subject:"RE\: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design"





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 supreme creator as unscientific and indefensible. I apologize for
my mistake and just wanted to point out that many well respected and
accomplished scientists believe that their studies, in fact, provide
evidence of an intelligent creator behind their scientific discoveries.


Saying that the idea of God is "unscientific" is not the same as saying
it is "indefensible". Science is a set of tools for providing
explanations about the natural world and how it works. Like any set of
tools, it is only useful when applied in the proper context. A chainsaw
does a great job of clearing trees but a lousy job of fixing your
television set. Because God is outside of the natural world and not
subject to physical laws, science cannot answer questions about God or
determine God's existence or non-existence. One can draw inferences
from science to inform their philosophical or religious views, but
those views are still not a part of science. For instance, Quentin
Smith argues that big bang cosmology provides evidence against the
existence of God while William Lane Craig argues that big bang
cosmology provides evidence for the existence of God. So what does big
bang cosmology say about God? Absolutely nothing. Both arguments are
philosophical inferences from science, not science proper. 

We also have to bear in mind that "intelligent design" is not
synonymous with belief in God. In fact, ID advocates attempt
(dishonestly) to argue that ID isn't about God at all. But ID is, at
this point, little more than a set of arguments about evolution and
cosmology. Thankfully, the existence of God does not depend on the
truth of those arguments, so one can reject ID and believe in God (my
colleague Howard Van Till is a devout Christian and a physicist and he
has written volumes critiquing the ID arguments). 

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

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 theory" in the same way that Copernicianism has: until something else

comes along that more adequately explains the facts, the "theory" of evolution is valid. Or, to make sure that this remains roughly on an acceptable topic, so long as courts and law school profs accept Chief Justice Marshall's formulation in 1803 and do not challenge whether judicial review reflects original intent, it remains valid.I don't understand this, and will expose my ignorance to the world inthe hope of being instructed by those with a better education inphilosophy of science than I have.My understanding of the Copernican "theory" is that the earthrevolves around the sun, rather than vice versa. Sandy Levinson saysthat this is "theory laden," but I don't understand why. I canunderstand why, from an earthly vantage point, the sun *appears* torevolve about the earth, and I can understand why, from a Biblicalstandpoint, it might seem to make sen!
se that
the earth is the centerof the Universe; but once we have access to a vantage point outsideof the earth and the sun, it there any room for doubt that Copernicuswas right? Is there any competing theory that accounts for thesensory data? If the claim that the earth revolves around the sun isa "theory," then is it equally a "theory" that food assuages hunger,or that I have three children?Darwinian evolution, it seems to me, is an entirely different sort of"theory." The point of the theory, for present purposes, is that thecomplexity of life forms came about by natural, materialistic means,through chance variation and natural selection. Now, as even the workof evolutionary biologists tells us, it remains rather unclearprecisely how this occurred; no one knows how life itself began (oneprominent biologist says it must have arrived from outer space, atheory no more scientific than Genesis 1); there are surprisingly feweven
arguable intermediate species forms in the fossil record;Darwin's original conception, that small changes over an incrediblylong time gradually produced the current state of life forms, isclearly inconsistent with the evidence; different biologists offerdifferent theories in an attempt to account for as much of theevidence as possible.(This is quite different from the Copernican theory, which as far asI know perfectly accounts for the evidence. There is nosensory evidence suggesting that the sun revolves around the earth.There is, by contrast, lots of evidence that even the best theoriesof evolutionary biology cannot account for. That is why biology issuch a lively and exciting field--though in my opinion it would beeven livelier and more exciting if it were less defensive.)My view is that biologists should carry on with their scientifictask: trying to devise a naturalistic explanation that comports withthe
evidence. Whatever appears, at any given point in time, to be the*best* naturalistic theory, should be taught as such. But unless anduntil biologists come up with a theory that truly explains theevidence (as the Copernican "theory" explains the evidence), there isroom for doubt. The anti-evolutionist may continue to conclude thatthe alternative explantion--design--is more persuasive. Since thealternative theory cannot be directly proven or disproven (and henceis not "scientific" under some definitions of that term), theplausibility of the theory of design must be judged on the basis ofthe plausibility (or implausibility) of the best naturalistic theory.As long as the best naturalistic theory has so many gaps, it is notunreasonable or unscientific for people to be skeptical of it.The theory of design is *not* parallel to Ptolemaic astronomy. Theclaim that the sun revolves around the earth is inconsistent with thedat!
a. The
claim that life forms were the product of design is notinconsistent with the data.Creationists should not be hostile to the work of evolutionarybiology. If the creationists are correct about the world, thebiologists will never come up with a plausible naturalisticexplanation. The only way to find out is to let them do theirwork. The only legitimate complaint on the creationists' part has todo with the way science is taught in the schools, which should avoiddogmatism and inaccuracy. Scientists should be for that, too.It seems to me that the evolutionary controversy is a greatopportunity for high schools to explain to their students both thenature of the scientific enterprise and the limits of science. Ithink that science educators are so frightened by and hostile toward"creationists" that they retreat into an unscientific dogmatismrather than give their "opponents" an inch. No scientist should everbe embarra!
ssed to
admit that we don't

