> -----Original Message----- > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:56 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Oh dear God no..... > > So you're OK with a single Judge defining science and religion? Sounds > scary to me.
In this case the judge didn't alter the definition of science in any way. What he did do was define "Intelligent Design" as religion. Our system of justice defines itself by the decisions of judges. This decision isn't valid outside PA but as a Pennsylvanian I'm happy with it. It would be nice to see more challenges to the decision to reinforce it of course but the decision is far from singular. The Dover case was the first the legally define "Intelligent Design" as religion but it also showed clearly that "Intelligent Design" is simply a rebranding (with remarkably little progress or change) of "Creation Science" (which itself is rebranded creationism) and there have been many cases concerning that. A few of the more well-known: McClean v. Arkansas (1981) Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) Webster v. New Lenox (1990) Peloza v. Capistrano (1994) The Dover case is groundbreaking simply because the requirement of the case was to determine the legality of the school board's actions. However the judge, after hearing ridiculously damning evidence, also declared that the very claim that "Intelligent Design" is science is knowingly false. > I got the impression they were more into teaching evolution is not > complete than teaching about a designer That's the current strategy. Every time the movement is legally thwarted they modify their strategy. The Discovery Institute, who authored the document that started the thread, states in their "Wedge Strategy" document that their goal is to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." I applaud their tenacity but it's still not science. As for Evolution being "not complete" - well that statement in and of itself shows a remarkable lack of scientific understanding. No scientific theory is "complete". I've a feeling that the Discovery Institute wouldn't be happy if we focused on the gaps in the theory of gravitation for example. They want to undermine Evolution to allow room for a replacement - this isn't conjecture, it's what they claim. It's doubly damning simply because there is no alternative, not after 15 decades of research, that even approaches the rigor of Evolution. At the risk of repeating myself: all evidence to date strengthens the theory rather than weakens it. Nothing explains observation as well or predicts as well. Nothing even comes close. The scientific controversy of Evolution (and there is a lot of it) is WITHIN the theory, not ABOUT the theory. Within a theory there is always new work, experiments, failures, etc - and as long as the trend is to bolstering the major concepts the theory grows stronger, as Evolution has. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:250053 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
