Re: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Sandy, I agree that there is value in multiplicity in the three examples you mention, including critiques of evolution. But there is a difference between evolution (an established fact) and disagreements about the mechanism by which it works. Requiring teaching that evolution is false is not an acceptable alternative. But allowing or even requiring critiques makes a great deal of sense. Even if it is creationism light. Knowledge is not all a matter of social power. But what constitutes truth at any given time certainly is affected by social power. Steve On Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 05:16 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote: I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives to Darwinism. That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a multiplicity of points of view. Is there a principled way of deciding when that is a desiderata? Consider, e.g., the failure of American public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe, but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us, obviously). I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with regard to my examples. But, conversely, I presume that persons who agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even a possibility. Is Foucault right, that what counts as knowledge (or disputable theory) is all a matter of social power? (This is not a rhetorical question.) -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ It is by education I learn to do by choice, what other men do by the constraint of fear. Aristotle ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Evolution appears to violate the law of entropy. That is things tend to disorder. (examples: a deck of cards, any teenagers bedroom.) Evolution assumes that things become more ordered. Physicists in industry are not going to spend the time on it because it will not help produce a product. Physicists in colleges are not looking at it because there is no grant money in it. Also would a published article on the subject help them get tenure? Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On Dec 14, 2004, at 4:56 PM, Michael MASINTER wrote: How does evolution appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics? And if it does, why haven't physicists figured it out? Michael R. Masinter Visiting Professor of Law On Leave From University of Miami Law School Nova Southeastern University(305) 284-3870 (voice) Shepard Broad Law Center(305) 284-6619 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote: My training in physics was that a theory is an explanation that fits the facts. For example, the theoretical physicist comes up with a theory. The experimentalist runs the experiment and gives the results to the theoretical physicist who then modifies the theory. There are many holes in the theory of evolution. Evolution appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics. There are also many things that have been presented as evidence of evolution that have been proven false. The problems with evolution and the major schools of thought within evolution should be taught to the students. If DI has a different theory that fits the facts, it should also be taught. I tend toward the 6 days of creation with the clock counting the time being at the center of the big bang. The gravitational effect slowing down the clock so that we may still be in the seventh day. Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On Dec 14, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Steven Jamar wrote: Sandy, I agree that there is value in multiplicity in the three examples you mention, including critiques of evolution. But there is a difference between evolution (an established fact) and disagreements about the mechanism by which it works. Requiring teaching that evolution is false is not an acceptable alternative. But allowing or even requiring critiques makes a great deal of sense. Even if it is creationism light. Knowledge is not all a matter of social power. But what constitutes truth at any given time certainly is affected by social power. Steve On Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 05:16 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote: I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives to Darwinism. That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a multiplicity of points of view. Is there a principled way of deciding when that is a desiderata? Consider, e.g., the failure of American public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe, but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us, obviously). I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with regard to my examples. But, conversely, I presume that persons who agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even a possibility. Is Foucault right, that what counts as knowledge (or disputable theory) is all a matter of social power? (This is not a rhetorical question.) sandy -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ It is by education I learn to do by choice, what other men do by the constraint of fear. Aristotle ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Press Conference Announcing Legal Challenge to Intelligent Design Curriculum in PA
