In a message dated 12/20/2005 6:19:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With regard to the judge's commentary, what I find the most disturbing is
thatthis particular judge -- a Bush appointee with pretty firm
"conservative" credentials -- felt it necessary to
Interesting that you think that a judge's job does not include being aware of the political impact of his or her decision!Am I correct in inferring, then, that you consider Brown v. Board wrongly decided on the merits and wrongly written in form and wrongly decided within the Court's processes
A careful reading of the trial transcript would indicate, I think, that such charges had already been leveled at all courts, and especially any court dealing with the issue.I see in the Dallas Morning News today thatJudge Jones hasbeen labeled an "activist," and that one of the old school
The Dover case has me so confused that I cant see what its implications are beyond its narrow facts. A couple of questions came to mind as I read it. Maybe someone can help me sort them out.
1. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs said last night on one of the news shows that all this (ID)
I agree that the judge overreached here, and that helping students so inclined
reconcile the science with their faith is not what made the Dover program
problematic. A sensible and constitutional policy would do precisely this, by
explaining the methodological difference between scientific
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The Dover case has me so confused that I can’t see what its implications are beyond its narrow facts. A couple of questions came to mind as I read it. Maybe someone can help me sort them out. 1. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs said
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. If,
as the Dover
court says, the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science,
then wouldnt the principal version of the now-regnant big bang
theory be constitutionally prohibited as well? Its
now generally accepted that the age of the observable cosmos
Last night on the PBS Newshour, the head of the Thomas More Law Center said
this:
RICHARD THOMPSON: Well, first of all [ID is] a scientific theory and
therefore it's proper to be in the science class. After all, all the Dover
area school board did was make students aware that there is a
Where the class happens to fall in the course catalog, in one sense, does
seem completely irrelevant. But the reason why we have this fight is
because whether ID is taught as science or something else will determine
whether it is taught as true. If it's taught outside of science class, it
will
"In the absence of some external
force which is not bound by the laws of science, the evidence that we CAN test
tells us that evolution is what happened. If there was a supernatural
actor in the process, however, then all bets are off because science cannot test
the supernatural."
That is
Brad M Pardee wrote:
I think Chris reveals something
significant
here. Among the evolution supporters I have heard (and I'm not
presuming
that they speak for all evolutionists everywhere), it does not seem to
be enough to say that intelligent design is outside the realm of
science.
They
In a message dated 12/21/2005 1:11:00 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Assuming
(as I would) that holding a doctorate gives one more credibility
thansimply being a professor at some college or university, is this
consistent useof titles an indication of a bias on
What I always heard and sensed from teaching faculty is that professor
is more appreciated than doctor since there are lots of Ph.D.'s out
there who don't have teaching appointments (such as yours truly) but a
professor has achieved not only the degree but the academic status.
David T. Ball,
something can be true without being the full truth.2+2 = 4. That is true.But it does a poor job of fully describing nature. Or math.SetveOn Dec 21, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Perry Dane wrote: This doesn't strike me as quite right. It seems to me that real science should also not, in the public
Bobby writes: I would argue that Steve's inference from the facts of disease,
war, violence, inequity, inequality, stupidity of some design features (knees,
elbows, eyes) to the conclusion that no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally
perfect (loving) deity exists is a perfectly legitimate
Not having read the transcript, I don't know how the experts introduced themselves or wanted to be addressed or were addressed by counsel. I suspect that Judge Jones was just following the testimony on this one. In my experience judges always referred to the witnesses as they requested to be
No, urethra design is not beside the point at all. Is there an intelligent design explanation for that design? There is an evolutionary explanation (though not wholly satisfactory to many). How could such a thing have happened, according to "intelligent design theory?" The absence of any
A great teacher would indeed tell about the many experiments Darwin ran, and about the specific observations of nature around the world he made that pointed him to discover evolution theory. In a test-driven curriculum that does not test one's understanding of how science really works, there
As one who over the last few weeks has been made painfully--very painfully--aware of this design, it appears to point to the inescapable reality that there is no necessary correlation between intelligence and benevolence.
VanceOn 12/21/05, Ed Darrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, urethra design is
Ed Darrell writes:
No, urethra design is not beside the point at all. Is there an
intelligent design explanation for that design? There is an
evolutionary explanation (though not wholly satisfactory to
many). How could such a thing have happened, according to
intelligent design theory?