RE: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

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 of our existence based on science, not faith, but that for several centuries since then, men of reason -- astronomers, mathematicians, philosophers -- have conspired to purge God from the handiwork of the universe. By the time Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859, the fatal blow had been cast.
"The very persons who insist upon keeping religion and science separate are eager to use their science as a basis for pronouncements about religion," he wrote. "The literature of Darwinism is full of antitheistic conclusions, such as that the universe was not designed and has no purpose, and that we humans are the product of blind natural processes that care nothing about us."
Johnson suggests that evolution has become a faith-based movement in its own right. He maintains that biologists have become so invested in the Darwinian worldview that they have ceased looking for contradictory evidence. "As the creation myth of scientific naturalism, Darwinism plays an indispensable ideological role in the war against fundamentalism," he wrote. "For that reason, scientific organizations are devoted to protecting Darwinism rather than testing it, and the rules of scientific investigation have been shaped to help them succeed."
Johnson regards scientists as today's reigning priesthood -- a monklike discipline that controls our culture's story of creation and protects its orthodoxy as ruling paradigms have done for centuries. "They are jealous of their power," he says. "They will do anything to protect it. If that means labeling someone like me as a Bible-thumper, then that's what they'll do. They'll say, 'You don't agree with evolution, therefore you believe in the Bible's account! You read Genesis literally!' Of course, that's the stereotype they want to preserve."
Evolutionary biologist William Provine is one member of the "priesthood" who has publicly debated Johnson. Provine has his Cornell University students read Darwin on Trial and has invited Johnson in for quizzing. After class the two men have shared cocktails. Provine considers Johnson "a very worthy opponent."
But Provine lambastes Johnson's notion that the universe has been put together with outside help. "Phil has never persuaded me to change one of my views on evolution, ever," says Provine, a no-doubt-about-it atheist. "I do admire his clear-cut focus on assumptions -- Phil is one smart cookie, and his mental apparatus in his head -- whoa, man -- he's got some great mental power. ... But intelligent design is complete and utter bullshit. ... By the end of the semester, I believe he's made more evolutionists than I have."

Phil can tell you that there are lots of reputable scientists who have remained in the closet for fear of career suicide with their doubts about Darwin and their support for ID.

Cheers, RickRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page ___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

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? Would they still be able to publish--even on unrelated topics--in professional journals?Would they even be allowed to teach their classes without restrictions?

Johnson is right about a priesthoodof Darwin, andyou know what happens to heretics who denounce the true faith!

Asfor as Marci's reference to"believers," exactly what kind of God is the God of natural selection? A real God in control of destiny who loves us and wants us to abide with Him for eternity? Or a house god made of wood byevolved germs in trousers afraid of being alone in a purposeless Universe?

Cheers, Rick[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that to gain any converts. Are we expected to believe that scientists who have devoted their lives to evolutionary biology have kept their doubts to themselves? Or is the claim that scientists who have specialized in other areas have their doubts?As someone who is married to a scientist, inscience, the area of one's expertise means a lot. Indeed, I would put no credence into even a biological scientist's concerns about evolution if he has not been testing the hypotheses him or herself.

And let's be very clear -- this is not a debate between believers and atheists. There are plenty of believers who do not think intelligent design is scientific and who think evolution is the best science there is on the origins of human life.

Marci

In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:46:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Phil can tell you that there are lots of reputable scientists who have remained in the closet for fear of career suicide with their doubts about Darwin and their support for ID.

Cheers, Rick

___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail!
has the
best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Steven Jamar

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 [evolutionary] processes that care nothing about us."  And many of us who believe these things use the current best scientific understanding of the universe and evolution as part of the basis for why we believe like this.But others who do not believe these same things also point to the lack of answers to why is there anything and to the gaps in our knowledge about many things in physics and evolution and infer the existence of some creator.Some creationists do not have any difficulty with the fact of evolution.  Some do.  All but the most rabid creationists recognize "micro-evolution," extinction, mutation, and many other aspects that are explained by evolutionary concepts.The rhetoric about what the other actually believes tends to be about what is going on at the other's polar extreme.  And the press tends to grab the poles rather than anything even 10 degrees from the pole because it makes better copy.So where should the state be in all of this?  Let science texts and scientists teach science.  Then have their courses about philosophy and religion.  But that isn't acceptable to many in the creationist and literalist Christian faction -- most liberals I know -- like many people (liberals and others) who have posted on this issue on this list -- would be fine with having science taught as science and philosophy and religion taught about.  Not all, but many.The spin put on Bush's remarks by his science advisor sit well with most of us -- but not those on the Christian right.SteveOn Aug 3, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Rick Duncan wrote:Here is a very recent article on Phil Johnson, the man who put Darwin on 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 of our existence based on science, not faith, but that for several centuries since then, men of reason -- astronomers, mathematicians, philosophers -- have conspired to purge God from the handiwork of the universe. By the time Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859, the fatal blow had been cast.  "The very persons who insist upon keeping religion and science separate are eager to use their science as a basis for pronouncements about religion," he wrote. "The literature of Darwinism is full of antitheistic conclusions, such as that the universe was not designed and has no purpose, and that we humans are the product of blind natural processes that care nothing about us."   --  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/  "If we are to receive full service from government, the universities must give us trained [people].  That means a constant reorientation of university instruction and research not for the mere purpose of increasing technical proficiency but for the purpose of keeping abreast with social and economic change. . . .  Government is no better than its [people]."  William O. Douglas  ___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

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 choose (without penalty)which curriculum (public or private)is best for their children.

