Gene Summerlin wrote:
Ed,
I'm sorry if I misunderstood the
tenor of some of the arguments being made on this list. From my quick
preview of the posts I gained the impression that some had articulated
the notion that real scientists rejected intelligent design or the idea
of a
I think Mike McConnell's excellent post on evolution vs. design from March 19, 1997 on this list is worth re-posting. So here's Michael!
"Larry Ingle writes: Beg pardon, but my understanding of evolutionary theory, as a non-scientist, is that evolution has been "raised . . . beyond the level of
Here is avery recentarticle on Phil Johnson, the man who put Darwinon trial and got a conviction! Here is a good excerpt:
Darwin on Trial is not just an attack on evolution, but on the very modern principles of science. Johnson believes Galileo and his descendants worked to solve the questions
Hmmm. So the onlyscientists whose views count about the case for evolutionary biology are evolutionary biologists?And exactly what would happen to the career of an evolutionary biologist--or any other scientist--who went public with his or her doubts aboutevolution? Would they still get grants?
Who created god?Some of us believe that indeed the universe "was not designed and has no purpose" and that the question "why is there anything?" is interesting, but at present beyond the ability of anyone to answer convincingly.Some of us also believe that "we humans are the product of
I agree with Steve Jamarthat educators ought to be allowed to teach science free of any interference from government. That is why I support school choice--let's allow science teachers and educators to design thesciencecurriculumfor their respective publicor private schools and allow parents to
There have been literally thousands of scientists testing evolutionary
theories (which, by the way, have evolved well beyond Charles Darwin) for over a
century. Evolution is not a single hypothesis, but rather thousands of
hypotheses that have been tested using scientific theory. And they
Rick Duncan wrote:
Darwin on Trial is not just an attack on evolution, but on the very
modern principles of science. Johnson believes Galileo and his
descendants worked to solve the questions of our existence based on
science, not faith, but that for several centuries since then, men of
I didn't call anyone a non-believer, Marci. I simply asked what kind of God is the God of natural selection? That is not name-calling. It is asking the most essential question anyone can ask of a "believer"--who is God, and did He create you, or did you create Him?
Those, I know, are not question
Rick-- That means that astronomy should be abandoned, because an
astronomisttoday examinesphenomenathat took place thousands
and millions of years ago. It takes time for information to flow through
space, as Einstein showed. Science is all about drawing conclusions based
on data, and it
I
know that I should simply forbear from comment, but when Rick
writes:
We humans--whether evolved or
created--don't know much about what happened even yesterday. It is hubris to
pretend that we know what happened 10,000 or 10 billion years
ago
I cannot help but wonder why in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some add to this pot the concept of falsafiability; and this
important consideration is what I find most troubling about the devoted
adherents of evolutionary faith. Where the scientific method and
falsafiability would require, for example, that the theory of
Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
The notion of falsifiability as a criterion for truth claimswhether inside or outside of sciencehas come under withering criticism by philosophers of science over the past 40 years. Proposed in its most robust and sophisticated form by Karl
The following useful perspective on ID comes from http://www.venganza.org/index.htm , which also contains related materials. If I properly understood Jim Henderson's posts yesterday, I believe the ACLJ would support FSM on the same grounds that it supports ID.
Art Spitzer
Washington, DC
(I hope
Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
Francis Beckwith wrote:
Clearly, there is potential data that count
against theistic accounts of the universe. For example, if there is a
good argument that the universe did not begin to exist, then that would
show that God
Art Spitzer wrote on 08/03/2005 01:34:26 PM:
(I hope no one finds the following offensive. If anyone does,
he or
she might bear in mind that some of us find ID offensive.)
I can understand what you might not agree with ID.
I can even understand why you might be offended by the way in which
In a message dated 8/3/05 2:58:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As an Italian, however, I am offended by the use of spaghetti. Perhaps in order to more diverse you can change it to taco or matzah in future postings.
If it were my own letter I'd be happy to do that, and also to substitute
I missed Art's post for some reason, it never came here. And while the
open letter is obviously parody, parody often reveals a kernel of truth
and this is no exception. My friend Rob Pennock wrote in his first book
on ID about all the possible alternatives to evolution that, under an
equal
On 8/3/05 2:48 PM, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francis Beckwith wrote:
Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design Clearly, there is potential data
that count against theistic accounts of the universe. For example, if there
is a good argument that the universe did not begin to exist
In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:23:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the
primary ID advocates themselves continually say that they don't want ID to be
taught in science classrooms. In fact, when my side says that they do they
throw a fit about how we're
They don't want ID to be taught. Following the decision of Judge William Overton in McLean v. Arkansas, anything can be taught as science so long as there is some science behind the stuff -- a body of research and a general consensus that the hypothesis works to some degree.