Fresh off the presses... *** MEDIA ADVISORY *** Press Conference Announcing Legal Challenge to Intelligent Design Curriculum in PA School District WHEN: Tuesday, December 14, 1:00 p.m. WHAT: The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and attorneys with Pepper Hamilton LLP will file a federal lawsuit on Tuesday on behalf of 11 parents who say that presenting intelligent design to students in public school violates the religious liberty of parents, students and faculty. The lawsuit will be the first in the nation to challenge the instruction of intelligent design, which is an assertion that an intelligent, supernatural actor has intervened in the history of life. The intelligent design debate gained national public attention after the Dover Area School District Board in Pennsylvania voted in October to require science teachers to present this religious view as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution. Dover is believed to be the first school district to mandate such a policy. WHERE: Pennsylvania State Capitol, East Wing Rotunda Commonwealth Avenue, Harrisburg WHO: Parents, scientists, clergy members and attorneys who are challenging the Dover School District policy. Attorneys and clients in the lawsuit will not be available for comment before the Tuesday press conference. CONTACT: Paul Silva, ACLU Nat'l, 212-549-2689 or 2666 Joe Conn, Americans United, 202-466-3234 or 202-365-8507 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Religion and Philosophy
As someone who has taught Descartes and other philosophical attempts to establish the existence of God, I'm not at all sure why this is a problem. In every course I taught examining these issues, my students clearly understood, as did I, that we were jointly trying to examine arguments or theories of whatever kind, not to embrace substantive truths. Moreover, in the philosophical tradition in which I was trained, criticism not confirmation was the overriding goal. So we never concluded that any argument in favor of God's existence was valid or sound anymore than we ever concluded that any argument proving God's non-existence was valid or sound. Now maybe I was a poor philosophy teacher, but I don't recall any of my more competent colleagues--whether theist or atheist, rationalist or empiricist, etc.--ever talking about the difficulty of drawing the line between philosophical analysis and religious analysis. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Religion and Philosophy
Perhaps I need to make my question sharper. I have no doubt that one CAN teach Descartes or Aquinas and Augustine for that matter, without any establishment clause violation. Still, not every high school teacher who requires Descartes is likely to simply confine the exercise to analyzing arguments. I take it that, while we might have philosophical problems with a teacher who attempted to convince students that Hume's arguments about induction were correct, that such a claim would not present any establishment clause problem. So suppose the same teacher claims the ontological argument is logically correct. MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/15/04 1:57 PM In a message dated 12/15/2004 1:48:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is philosophy just about critical thinking or is it about substance too? Analytic philosophy, at least the brands taught during the sixties, seventies, and eighties in most (though certainly not all) American philosophy departments did emphasize (and fight over) the correct analytic philosophical method, not what truths these methods might yield. You might think that an impoverished sense of philosophy, but that's another story. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases
As I was reading the SG's brief in McCreary, I was struck by the similarity of the arguments offered in the brief to justify the Ten Commandments display and the arguments offered by list members to support Williams' teaching materials. The SG argues that the Ten Commandments display is constitutional because it communicates secular messages about the role of religion in American history in general and the Ten Commandments contribution to our legal heritage in particular. Williams' supporters argue, if I understand them correctly, that lessons studying accounts of the Sermon on the Mount, the Crucifixion of Jesus, and the Resurrection of Jesus are permissible in public schools as part of the study of the role that Christianity played in America's history and legal system. Does it follow, then, that government may create displays portraying the Sermon on the Mount, the Crucifixion of Jesus, and the Resurrection of Jesus and place them in prominent locations in schools and governmental buildings -- and justify doing so as for the same reason -- to acknowledge the role that Christianity played in America's history and legal system? Would the fact that America was overwhelmingly Christian at the time of the founding of the U.S. negate any constitutional obligation on the part of government to create displays portraying scenes important to other faiths? Alan Brownstein UC Davis ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Could you explain why liberals are wrong? -Original Message- From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:12 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information . Liberals are sometimes suspicious of efforts to teach about religion in the public schools. They are wrong to think that such teaching is unconstitutional or unwise.: ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/15/2004 3:47:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rather than saddling teachers with a burden, perhaps the better course of action is not to try to teach religion in the public schools at all. Of course, one might try to teach biology without discussing oxygen. Can it be done? Sure. Should it be done? That, my friend, is the rub. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
No, that isnt the rub. There is nothing like the EC that speaks to either biology or oxygen. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 3:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information In a message dated 12/15/2004 3:47:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rather than saddling teachers with a burden, perhaps the better course of action is not to try to teach religion in the public schools at all. Of course, one might try to teach biology without discussing oxygen. Can it be done? Sure. Should it be done? That, my friend, is the rub. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information .:.