The only reason this is a problem is because whoever controls the public school curriculum canimpose that curriculum on all of our children through the government school monopoly. I don't care whether evolution is taught as a fact atthe school yourkids attend, Steve. But I do care about what my children are taught. I would like my children to be taught the way McConnell and Johnson suggest.

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.

Cheers, Rick Duncan
Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 [evolutionary] processes that care nothing about us."

And many of us who believe these things use the current best scientific understanding of the universe and evolution as part of the basis for why we believe like this.

But others who do not believe these same things also point to the lack of answers to why is there anything and to the gaps in our knowledge about many things in physics and evolution and inferthe existence of some creator.

Some creationists do not have any difficulty with the fact of evolution. Some do. All but the most rabid creationists recognize "micro-evolution," extinction, mutation, and many other aspects that are explained by evolutionary concepts.

The rhetoric about what the other actually believes tends to be about what is going on at the other's polar extreme. And the press tends to grab the poles rather than anything even 10 degrees from the pole because it makes better copy.

So where should the state be in all of this? Let science texts and scientists teach science. Then have their courses about philosophy and religion. But that isn't acceptable to many in the creationist and literalist Christian faction -- most liberals I know -- like many people (liberals and others) who have posted on this issue on this list -- would be fine with having science taught as science and philosophy and religion taught about. Not all, but many.

The spin put on Bush's remarks by his science advisor sit well with most of us -- but not those on the Christian right.

Steve

On Aug 3, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Rick Duncan wrote:

Here is avery recentarticle on Phil Johnson, the man who put Darwinon trial and got a conviction! Here is a good excerpt:

--
Prof. Steven D. Jamarvox: 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/

"If we are to receive full service from government, the universities must give us trained [people]. That means a constant reorientation of university instruction and research not for the mere purpose of increasing technical proficiency but for the purpose of keeping abreast with social and economic change. . . . Government is no better than its [people]."

William O. Douglas___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Hamilton02





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 will 
continue to be tested. Sounds like the scientific method to me, not a 
"priesthood." The priesthood in this arena are those on the other side, 
who do not have the science to rebut evolution, but think faith is enough. 
That is why evolution must stay in the science curriculum, unless and until its 
hypotheses are proven by scientific method to be wrong. And intelligent 
design, or creationism as it was first dubbed, belongs in a theory course -- 
either on beliefs about the origins of the world or beliefs about the role of 
humans in the world, or whatever. 

There aremillions of Christianswho believe that evolution is 
the best theory we have to date on the origin and development of humans. I 
am one of them. Calling people who think evolution is scientifically 
persuasive nonbelievers is just that-- name-calling, without any factual 
basis.

Marci

In a message dated 8/3/2005 12:13:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  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? Would they still be able to publish--even on unrelated topics--in 
  professional journals?Would they even be allowed to teach their classes 
  without restrictions?
  
  Johnson is right about a priesthoodof Darwin, andyou know 
  what happens to heretics who denounce the true faith!
  
  Asfor as Marci's reference to"believers," exactly what kind 
  of God is the God of natural selection? A real God in control of destiny who 
  loves us and wants us to abide with Him for eternity? Or a house god made of 
  wood byevolved germs in trousers afraid of being alone in a purposeless 
  Universe?
  
  Cheers, Rick


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design




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 
reason -- astronomers, mathematicians, philosophers -- have conspired 
to purge God from the handiwork of the universe. By the time Darwin 
published Origin of Species in 1859, the fatal blow had been cast.



Here's a perfect illustration of how the ID movement speaks with a 
Janus-like duality (read: dishonesty). Phil Johnson will rail against 
atheistic science and proclaim that ID is all about restoring a 
Christian culture and overthrowing atheism and establishing a theistic 
science. He'll say things like, The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] 
is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus 
shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of 
God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 
'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin and finally 
'introduced to Jesus.'  But then when people like me say that ID is 
religiously motivated and intrinsically religious in nature, they scream 
bloody murder and claim that ID doesn't have anything to do with God or 
religion, and for all they know the designer might be an alien (which 
is flatly contradicted by the DI's definition of intelligent design). 
They do this because they know that they must hide the religious 
motivations or risk being stuck on the purpose prong of the Lemon test 
(whether rightly or wrongly is irrelevant). So they engage in 
dishonesty. When speaking to their followers they speak boldly of 
standing up for Jesus; when speaking to the media they pretend that it's 
purely about science. And when you bring up their many statements to the 
contrary, they react with feigned outrage - how DARE you accuse us of 
religious motivation!