Intelligent design is
There was a story in yesterday's NYT about a group placing "Bible" classes
in various public schools. Apparently, the content includes assertions
about intelligent design. So it would appear there is a mutli-pronged
approach.
To me, what is most interesting about the President's statement
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:23:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the primary ID advocates themselves continually say that they
don't want ID to be taught in science classrooms. In fact, when my side
says that they do they throw a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left
Behind as a base of power to force public schools to teach ID? Could
the Bush Administration put in place regulations under NCLB that would
do as much?
The original language of the NCLB contained
Using NCLB to require a change in curriculum would be a federal power grab in education quite unprecedented. Heck, the federal establishment was nervous about simply making available lesson plans used in schools through the old (soon-to-be-gone) ERIC Library System, and both parties and all
Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
Because the federal courts have addressed the question of evolution curriculum in a number of opinions, has not the issue now been federalized? So, though Ed is correct that curriculum is a local issue, but at least one aspect of it has been
Well, at one time, most issues were local issues. Now we have federal
regulation of local land use under RLUIPA, with the Bush Administration
defending Congress's power to regulate localland use law. This
Administration is constantly touting No Child Left Behind. If there
is an opening,
An issue is not federalized simply because the federal Constitution has
been applied to a state.
Marci
In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:13:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because the federal courts have addressed the question of
evolution curriculum in a number
: Law Religion issues for Law
AcademicsSubject: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent
Design
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left Behind as
a base of power to force public schools to teach ID? Could the Bush
Administration put in place reg
Prof. David DeWolf has an excellent article on "teaching the controversy." See DeWolf, Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech, 2000 Utah L.Rev. 39.
As always, the solution to the culture war over the public school curriculum is parental choice and equal funding for all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:02:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They claim that they only want the "evidence against
evolution" taught, but this is primarily a tactical maneuver. Their
stated goal remains not only equal time,
The difficulty comes when anti-evolution advocates (I'm trying to avoid inflammatory labels) put forth what they regard to be the criticisms of evolution, rather than searching science journals for the same issues. There was -- still is -- a solid and good debate about rates of evolution, and the
Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
Ed:
Cause and effect correlations are extremely complicated on issues such as these, since there are a variety of reasons that American students may under perform. Im always suspicious of the use of such data, regardless of who offers
Re Rick's commentary, this is more than just a "culture war," it is a constitutional
war. From a Court precedent which Chief Justice Rehnquist and the ACLJ (just
a guess) do not accept:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least
this: ... No tax in any
But isn't that exactly what the First Amendment means when it says "Congress shall make no law?" It's not odd at all, to me. It is historically, patriotically, and liberty-confirminglycomforting.
Ed Darrell'
DallasFrancis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed:Cause and effect correlations are
On Aug 2, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: But maybe I'm naive to think that the hostility to any possibility of the supernatural in some realms of the scientific community can be overcome. Brad Pardee__There are many scientists who also believe
Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
But given incorporation, it would follow that no one shall make no law. In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expands religious liberty by banning discrimination based on religion in the workplace (if involved with interstate commerce
There is a difference between grants of power and limits on that power, isn't there? At least with respect to what Congress can address. Merely because something is within the Beckwithian concept of "federal concern" does not give Congress the power to act. Even when Congress has the power to
That's true, there are those who do believe
in God, and it's also true that this does not make intelligent design science.
That's why I referred tosome realms of the scientific community.
I'm just saying that, among those who ARE hostile to the idea of
the supernatural, there is no explanation
' Professor Emeritus
University of Oklahoma College of
Law
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:43
AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject:
Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
Prof. David
Title: Message
Dan Gibbens
asks,
In this
context, who can argue with this W quote: I think that part of education
is to expose people to different schools of thought, Bush said. Youre asking
me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is
yes.
Does this
Such demonstrated conflict and confusion is the result of any attempt to
establish "religion" by law. Recognize the wisdom of the men at both national
and state levels who drafted and approved the wording of First Amendment's
religion clauses as written:
1. The First Amendment was a
L PROTECTED]www.osolaw.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed
DarrellSent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:44 PMTo: Law
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Pres. Bush Supports
Intelligent Design
I could be convinced, I think, about intelligent des
AcademicsSubject: Re: Pres. Bush
Supports Intelligent Design
Gene Summerlin wrote:
To the extent that our current discussion indicates that
no "true" scientist believes in God or the intelligent design theory, the
following nobel prize winners state
otherwise.This is simply a
44 matches
Mail list logo