Come on. Are these tits and tats really what this list is for? A little restraint goes a long way. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Newsom MichaelSent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 4:53 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information .:. No, that isn't the rub. There is nothing like the EC that speaks to either biology or oxygen. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 3:53 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information In a message dated 12/15/2004 3:47:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rather than saddling teachers with a burden, perhaps the better course of action is not to try to "teach" religion in the public schools at all. Of course, one might try to teach biology without discussing oxygen. Can it be done? Sure. Should it be done? That, my friend, is the rub. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP mail server made the following annotations on 12/15/2004, 04:06:50 PM - This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Another Alabama 10-Commandments Judge
How about replacing all of these 10 commandment stones, etc. with something as close to the original as we can get. i.e. 14th or so century BC Hebrew and written on both sides of the 2 stones. Exodus 32:15 Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On Dec 15, 2004, at 2:46 PM, Conkle, Daniel O. wrote: Here's a new thread (so to speak): http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=533e=3u=/ap/ 20041215/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_robe Ala. Judge Wears Ten Commandments on Robe Wed Dec 15, 9:51 AM ET By BOB JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer MONTGOMERY, Ala. - A judge refused to delay a trial Tuesday when an attorney objected to his wearing a judicial robe with the Ten Commandments embroidered on the front in gold. Circuit Judge Ashley McKathan showed up Monday at his Covington County courtroom in southern Alabama wearing the robe. Attorneys who try cases at the courthouse said they had not seen him wearing it before. The commandments were described as being big enough to read by anyone near the judge. . . . . McKathan told The Associated Press that he believes the Ten Commandments represent the truth and you can't divorce the law from the truth. ... The Ten Commandments can help a judge know the difference between right and wrong. . . . . Dan Conkle ** Daniel O. Conkle Professor of Law Indiana University School of Law Bloomington, Indiana 47405 (812) 855-4331 fax (812) 855-0555 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** . . . . ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
That things tend toward disorder does not mean that order cannot and does not arise. Order arises in all physical systems without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The laws relating to chemistry and biology also matter as do such laws of physics like quantum dynamics. The specious entropy argument has been thoroughly debunked in published material. Evolution does not really assume anything about order or about directionality of change, except insofar as under the principles of natural selection the more fit will survive. Steve On Wednesday, December 15, 2004, at 11:10 AM, Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote: Evolution appears to violate the law of entropy. That is things tend to disorder. (examples: a deck of cards, any teenagers bedroom.) Evolution assumes that things become more ordered. Physicists in industry are not going to spend the time on it because it will not help produce a product. Physicists in colleges are not looking at it because there is no grant money in it. Also would a published article on the subject help them get tenure? Alan -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Press Conference Announcing Legal Challenge to Intelligent Design Curri...
In a message dated 12/14/2004 1:53:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If this case goes at all like McLean v. Arkansas, it could end up being quite the show trial, with a couple dozen prominent expert witnesses testifying on either side about the nature of science and the evidence for evolution. Thoughts of a Scopes II (er, III, er IV) trial dance, I am quite sure, in the heads of attorneys who gat up this litigation. I wonder if Anthony Flew will be cited on the probability of any origin without some deistic intervening cause. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Hi Frank, good to "see" you again. I'll be curious to see how the DI handles this if it goes to trial. They are certainly right that the actual policy adopted is incoherent, as I argued in great detail on the Panda's Thumb a couple weeks ago. But if it goes to trial and they are asked to testify as expert witnesses on the validity of ID as a theory or model, would they refuse to do so? In the McLean case in 1981, there were some experts on the state's side who also said that they thought the law went about things the wrong way, but that they supported the idea and they testified on behalf of creation science anyway. Clearly, though, this is not the test case that the DI wanted. I wonder if their opposition will move the school board to reconsider, or perhaps move the TMLC not to get involved after all? This is definitely a developing story. Ed Brayton Francis J. Beckwith wrote: Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the pre-biotic soup: For Immediate Release Dec. 14, 2004 Press Contact: Rob Crowther Discovery Institute (206) 292-0401 x.107 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Leading intelligent design think tank calls Dover evolution policy "misguided," calls for it to be withdrawn Seattle, Dec. 14 - The policy on teaching evolution recently adopted by the Dover, PA School Board was called "misguided" today by Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, which advised that the policy should be withdrawn and rewritten. "While the Dover board is to be commended for trying to teach Darwinian theory in a more open-minded manner, this is the wrong way to go about it," said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC). "Dover's current policy has a number of problems, not