 
Phil can tell you that there are lots of reputable scientists who have 
remained in the closet for fear of career suicide with their doubts 
about Darwin and their support for ID.



And quite convenient that, because they're in the closet, his claim can 
never be verified, don't you think?


Ed Brayton


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

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 for debate on this list. But they are the key questions you must ask yourself if you are willing to accept the theory that human beings are the result of a purposeless process of natural selection.

Cheers, Rick

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There aremillions of Christianswho believe that evolution is the best theory we have to date on the origin and development of humans. I am one of them. Calling people who think evolution is scientifically persuasive nonbelievers is just that-- name-calling, without any factual basis.
Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page ___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Hamilton02





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 is no more illegitimate to draw conclusions about events 
occurring long ago in the evolution context than it is in the astronomy 
context.

Marci 




In a message dated 8/3/2005 12:29:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Sanford Levinson




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 world he 
has any faith as to his knowledge of events that purportedly happened sometime 
between 2000-3500 years ago for which (in the case of, say, a Jewish presence in 
the Sinai), there is no archeological evidence--i.e., not the barest 
scintilla--whatsover. 

sandy
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design







[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
relativity be subjected to testing intentional designed to show how the
theory FAILS to explain, evolutionary theories are not subjected to
falsifiability analysis; the closest anyone comes to such analysis is
when ID proponents or neo Darwinists or others point out the gaps and
failures of explanation. 
  
  

I don't think you understand the concept of falsifiability.
Falsifiability does not mean that you must subject a theory to testing
"designed to show how the theory fails to explain" something. It only
means that one must, in principle, be able to imagine a set of data
that would falsify the explanation if that data were found. In the case
of evolution, this is rather easy to imagine. Find a single hominid (or
even mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata
and evolution is dead. If the fossil record showed that all life forms
lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead. If genetics
did not allow traits to be inherited, evolution would be dead. One
could go on all day. The fact that evolution hasn't been falsified
doesn't mean it's not falsifiable, it more likely means it's true. On
the other hand, how could creationism (broadly defined) possibly be
falsified? No matter what the data said, one could simply say that God
created in that manner for reasons unknown to us. Now creationism as
narrowly defined, say as young earth global flood creationism, which
makes specific claims about the natural history of life on earth that
are testable, has long been falsified because it fails completely as an
explanation for the data. 

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Francis Beckwith

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 Popper, there is a no consensus on its adequacy. For example, we know that theories that encounter contrary datapossible defeatersare some time supplemented by ad hoc hypotheses. Does that make the original theory unfalsifiable, or is postulating ad hoc hypotheses a legitimate tactic in the face of a possible defeaters to an otherwise fruitful theory. When do we know that a theory has been falsified? Is it one anomaly, 20, 50? Nobody knows.

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 as an explanation for the universes beginning is unnecessary. Since genetic inheritance is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for Darwinism, its falsification would falsify every theory of biological change that relies on inheritance including Darwinism. So, that isnt much of a test. The other examples are equally unpersuasive: Find a single hominid (or even mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is dead. I doubt it. I can easily imagine someone saying any of the following: maybe our dating methods are wrong; maybe evolution worked differently than we supposed; or maybe this anomaly will be explained in the future, but one anomaly is no reason to give up an otherwise fruitful theory. Heres the other example: If the fossil record showed that all life forms lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead. Actually, we wouldnt be here to make that observation, because we would be one of those dead life forms.

The debates about the nature of science, falsification, etc. are much more complicated than can be written about here. Nevertheless, much of this discussion on design and naturalistic evolution is poorly assessed, in my opinion, because of the disciplinary fragmentation of the academy. A result of this is the ridiculous notion that calling an argument philosophical or religious means that the argument can never serve as a defeater to the deliverances of science. But if knowledge is seamless, as I believe it is, then a good philosophical argument against a scientific hypothesis counts against it. If, for example, I can show that it is conceptually impossible for an infinite series of causes to exist in reality, then I dont care how many multiple universes Stephen Hawking wants to postulate in order to avoid the daunting conclusion that the ground of being is indeed personal. Just like I know there cant be five married-bachelors in the next room without having to look, I can know that an infinite regress of causes is impossible without peering through a telescope or lifting a pyrex tube.

Keep this mind: the distinction between science and non-science is not a judgment of science, but a philosophical conclusion about science.

Frank

On 8/3/05 1:21 PM, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[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 relativity be subjected to testing intentional designed to show how the theory FAILS to explain, evolutionary theories are not subjected to falsifiability analysis; the closest anyone comes to such analysis is when ID proponents or neo Darwinists or others point out the gaps and failures of explanation.