I must say that I think for most people professor rates as a higher
honorific than Dr. But the pattern *is* odd.
sandy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Monsma
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:10 PM
To:
But it stretches credulity that all the defense expert witnesses wanted to be
addressed as professor and all the plaintiff expert witnesses wanted to be
addressed as doctor.
It strikes me that especially when dealing with technical, scientific experts,
Doctor would usually be considered the
Perry Dane wrote:
That said, though, one needs to be fair here. The claim of
intelligent design theory is not that NO features of the biological
world can be explained by evolution through natural selection. Nor is
it, as I said before, that the biological world is, according to one
Perry wrote on 12/21/2005 01:54:14 PM:
It is therefore consistent with
at least the bare bones of
ID theory that the designer was evil, or a practical joker, or a
child-god who designed us as part of the heavenly equivalent of a
kindergarten art project.
Or that an omniscient God who
Steve Monsma wrote:
But it stretches credulity that all the defense expert witnesses wanted to be
addressed as professor and all the plaintiff expert witnesses wanted to be
addressed as doctor.
It strikes me that especially when dealing with technical, scientific experts,
Doctor would
The text of my speech outside the White House yesterday is pasted below...see also today's front-page story in the Washington Times: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051221-121224-6972r.htmGod Bless, Chaplain K.-- CHAPLAIN KLINGENSCHMITT
Ed Brayton writes:
Actually, this depends on which ID advocate you're talking to at the
time and that fact points up the lack of a coherent ID model.
This is fair enough, in a sense. Yes, to be sure, there are
different versions of ID, just as there are different versions of
most
Brad writes:
Perry wrote on 12/21/2005
01:54:14 PM:
It is
therefore consistent with at least the bare bones of
ID theory that the designer was evil, or a practical joker, or a
child-god who designed us as part of the heavenly equivalent of
a
kindergarten art project.
Or that an
Brad writes:
Perry wrote on 12/21/2005 01:54:14 PM:
It is therefore consistent with at least the bare bones of
ID theory that the designer was evil, or a practical joker, or a
child-god who designed us as part of the heavenly equivalent of a
kindergarten art project.
Or that an
Also remember this was a court trial -- no jury -- so this distinction matters little in that sort of way.On Dec 21, 2005, at 3:06 PM, Steve Monsma wrote:But it stretches credulity that all the defense expert witnesses wanted to beaddressed as "professor" and all the plaintiff expert witnesses
For what it's worth, there is a good argument for limiting
the term Doctor to physicians (including, by the way, physicians
without a doctorate such as British physicians with only an
undergraduate medical degree), and referring to all non-physician
Ph.D.'s as Mr. or Professor or the
For what it's worth, when I went to school in New England we always
called our professors professors. When I taught in the government
department at the University of Texas, my colleagues and I were
routinely called Dr.. Memories are vague, but I believe I was more
often called Professor when I
It's possible that trial counsel for the defense thought professor would
be more impressive and that trial counsel for the plaintiffs thought
doctor would be more impressive. That could result in uniform usage on
each side.
A quick point on ID and design defects:
My sense is that some (or
In a clear effort in futility, I
wonder if it would be possible to identify some minimalist consensus on the
list on this issue; one that reflects Marks thoughtful recognition of IDs
current limitations (see below) as well as Brads concerns about the
overreaching of some evolutionists.
Dr. Ball, Esq.:
The title game is tricky. I taught at a school where many faculty did
not have Ph..D.'s, leftover from an age when people with an MA could get
tenure, and everyone called himself/herself professor. I quickly
learned that Dr. carried great weight. At another place, where I
Alan Brownstein writes:
So - suppose someone drafted a statement disclaiming scientific
overreaching as in
1. In the absence of some external force which is not bound by the
laws of science, the evidence that we CAN test tells us that evolution
is what happened. If there was a
Maybe they teach science differently now than when I went to school and when my boys (now ages 19 and 22) went to school, but science was inherently taught as conditional and subject to testing and change. There are things that are known facts, but there is a lot that is still unexplained -- the
In a message dated 12/21/2005 3:07:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But it
stretches credulity that all the defense expert witnesses wanted to
beaddressed as "professor" and all the plaintiff expert witnesses wanted
to beaddressed as "doctor." It strikes me
38 matches
Mail list logo