the least of which is its lack of clarity. At one point, it appears to prohibit Dover schools from teaching anything about 'the origins of life.' At another point, it appears to both mandate as well as prohibit the teaching of the scientific theory of intelligent design. The policy's incoherence raises serious problems from the standpoint of constitutional law. Thus, the policy should be withdrawn and rewritten." Apart from questions about its constitutionality, West expressed reservations about the Dover School Board's directive on public policy grounds. "When we first read about the Dover policy, we publicly criticized it because according to published reports the intent was to mandate the teaching of intelligent design," explained West. "Although we think discussion of intelligent design should not be prohibited, we don't think intelligent design should be required in public schools. "What should be required is full disclosure of the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory," added West, "which is the approach supported by the overwhelming majority of the public." Discovery Institute's Center for Science Culture is the nation's leading think-tank exploring the scientific theory of intelligent design, which proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected cause such as natural selection. In recent years a growing number of scientists have presented the case for intelligent design theory in academic journal articles and books published by major academic presses such as Cambridge University Press and Michigan State University Press. For more information visit the Institute's website at www.discovery.org/csc/. ### -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:53 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Press Conference Announcing Legal Challenge to "Intelligent Design" Curriculum in PA Ah, I was just going to post something about this. The Thomas More Law Center has offered to handle the defense for the Dover school district. I haven't seen any official word that they'll be representing the district, but the district would be foolish not to accept the offer. Well, let me rephrase that. They'd be foolish to fight the lawsuit in the first place, as I think they're going to lose and it's going to cost the taxpayers of that district an enormous amount of money. But if they're going to fight it, they'd be even more foolish not to accept the offer to have the TMLC represent them. TMLC has done some pretty good work. This could very well be the test case that everyone involved in the evolution/creationism battle have been anticipating for a couple of years now, the one that determines whether the precedents set in McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard concerning the teaching of "creation science" also hold true for the teaching of "intelligent design". The ID folks aren't happy about that, as they don't think the Dover school board's policy is very defensible (and they're right, it's riddled with contradictions and false
Re: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
I'm not sure that the following intervention will be productive, but: My sense is that this discussion has reached beyond the limits of list-relevance in its discussions of the substance of ID, evolutionary theory, etc. (I remember enough about physics from college to know that the law of entropy says nothing about the possibilities of an increase in order in any subset of the universe as a whole.) Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote: Evolution appears to violate the law of entropy. That is things tend to disorder. (examples: a deck of cards, any teenagers bedroom.) Evolution assumes that things become more ordered. Physicists in industry are not going to spend the time on it because it will not help produce a product. Physicists in colleges are not looking at it because there is no grant money in it. Also would a published article on the subject help them get tenure? Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On Dec 14, 2004, at 4:56 PM, Michael MASINTER wrote: How does evolution appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics? And if it does, why haven't physicists figured it out? Michael R. MasinterVisiting Professor of Law On Leave FromUniversity of Miami Law School Nova Southeastern University(305) 284-3870 (voice) Shepard Broad Law Center(305) 284-6619 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote: My training in physics was that a theory is an explanation that fits the facts. For example, the theoretical physicist comes up with a theory. The experimentalist runs the experiment and gives the results to the theoretical physicist who then modifies the theory. There are many holes in the theory of evolution. Evolution appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics. There are also many things that have been presented as evidence of evolution that have been proven false. The problems with evolution and the major schools of thought within evolution should be taught to the students. If DI has a different theory that fits the facts, it should also be taught. I tend toward the 6 days of creation with the clock counting the time being at the center of the big bang. The gravitational effect slowing down the clock so that we may still be in the seventh day. Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On Dec 14, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Steven Jamar wrote: Sandy, I agree that there is value in multiplicity in the three examples you mention, including critiques of evolution. But there is a difference between evolution (an established fact) and disagreements about the mechanism by which it works. Requiring teaching that evolution is false is not an acceptable alternative. But allowing or even requiring critiques makes a great deal of sense. Even if it is creationism light. Knowledge is not all a matter of social power. But what constitutes truth at any given time certainly is affected by social power. Steve On Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 05:16 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote: I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives to Darwinism. That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a multiplicity of points of view. Is there a principled way of deciding when that is a desiderata? Consider, e.g., the failure of American public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe, but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us, obviously). I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with regard to my examples. But, conversely, I presume that persons who agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even a possibility. Is Foucault right, that what counts as knowledge (or disputable theory) is all a matter of social power? (This is not a rhetorical question.) sandy -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ It is by education I learn to do by choice, what other men do by the constraint of fear. Aristotle