I don't think you understand the concept of falsifiability. Falsifiability does not mean that you must subject a theory to testing designed to show how the theory fails to explain something. It only means that one must, in principle, be able to imagine a set of data that would falsify the explanation if that data were found. In the case of evolution, this is rather easy to imagine. Find a single hominid (or even mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is dead. If the fossil record showed that all life forms lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead. If genetics did not allow traits to be inherited, evolution would be dead. One could go on all day. The fact that evolution hasn't been falsified doesn't mean it's not falsifiable, it more likely means it's true. On the other hand, how could creationism (broadly defined) possibly be falsified? No matter what the data said, one could simply say that God created in that manner for reasons unknown to us. Now creationism as narrowly defined, say as young earth global flood creationism, which makes specific claims about the natural history of life on earth that are testable

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread ArtSpitzer

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 no one finds the following offensive. If anyone does, he or she might bear in mind that some of us find ID offensive.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

[graph omitted from e-mail]

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

___
To post,

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

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 as an explanation for the universes beginning is
unnecessary.  
  

But one can hardly imagine what kind of evidence there could be the
universe always existing. And showing that God is unnecessary as an
explanation for one thing doesn't falsify the existence of God. If it
did, the failure of every god of the gaps argument in history would
have falsified it and it didn't. "Unnecessary" is not synonymous with
"falsified". 

Since genetic inheritance is a
necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for Darwinism, its
falsification would falsify every theory of biological change that
relies on inheritance including Darwinism. So, that isnt much of a
test.

I don't understand the reasoning here. If it can falsify more than one
explanation, it's "not much of a test"? All that is required for
falsifiability is that the explanation be falsified if a given set of
data is found; whether the data also falsifies another potential
explanation is irrelevant. If the police had 3 suspects for a murder, 2
male and 1 female and genetic evidence showed that it must have been
female, the fact that this evidence falsified two of the three possible
explanations hardly makes the falsification of those explanations any
less true or compelling.

 The other examples are equally
unpersuasive: Find a single hominid (or even mammalian or avian)
fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is dead. I
doubt it. I can easily imagine someone saying any of the following:
maybe our dating methods are wrong; maybe evolution worked differently
than we supposed; or maybe this anomaly will be explained in the
future, but one anomaly is no reason to give up an otherwise fruitful
theory.
Falsifiability is not based upon whether someone will admit that a
theory is falsified, but rather on whether the evidence logically does
falsify it. If it required admission, then the potential falsification
you offered above for the existence of God is even weaker and less
compelling. 

 Heres the other example: If the
fossil record showed that all life forms lived and died at the same
time, evolution would be dead. Actually, we wouldnt be here to make
that observation, because we would be one of those dead life forms. 
  
Okay, so make it "all other life forms" or "all other life forms were
on the planet simultaneously". Either way, it's still a valid potential
falsification because it would negate the possibility of ancestral
relationships.


The debates about the nature of science, falsification, etc. are much
more complicated than can be written about here. Nevertheless, much of
this discussion on design and naturalistic evolution is poorly
assessed, in my opinion, because of the disciplinary fragmentation of
the academy. A result of this is the ridiculous notion that calling an
argument philosophical or religious means that the argument can
never serve as a defeater to the deliverances of science. But if
knowledge is seamless, as I believe it is, then a good philosophical
argument against a scientific hypothesis counts against it. If, for
example, I can show that it is conceptually impossible for an infinite
series of causes to exist in reality, then I dont care how many
multiple universes Stephen Hawking wants to postulate in order to avoid
the daunting conclusion that the ground of being is indeed personal.
Just like I know there cant be five married-bachelors in the next
room without having to look, I can know that an infinite regress of
causes is impossible without peering through a telescope or lifting a
pyrex tube. 
  

I would agree with this, but in terms of the existence of God I would
suggest that it's trivially easy to show that every possible answer is
logically impossible. Which leaves us with quite a problem on our hands
- which I'm okay with, by the way. 

Keep this mind: the distinction between science and non-science is not
a judgment of science, but a philosophical conclusion about science.

But surely you wouldn't argue that if we can't define a perfect
demarcation between science and non-science, we should have no
standards at all for what goes in science curricula and what doesn't. 

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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; p

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Brad M Pardee


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
some people have advocated it. I cannot, however, understand how
you can find ID offensive. Although I have not agreed with everything
the advocates of evolution have said here, I never found their belief in
evolution offensive. What you have posted here, however, IS offensive
because its sole purpose is to mock the people you don't agree with. Making
fun of people we don't agree with or don't approve of may have a place
in a late night talk show monologue or an editorial cartoon. But
it has no place in any serious discussion of an issue. No matter
how fervently you believe in the truth of evolution and no matter how passionately
you disagree with ID, that's no excuse for mocking people on the other
side.

Brad Pardee___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread ArtSpitzer


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 "ACLU Lawyers" for "Pirates" in case there are any offended pirates out there.
Art Spitzer
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

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 time policy, would also have to be given equal time. One that he 
mentioned in particular was the Raelians, who believe that life on earth 
was bioengineered by aliens. A few months after his book was published, 
the Raelians actually issed a press release applauding the efforts of 
the ID advocates to open up science classrooms to alternatives and hoped 
that this would pave the way for them to introduce their theories into 
the public schools as well. And of course, there are others as well. You 
have the Hindu creationism of Cremo and Thompson, with actual 
credentialed scientists working to prove that humans have been here for 
hundreds of millions of years and that all of life is cyclical in nature.


