ID has nothing to dismiss. There is no evidence presented to debate.
I have no problem with a continued effort to investigate ID theory.

Peace

Tim

I do not claim the goal of science is to find God. But if science can find God, why ignore or thwart the possibility.

The ID idea is being dismissed as religion.

Cool!

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

I do not claim the goal of science is to find God. But if science can find God, why ignore or thwart the possibility.

The ID idea is being dismissed as religion.

Cool!

Have you read the decision? Even more importantly, have you read any of the trial transcripts? Did you know that one of the most damning pieces of testimony showed that the book selected by the school board originally discussed creationism and only after a lightbulb went on in someone’s head, they changed the term to ID. The term. Not the definition. I would say that most people would agree that creationism is religious.

Do you advocate teaching creationism in science class? That is exactly what the school board wanted. It is in the testimony and in the decision. That is a very large reason the plaintifs were successful.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

SamCA:

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that science should operate at more than just the empirical level?

But they have tried. A lot of big scientific journals, in the past couple years, have made requests for actual experiments that could be done to test the intelligent design theory the way they’ve tested evolutionary theory.

Nobody – even the staunch ID supporters – has been able to come up with any such experiments.

Science is not purely emperical now.

Can they keep trying? How many times? 10, 20 50,100, 1000? What if the breakthrough comes at 1001?

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

The ID idea is being dismissed as religion.

I misunderstood this part of your post. You were replying to my post where I stated that ID has nothing to dismiss. I was speaking specifically to scientific data. I would agree with you that ID is being dismissed as religion. That is a position I would take.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Have you read the decision? Even more importantly, have you read any of the trial transcripts? Did you know that one of the most damning pieces of testimony showed that the book selected by the school board originally discussed creationism and only after a lightbulb went on in someone’s head, they changed the term to ID. The term. Not the definition. I would say that most people would agree that creationism is religious.

Do you advocate teaching creationism in science class? That is exactly what the school board wanted. It is in the testimony and in the decision. That is a very large reason the plaintifs were successful.

Peace

Tim

No, I haven’t. I wasn’t referring to the decision specifically in this post.

Not at all. I have maintained my proposal consistently. Only emperical science in science class. Anything else - a mandatory metaphysics class.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

No, I haven’t. I wasn’t referring to the decision specifically in this post.

I’ll tell you what, here is a link to the trial transcripts as well as briefs, expert witness reports, etc…
www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?page_id=11
This is some interesting stuff. If you take the time to read them, and it will take quite a bit of time because there is a lot there, you will see exactly why the judge ruled as he did. Also, for a shorter read, read the actual judgement that I linked to in my original post.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

I’ll tell you what, here is a link to the trial transcripts as well as briefs, expert witness reports, etc…
www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?page_id=11
This is some interesting stuff. If you take the time to read them, and it will take quite a bit of time because there is a lot there, you will see exactly why the judge ruled as he did. Also, for a shorter read, read the actual judgement that I linked to in my original post.

Peace

Tim

Boy you want to keep me busy. This will take me through the holidays. Oops! Christmas Season - didn’t want to go secular now.

 

[Brad]

Anyone with some knowledge of Philosophy of Science is capable of doing that. I can say quite accurately that evolution is science and intelligent design/creationism isn’t.

Being scientific doesn’t make something the absolute truth, and not being scientific doesn’t make it wrong. It just affects whether it ought to be taught or not in science class.

Mike

I don’t want you deciding what is science any more than this judge. It is up to the school board to consult scientists as to what should be taught in science class.

A judge cannot be making decisions at this level of detail. Would you want him deciding what can be taught in religion class in a Catholic school? Would you want him deciding what can be cooked in the cafeteria or what sports can be played during gym?

 

[Brad]

Tristan daCunha:

Brad, I think you are confusing facts and theories. Facts are empirical pieces of knowledge about the past. Theories are generalizations based upon facts. Evolution is a theory - it is an idea. Ideas can not be a facts.

If I put my hand into a fire and my hand burns - my burnt hand is a fact. However, I do not put my hand into a fire because of the theory that my hand will get burned. This theory is based upon a generalization of past events (when fire has burned a body part, mine or someone elses). Those past events are facts.

We live our lives based upon theories about causes and effects.
My theory is that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. This belief is not a fact, because it has not happened. However, it is based upon facts… in every recorded instance, the sun has risen in the east. So I can be confident in my theory. But theories can never be facts.

Thanks for the explanation but I actually do understand all of this. The issue is that leading proponents of evolutionary theory (i.e. Richard Dawkins) absolutely insist that this theory is a fact.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Fairly predictable response. Censorship? Did you read the decision? He explains his decision pretty well in his decision.

Peace

Tim

It doensn’t matter how good his explanation is. If he overrules the school board then he is censoring education.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

This judge used precedent in his ruling. His job is to make a ruling on the case he was presented in accordance with rulings made by other federal courts. Would you like him to become an activist judge and make his ruling based on his personal beliefs?

Precedent is fine as long as it is grounded in true constitutional law. This type of ruling is baseless. A constitutional right not to be taught ID? Doesn’t exist.

Orogeny:

Besides, you are just mad because he affirmed what we have been telling you on these forums for some time now.