Re: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote: Evolution appears to violate the law of entropy. That is things tend to disorder. (examples: a deck of cards, any teenagers bedroom.) Evolution assumes that things become more ordered. Oi vey. Alan, seriously, this is utter nonsense. The law of entropy does not say that things tend to disorder, it says that closed or thermodynamically isolated systems eventually return to a state of equilibrium (also sometimes stated as a state of maximum entropy). The key phrases there are isolated systems and eventually. The earth is an open system, receiving inputs of heat and energy (heat being the thermo part of the word and energy being the dynamic part of the word) from the sun as well as other sources. Eventually, the system will reach equilibrium - when the sun burns out and no more heat or energy are exchanged. There's a reason why you will not find a single physicist who accepts this argument, even young earth creationist physicists like John Baumgardner or Danny Faulkner. Because it's not just false, it's glaringly false and based solely on an obvious misrepresentation of what the 2nd law of thermydynamics actually says. I'm sure you're not the one doing the misrepresenting here, but the folks whose claims you read and are repeating probably are. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/14/2004 6:14:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the positions that get labeled "science" are "knowledge" and religion merely "opinion." In one of the ironies of political liberalism (of the Rawlsian sort), these distinctions turn out to be argument-stoppers rather than conversation starters. I'm not sure I understand this point. How do these "argument-stoppers" work? Religion has told a story of creation. Science has told a story of evolution. Recently, some elements in some religions have been transformed first intocreationism and then into the theory of intelligent design. Rather than stopping arguments it seems this process of "labeling" has generated new stories, perhaps even more robust stories.This doesn't solve the problem at hand, to be sure. But labeling is inevitable and in this case has extremely positive effects at least from the perspective of the stories of creationism and intelligent design that Frank (I think) embraces. I actually think that the argument stoppers are on the ID side. Scientists love to test ideas. If you bring them an idea like intelligent design, their initial response is to invite the conversation - "Great, how do we test this idea? Let's see if it's true." And there the conversation stops, because ID is really just a purely negative argument of the form "Not x, therefore y". In this case, not evolution, therefore God (but of course they won't say God, they'll say an unknown intelligent designer, even though they openly tell their followers that the whole enterprise is designed to overthrow "atheistic naturalism" and establish a boldly "theistic science"). Of course it is true that there are some specific phenomena for which the evolutionary history is not yet fully understood. For scientists, that means the conversation continues, with the asking of questions like how did this system develop? What homologous systems might be present in closely related species that might provide us with clues? If the system is present in all forms of a certain type of animal, can we compare the genomes of those animals and compare them to the phylogenetic tree to see which one might have developed first and identify the genetic change that took place to make the system work the way it does now? These are the types of questions that scientists ask when they're trying to build an explanation. But with the purely negative argument that is ID, the conversation stops with "you haven't yet explained it to my satisfaction, so God must have done it." Robust scientific theories continue to spawn new research to explain the data in greater detail. A negative argument, "Not x, therefore y" clearly does not. So I would argue that the argument stoppers, if not exploration stoppers, are on the ID side of the fence. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Religion and Philosophy
Jim Henderson's comments on Anthony Flew highlight that, however much difficulty we have drawing the line between religion and science, the line between religion and philosophy is tougher. Consider the following. I take it that there is nothing askance with asking a public school high school class to read Descartes, MEDIATIONS. That text, among other things includes an ontological argument for the existence of God. Now presumably, a teacher is allowed to give opinions on the soundness of cogito, ergo sum, (I think, therefore I am). Does the same hold true for the ontological argument. Where does philosophical analysis blend into religious analysis. Mark A. Graber ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Religion and Philosophy
In a message dated 12/15/2004 1:48:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is philosophy just about critical thinking or is it about substance too? Analytic philosophy, at least the brands taught during the sixties, seventies, and eighties in most (though certainly not all)American philosophy departments did emphasize (and fight over) the correct analytic philosophical method, not what truths these methods might yield. You might think that an impoverished sense of philosophy, but that's another story. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