One could go beyond biology as well. If the teach the controversy 
message is to be taken seriously, we must implement it in all 
disciplines. Logically, would we not then also have to teach geocentrism 
along with heliocentrism in earth science classes (bear in mind that the 
geocentrists also have their own organizations with genuine credentialed 
scientists, Gerardus Buow in particular)? Or flat earthism? Or even give 
equal time to holocaust denial in history classes, or to those who think 
that the Illuminati are behind everything? Do we have to teach astrology 
along with astronomy? Or along with the germ theory of disease, do we 
also teach Christian Scientism or the new age mind-over-matter nonsense 
of Deepok Chopra? One could go on all day, of course.


Ed Brayton


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Francis Beckwith

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, then that would
 show that God as an explanation for the universe¹s beginning is unnecessary.
 
 But one can hardly imagine what kind of evidence there could be the universe
 always existing. And showing that God is unnecessary as an explanation for one
 thing doesn't falsify the existence of God. If it did, the failure of every
 god of the gaps argument in history would have falsified it and it didn't.
 Unnecessary is not synonymous with falsified.

But it seems that there are entire is cluster of rational beliefs that
cannot be falsified that are nevertheless essential. For example, the claim
that falsification is necessary itself can't be falsified.  So, clearly
there is at least one necessary, though unfalsifiable, belief. Second, if I
hold to the belief that George Washington had an affair with Abigale Adams,
I can't really falsify it, but I can marshal evidence against it and show
that the belief is unreasonable. Because it is possible that the belief is
true, one cannot technically falsify it. But that actually counts against
falsification as a test of rationality, since we know it is rational to
reject this belief and it is nevertheless unfalsifiable.


I think you may be confusing a believer's subjective adherence with a belief
with the grounds for a belief. You are correct that people will believe all
sorts of things in spite of the evidence, but that does not mean that the
defeaters they ignore are not real defeaters or at least count against the
belief.  

 Since genetic inheritance is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for
 Darwinism, it¹s falsification would falsify every theory of biological change
 that relies on inheritance including Darwinism.   So, that isn¹t much of a
 test.
 
 I don't understand the reasoning here. If it can falsify more than one
 explanation, it's not much of a test? All that is required for
 falsifiability is that the explanation be falsified if a given set of data is
 found; whether the data also falsifies another potential explanation is
 irrelevant. If the police had 3 suspects for a murder, 2 male and 1 female and
 genetic evidence showed that it must have been female, the fact that this
 evidence falsified two of the three possible explanations hardly makes the
 falsification of those explanations any less true or compelling.

What I was thinking here was a test that would uniquely falsify Darwinism
and keep in tact genetic inheritance.  Since, after all, nobody denies
genetic inheritance, not even Duane Gish (as far as I know).  Specificity in
these matters is virtue.

 
 The other examples are equally unpersuasive:  ³Find a single hominid (or even
 mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is
 dead.²  I doubt it. I can easily imagine someone saying any of the following:
 maybe our dating methods are wrong; maybe evolution worked differently than
 we supposed; or maybe this anomaly will be explained in the future, but one
 anomaly is no reason to give up an otherwise fruitful theory.

 Falsifiability is not based upon whether someone will admit that a theory is
 falsified, but rather on whether the evidence logically does falsify it. If it
 required admission, then the potential falsification you offered above for the
 existence of God is even weaker and less compelling.

I probably wasn't clear in my example. What I was trying to show is that
fruitful theories do not collapse under the weight of one or two, or even
many, anomalies. It is perfectly acceptable to offer ad hoc hypotheses to
cover for problems.

In fact, anomalies sometimes inspire changes in research programs to try to
account for anomalies. So, it's not about the personal virtue of the
scientist (whether he or she will admit the game is up); it's about the
problem in trying to come with what counts as evidence that does falsify a
theory. I think it's much more difficult and complicated that you let on,
especially when vested interests and professional reputations are at stake.
I think we all underestimate the sociology of science and extra-scientific
factors play in the history of progress of science.

 
 Here¹s the other example: ³If the fossil record showed that all life forms
 lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead.²  Actually, we
 wouldn¹t be here to make that observation, because we would be one of those
 dead life forms.
 Okay, so make it all other life forms or all other life forms were on the
 planet simultaneously. Either way, it's still a valid potential falsification
 because it would negate the possibility of ancestral relationships.

Good comeback, though ancestral relationships would also be consistent with
some forms of design

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread RJLipkin





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 misrepresenting their position.

Where do they want ID to be 
taught? If not in a course examining the truth of the origin of the 
universe/people and so forth, teaching ID would seem to be harmless even from a 
separationist perspective.

Bobby

Robert Justin 
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of 
LawDelaware
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

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 not ready for prime time, some of the advocates argue. The advocates are still struggling to formulate any hypothesis that might lend itself to scientific examination, nor is there any general set of settled hypotheses that might lead to a general theory of intelligent design.

