Intelligent design is neither "false" nor "true" -- it is religous
belief and thus has no place in a science class; teaching it in a
comparative religion class makes sense. Mr. New's comments below are
either ironic (in which case they are quite funny) or he simply does not
understand science and how science is taught, work, etc. He suggests if
"intelligent design is false it will die," but that is like a Christian
saying "Islam will die" because it is "false" or a Moslem saying
Christianity will die because it is "false." Intelligent design is not
scientific so it is not subject to any serious scientific tests, so it
cannot "die" among scientists because it was never "alive" in the first
place and it will not die among those who "believe" in it, as he
apparently does, because it is about a belief, and not about science in
the first place.
Mr. New seems to think that we should allow "competing ideas" in science
(or any other field) just because they compete. Should we apply his
theory to other fields? Should we for example, have a section in
European history on why the holocaust did not happen? There are, after
all, people who believe that. Should we teach that the earth is flat
(there are people who believe that); should we teach that the Soviet
state really had it right (there are still people who believe in
that)? Now, there are places to teach about all of these things, but
that is not the same as teaching them as "fact" or as an established
scientific understanding.
In my daughter's public school there is a course on comparative religion
(which is writing a paper on Christianity now, and I suppose Islam will
be next); there is also a course on "myths and beliefs." Both courses
could allow for intelligent design as belief systems (along with many
other belief systems of creation. But, these belief systems don't belong
in a science class.
Paul Finkelman
David W. New wrote:
I was sad to see the leaders of the intelligent design movement in
Pennsylvania lose their seats in yesterday's election. For a long
time, the supporters of evolution have been acting like thick headed
Neanderthals. They will not tolerate any other view but their own in
the public schools. Only their view of science is correct. Only they
are right. This is the thinking of evolutionists. Evolutionists have
run to the government courts to keep out all competing ideas from the
classroom.
This is an old story. The established orthodoxy have always used the
government to keep out competing ideas that challenge the accepted
view. In an odd twist, the evolutionists have taken the role of the
Church in the Middle Ages. Men like Copernicus and Galileo were
persecuted for their views. Today, evolutionists persecute anyone who
dares to think differently than they do. They will persecute anyone
who wants to think for themselves and consider other possibilities for
the origin of life.
If intelligent design is false, it will die. There is no greater
threat to a false scientific theory than academic freedom, a subject
the evolutionists know little about. If intelligent design is a fraud
it will be proved to be so by the market place of ideas.
However, I think intelligent design has something positive to
contribute in the classroom. I support allowing other ideas which have
a scientific foundation to be heard in the classroom.
Eventually, intelligent design will win in America and be allowed in
the classroom. The evolutionists will lose this battle. As long as
people want to think for themselves, intelligent design has a chance.
As long as people support academic freedom, intelligent design will
prevail. As for the evolutionists, I think they will continue to
evolve backwards.
David W. New, Esq.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ann Althouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: Voters Oust Dover School Board
I'd say the voluntary cessation doctrine would cover anything that
might appear moot here.
Ann
On Nov 9, 2005, at 7:56 AM, James Maule wrote:
According to an article in this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer
[http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/13116793.htm (a free
subscription site)], voters in Dover, Pa., where the intelligent
design
curriculum trial recently concluded, replaced all 8 Republican school
board members who were up for re-election with Democrats who
campaigned
on removing intelligent design from the curriculum. This, note, in a
heavily Republican area. (There is a ninth board member whose term did
not end.)
When I saw this my first thought was, ok, the new school board (which
is sworn in on Dec 5) changes the curriculum, and this would seem to
moot the case. Would it be dismissed by agreement? By the judge? Could
it be dismissed? Should it be dismissed?
But further reading revealed that the group "sponsoring" the slate of
Democrats had promised that if they claimed a majority of the school
board, they would not rush to change the curriculum. He stated, "The
guiding force for this group is going to be Judge Jones' decision." So
there goes dismissal by agreement, and I guess there goes dismissal
because the issue is mooted. Unless the judge calls the parties in for
an in-chambers post-trial settlement attempt?
One of the ousted school board members claims the vote was not so much
a vote against intelligent design being taught as a vote against
spending money to litigate the case.
At the end of the article, the writer notes that the Kansas Board of
Education "yesterday approved science standards for public schools
that
cast doubt on the theory of evolution."
Jim Maule
Villanova Univesrity School of Law
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK 74105
918-631-3706 (voice)
918-631-2194 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