Peace

Tim

Am I supposed to be surprised that ACLU types have found a liberal judge to push their agenda?

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

What limitation are you refering to?
Because, like it or not, that is what science is. Science is the study of nature, not the supernatural.
Because the issue at hand is a science class, not a philosophy class
No, it is the result of wanting a quality science curriculum for their children.
Your argument should be for the establishment of a philosophy curriculum rather than breaking down the science curriculum.
Nothing is being censored. Read the decision.

Peace

Tim

As we’ve discussed before, I have no problem separating ID or the like into a metaphysics class and also teaching a philosophy class (using traditional philosophers of course and not modern bunk). However, included with this must be a cleaning-up up the evolutionary theory teaching which usually includes “icons” that have been proven false. Also, evolution teachers should not be allowed to go into theology, which they often do, nor insist that species to species evolution or a non-creator initiated creation are facts.

But where are any of these things happening and do you think the ACLU would not fight each and every one of these proposals?

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

It doensn’t matter how good his explanation is. If he overrules the school board then he is censoring education.

Were you aware that the school board went against the recommendations of the science faculty of the schools? Were you also aware that every single member of that school board that voted to introduce ID were overwhelmingly defeated in the last election?

Would you call it censorship if the judge ruled against a school board if that school board directed their science teachers to specifically teach athiesm as a requirement for graduation?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

Precedent is fine as long as it is grounded in true constitutional law. This type of ruling is baseless. A constitutional right not to be taught ID? Doesn’t exist.

Current precedent is that religion cannot be taught in public school. I disagree with that, but that is the precedent as set by the Supreme Court. It was this judge’s responsiblity to follow that precedent. If he hadn’t, he would be just another judge making rules as he goes. I don’t want a judge to do that.

Am I supposed to be surprised that ACLU types have found a liberal judge to push their agenda?

A liberal judge? You don’t know much about this guy, do you? He was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002. He is a republican who was approved by the Senate 96-0 with 4 senators not voting. He ran for congress (unsuccessfully) in 1994. Following that, he was co-chair of the transition team for the then governor-elect Tom Ridge

Not exactly your typical liberal judge.

Peace

Tim

 

[wabrams]

Brad:

It doensn’t matter how good his explanation is. If he overrules the school board then he is censoring education.

In that case, if a school board was overruled by a judge that no books on homosexuality, etc. could be used in classrooms that would be censoring education too, huh?

 

[Thekla]

The most devastating part of the decision appears to be the judges view that members of the School Board had lied in their testimony; claiming in private that they wanted to promote creationism and publically that it was all about science.

Good thing they were voted out because to have declared liars on your School Board is never a good thing.

 

[MikeWM]

Brad:

I don’t want you deciding what is science any more than this judge.

Someone has to decide. If you ask me, it is ridiculous that what is taught in school gets to a courtroom at all, but if it does, he has to make a decision. And he did. The right one.

It is up to the school board to consult scientists as to what should be taught in science class.

And evidently they didn’t, or ignored the advice, if they wanted to teach intelligent design/creationism in science class, as no reputable scientist who knows about Philosophy of Science would say they should.

Mike

 

[jman507]

Orogeny:

Were you aware that the school board went against the recommendations of the science faculty of the schools? Were you also aware that every single member of that school board that voted to introduce ID were overwhelmingly defeated in the last election?

Would you call it censorship if the judge ruled against a school board if that school board directed their science teachers to specifically teach athiesm as a requirement for graduation?

Peace

Tim

So if the science faculty would say its ok to teach at school it would be ok to teach ID? So if every single member of the school board that voted to introduce ID won overwhelmingly in an election it would be ok to teach it?

 

[jman507]

Thekla:

The most devastating part of the decision appears to be the judges view that members of the School Board had lied in their testimony; claiming in private that they wanted to promote creationism and publically that it was all about science.

Good thing they were voted out because to have declared liars on your School Board is never a good thing.

I thought that was quite funny. It’ll make the proponets of ID even more upset over the whole thing, and probably make the whole issue more divisive. Pop some popcorn this looks like it might get more fun. I’m sure for this thread alone will go over 100 soon.

I think if you really want the ID thing to go away people will really start having to not only expain why ID shouldn’t be taught, but do so over and over and over again. Then they will also have to acknoweldge the boundries of science. I think to me it seems the more religious who are in favor of teaching ID seem to think that it is unfair, because science can encroach on religion, but not religion encroach on science.

 

[Mac6yver]

Tristan daCunha:

Brad, I think you are confusing facts and theories. Facts are empirical pieces of knowledge about the past. Theories are generalizations based upon facts. Evolution is a theory - it is an idea. Ideas can not be a facts.

If I put my hand into a fire and my hand burns - my burnt hand is a fact. However, I do not put my hand into a fire because of the theory that my hand will get burned. This theory is based upon a generalization of past events (when fire has burned a body part, mine or someone elses). Those past events are facts.

We live our lives based upon theories about causes and effects.
My theory is that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. This belief is not a fact, because it has not happened. However, it is based upon facts… in every recorded instance, the sun has risen in the east. So I can be confident in my theory. But theories can never be facts.

This is an excellent explanation of a scientific theory. Their is a big difference between a theory and a scientific theory.