Consequently, the big money ID advocates wish to avoid a court decision that points that out. Since there is no significant body of science there, they fear a decision that says a decision to teach it now is done on the basis of religion. Judge Overton's finding that creationism is religion has been fatal to plans to teach creationism; that was the basis for the judgment against the Louisiana statute in Edwards v. Aguillard, which the Supreme Court agreed with in 1987.

In the current controversies, the proposal is to put intelligent design into biology classes.

Ed Darrell
Dallas[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 fit about how we're misrepresenting their position.

Where do they want ID to be taught? If not in a course examining the truth of the origin of the universe/people and so forth, teaching ID would seem to be harmless even from a separationist perspective.

Bobby

Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Hamilton02




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 is that it 
follows on the heels of the Viennese Catholic Archbishop's statement that 
evolution is in doubt. I think it is a mistake to underestimate the 
political ties between the anti-abortion forces in the right Catholic and the 
right evangelical Christian groups. That political unity appears to have 
yielded anotherissue where they are in synch. The ID offensive is 
afairly coordinatedsocial movement to push science aside for the 
purpose of furthering religion through the public schools. (Even 
more interesting, I suppose, is that Catholic schools, in the US at least, are 
not changing their curricula in response to the Catholic statement, even though 
it was apparently endorsed, or permitted and encouraged, by the Pope.)

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?

It's also very interesting that this issue comes to the fore in the midst 
of the Roberts nomination. Having chosen the business interests' favorite 
candidate and gotten pilloried by some right Christian groups, Bush may well now 
be placating those same groups.

Marci
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Ed Brayton





[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 fit about how we're misrepresenting
their position.
  
  Where do they want ID to be taught? If not in a course
examining the truth of the origin of the universe/people and so forth,
teaching ID would seem to be harmless even from a separationist
perspective.
  
  

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, but the replacement of evolution with ID, as their
own documents clearly shows.

Ed


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Ed Brayton







[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 something called the
Santorum Amendment, which read:

"It is the sense of the Senate that- (1) good science education should
prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of
science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the
name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the
curriculum should help students to understand why this subject
generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the
students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding
the subject."

That language was stripped out of the bill by the conference committee
that reconciled the House and Senate versions and was not in the final
bill that was signed by the President. But ID advocates have
nonetheless claimed that it is binding and that it establishes a
guideline for public schools to "teach the controversy". 

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

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 players were insistent that federal curriculum not be a possibity when I was partly responsible for redesigning the ERIC system in 1987. It's a quietly sensitive issue.

There was a proposed amendment to NCLB endorsing the concept of including alternatives to education made by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-MAstrongly opposed the amendment and it was pulled down. ID advocates have argued that a mention of the language in the report on the final bill is as good as law, however. We may see that argument made in the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design case, if it actually goes to trial (the school district "fired" their expert witnesses backing ID; most ID advocates have argued this is not the case they should push).

But generally, curriculum is off-limits for federal action. There are no curriculum writers at the Department of Education, by design, by tradition, and by several different laws. Curriculum is a local issue.

Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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 is that it follows on the heels of the Viennese Catholic Archbishop's statement that evolution is in doubt. I think it is a mistake to underestimate the political ties between the anti-abortion forces in the right Catholic and the right evangelical Christian groups. That political unity appears to have yielded anotherissue where they are in synch. The ID offensive is afairly coordinatedsocial movement to push science aside for the purpose of furthering religion through the public schools. (Even more interesting, I suppose, is that Catholic schools, in the US at least, are not changing their curricula in response to the Catholic statement, even though it was apparently endorsed, or permitted and encouraged, by the Pope.)

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?

It's also very interesting that this issue comes to the fore in the midst of the Roberts nomination. Having chosen the business interests' favorite candidate and gotten pilloried by some right Christian groups, Bush may well now be placating those same groups.

Marci___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Francis Beckwith

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 federalized.

Frank

On 8/2/05 8:07 AM, Ed Darrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There was a proposed amendment to NCLB endorsing the concept of including alternatives to education made by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-MA strongly opposed the amendment and it was pulled down. ID advocates have argued that a mention of the language in the report on the final bill is as good as law, however. We may see that argument made in the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design case, if it actually goes to trial (the school district fired their expert witnesses backing ID; most ID advocates have argued this is not the case they should push).

Ed Darrell
Dallas

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 is that it follows on the heels of the Viennese Catholic Archbishop's statement that evolution is in doubt. I think it is a mistake to underestimate the political ties between the anti-abortion forces in the right Catholic and the right evangelical Christian groups. That political unity appears to have yielded another issue where they are in synch. The ID offensive is a fairly coordinated social movement to push science aside for the purpose of furthering religion through the public schools. (Even more interesting, I suppose, is that Catholic schools, in the US at least, are not changing their curricula in response to the Catholic statement, even though it was apparently endorsed, or permitted and encouraged, by the Pope.)

Marci
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Hamilton02





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, and it looks politically advantageous, I would imagine we'll see 
a President trying to force curriculum reform from above, with or without 
curriculum experts in the DOE.

Marci


In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:08:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Curriculum is a local issue.
  