RE: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Perhaps the relationship between government and religion and the relationship between government and science may be different for reasons that extend beyond the idea that science is knowledge and religion is opinion. I don't think we deny government the power to declare religious truth because religion is only opinion. After all, we allow government to promote a lot of opinions and values. But we think there is something distinctive about religion that justifies constraints on the government's power to promote it. And, of course, we protect the exercise of religion from governmental interference, not because we think religious practices are grounded on truth while secular activities are based on opinion, but, rather, again, because we think that there is something special about religion that requires a different relationship between it and government. Or to pick up on Sandy's post, what counts as knowledge may be a matter of social power, but we may decide as a matter of constitutional law that government can not declare or enforce certain kinds of knowledge (religion, for example) and distinguish it from disputable theory, while it may declare and enforce other kinds of knowledge (e.g. science and math) and distinguish it from disputable theory. Perhaps this idea is incorrect and there is no good reason for government to distinguish religion from any other kind of knowledge or understanding with regard to government support or interference. But an analysis of this issue should probably extend beyond the question of whether religion is knowledge or opinion (since that question often deteriorates into the reality that many people consider the foundation of their religion to be knowledge while the foundations of other religions are opinions or false.) Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 05:11 PM 12/14/2004 -0600, you wrote: I think Sandy's right in this regard: the positions that get labeled science are knowledge and religion merely opinion. In one of the ironies of political liberalism (of the Rawlsian sort), these distinctions turn out to be argument-stoppers rather than conversation starters. The labeling becomes the whole deal rather than quality of the arguments offered by the disputants. If I can peg your positon as religious, I have a ready-made exclusionary rule built into the process--the establishment clause--that permits me to reject your positon without wrestling with it. I'm not saying that is necessarily going on in this PA case, which I have not kept up with. Ed could very well be correct that the school board's resolution is incoherent drivel. But we should reject it because it is incoherent drivel and not because it is religion. --- Francis J. Beckwith Associate Professor of Church-State Studies Associate Director, J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies Baylor University http://www.baylor.edu/http://www.baylor.edu ph: 254.710.6464 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://francisbeckwith.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 4:16 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives to Darwinism. That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a multiplicity of points of view. Is there a principled way of deciding when that is a desiderata? Consider, e.g., the failure of American public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe, but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us, obviously). I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with regard to my examples. But, conversely, I presume that persons who agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even a possibility. Is Foucault right, that what counts as knowledge (or disputable theory) is all a matter of social power? (This is not a rhetorical question.) sandy ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
RE: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases
Hm -- and some people say that the Protestant Empire is dead and gone. If one can display the Ten Commandments (five gets you ten that the only version we are likely to see in any of these displays is the evangelical Protestant version) along with other legal documents, that one can display the Sermon on the Mount etc. so long as it is contextualized with the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, for example. And, I must ask, what displays does one suppose that a Protestant Empire would want to put up? Why they would be the ones that the SG supports and that Alan has supposed below! -Original Message- From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:36 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases As I was reading the SG's brief in McCreary, I was struck by the similarity of the arguments offered in the brief to justify the Ten Commandments display and the arguments offered by list members to support Williams' teaching materials. The SG argues that the Ten Commandments display is constitutional because it communicates secular messages about the role of religion in American history in general and the Ten Commandments contribution to our legal heritage in particular. Williams' supporters argue, if I understand them correctly, that lessons studying accounts of the Sermon on the Mount, the Crucifixion of Jesus, and the Resurrection of Jesus are permissible in public schools as part of the study of the role that Christianity played in America's history and legal system. Does it follow, then, that government may create displays portraying the Sermon on the Mount, the Crucifixion of Jesus, and the Resurrection of Jesus and place them in prominent locations in schools and governmental buildings -- and justify doing so as for the same reason -- to acknowledge the role that Christianity played in America's history and legal system? Would the fact that America was overwhelmingly Christian at the time of the founding of the U.S. negate any constitutional obligation on the part of government to create displays portraying scenes important to other faiths? Alan Brownstein UC Davis ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
