Steve Jamar writes:
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
Steve Jamar writes:
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
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Perry Dane wrote: Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for belief in God. Would it be constitutional for
In a message dated 12/22/2005 9:06:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard
Dawkins and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions
of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for
Perry Dane wrote:
Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard Dawkins
and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions
of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for belief in
God. Would it be constitutional for this sort of
Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Dover Case Questions
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:31:10 -0500
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Perry Dane wrote:
Some scientists and philosophers
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Christopher C. Lund wrote:Take Dane's disclaimer -- that science "because it is a constrained discourse, it cannot claim, within its own four corners, to give us a full picture of Truth." If this is indeed inappropriate (does Professor Jamar mean unconstitutional?),
Title: Dover Case Questions
Perry Dane
writes:
All that some of us are arguing, then, is that it
would be constitutional simply to advisestudents that the methodological
naturalism built into scientificinquiry (and which properly excludes the
teaching of "intelligentdesign t
Title: Dover Case Questions
Marc and I do not disagree on the
reality. I am inclined tothink that the points he makes show that
the boundary between science and religion cannot be established in the public
mind; he appears to think that even if the point were established, the fight
would
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
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
into existence out of nothing) of
hydrogen nuclei. Both of these theories employ
the idea of creation in precisely the same sense ! as in the Dover case: the
coming into existence of something (life, hydrogen nuclei, the cosmos,
whatever) ab initio, ex nihilo. Its true that
many modern physicists have claimed
assume that nothing of substance would change if Dover moved the
discussion of ID into a religion class, but then there tried to teach ID as
true -- but do others disagree?
Chris
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Dover case has me so confused that I cant see what its
hool
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
(phone)
512-471-6988
(fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M
PardeeSent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:36 PMTo: Law
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Dover Case
Questions
I t
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
, December 21, 2005 2:10 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Dover Case
I've just finished reading all 139 pages. I will resist commenting on
the substance of Judge Jones' opinion, but I was struck by one thing.
Without exception, when referring to the plaintiffs' expert witnesses
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?
@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Dover Case
I've just finished reading all 139 pages. I will resist commenting on
the substance of Judge Jones' opinion, but I was struck by one thing.
Without exception, when referring to the plaintiffs' expert witnesses
(such as Miller and Padian), he refers to them as Dr. Miller, Dr
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
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
that's my sense of
the matter.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
-Original Message-
From: Steve Monsma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:06 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Dover Case
But it stretches credulity that all
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005
10:46 AM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Dover Case Questions
In the absence of some external force which is not
bound by the laws of science, the evidence that we CAN test tells us
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Monsma
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:10 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Dover Case
I've just finished reading all 139 pages. I will resist commenting on
the substance of Judge Jones' opinion, but I was struck by one thing
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
21, 2005 10:46 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Dover Case Questions "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
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