  Ed Darrell
  Dallas


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Hamilton02





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 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 federalized. 
  Frank


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Sanford Levinson







At one level I don't 
understand what the problem is with the Santorum Amendment, which could easily 
be interpreted as a mandate to teach students the difference between analysis 
founded on genuine science (e.g., evolution) from analysis that is, from a 
scientific perspective, simply and utterly bogus (e.g., ID). Imagine a 
mandated class on "comating Holocaust denial," devoted to offering specific 
responses to the claims of deniers. I suppose that one might argue that 
such a class would be unwise inasmuch has it suggested that one could even 
"debate" (rather than merely express contempt for) Holocuast deniers, but if one 
believed that too many people were vulnerable to their claims (especially 
because of easy access to Internet sites and the like), then I could imagine 
offering such a class. But, of course, no one believes that the Santorum 
amendment is motivated by a desire torip out the week of 
ID.

In any event, I think the amendment is an interesting exercise for 
interpretation buffs, since I can readily imagine that proponents of ID would be 
furious at the linguistically identical amendment if it had been offered by, 
say, a liberal Democrat with a degree in biology who expressed his concern about 
the inability of contemporary students adequately to refute the pop-"science" of 
ID (that has apparently conquered the White House).

sandy



From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ed BraytonSent: Tue 
8/2/2005 9:04 AMTo: 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 regulations under NCLB that would do as 
  much?The original language of the NCLB contained 
something called the Santorum Amendment, which read:"It is the sense of 
the Senate that- (1) good science education should prepare students to 
distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or 
religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological 
evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this 
subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the 
students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the 
subject."That language was stripped out of the bill by the conference 
committee that reconciled the House and Senate versions and was not in the final 
bill that was signed by the President. But ID advocates have nonetheless claimed 
that it is binding and that it establishes a guideline for public schools to 
"teach the controversy". Ed Brayton


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Rick Duncan

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 children.

Cheers, RickRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."  --The Prisoner__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Ed Brayton





[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, but the replacement of
evolution with ID, as their own documents clearly shows.
  
  I am perplexed by this response to those critical of
evolutionary theories, acting as though there is some dark cabal in it
all.
  

I didn't say anything about a "dark cabal". I simply said that their
ultimate and stated goal is the replacement of evolution (and
"materialism" or "materialistic atheism", terms they use
interchangably) with ID and "theistic science". That statement is
entirely true, that is indeed their stated goal. I could show you the
entire document, but I'm sure you've seen it.


  Scientific theory invites inquisition of explanatory
statements: this because that. If ID has no purpose other than
reminding folks that evolutionary "theories" are able to be disproved,
and to remove the talismanic veil of reverence that evolutionists have
conjured around the theories, allowing open, scientific, critical
analysis, then this is a good development for science.
  

If they actually did some science, you might have a point. As soon as
ID advocates produce an actual model from which one can derive testable
hypotheses and go about proposing some means of testing their ideas,
they will be taken seriously. But I'm not holding my breath. They are
engaged primarily in the act of public relations and marketing, not
science.

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

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 relative importance of things such as sexual selection versus natural selection, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer, etc., etc. These discussions are not what are advanced by ID and creationists as critiques of evolution.

Instead, in Texas for example, what was proposed was a claim that moth researchers lied about what they found in peppered moths, (to pick one popular "criticism"). The proposed criticisms were of such a nature that, had most of us gotten such a paper in our classes and been able to track down the footnotes, we would have had a serious discussion with the author over the ethics of using sources in such a manner. One should understand that there is no serious moth scientist today who disagrees with the general conclusion of Bernard Kettlewell's research on melanism in peppered moths. Perhaps more important, each and every scientist claimed, by the critics of evolution, to question the research has written that they agree with Kettlewell and that their writings are being misused by the critics.

Or, there were lengthy criticisms aimed at claims that textbooks and curricula make claims against the existence of deity, when the books go to some lengths to avoid exactly that claim.

One of the difficulties is that a good understanding of evolution is required in order to see how the legitimate criticisms of Darwinian theory apply and why they are important. I have the distinct impression that most "critics" of Darwin do not want kids to know that much about evolution. There is no drive among critics to "teach the facts." Each criticism is aimed at preventing those facts from being comprehended well by students, it seems to me. The "criticisms" tend to depend on a great lack of knowledge about evolution to make them stick.

Biology books teach evolution agnostically, with no reference to origins other than a history of the planet geologically and a factual listing of the research on the conditions scientists find necessary for early life. It is that agnostic teaching exactly that the critics find offensive.

Ed Darrell
Dallas

Jim also wrote, earlier: One thing I know that I know is that a great deal that is taught in high school biology courses is taught, and is capable of being taught, from a point of view agnostic on origins, and without reference to origins.[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, but the replacement of evolution with ID, as their own documents clearly shows.

I am perplexed by this response to those critical of evolutionary theories, acting as though there is some dark cabal in it all.

Scientific theory invites inquisition of explanatory statements: this because that. If ID has no purpose other than reminding folks that evolutionary "theories" are able to be disproved, and to remove the talismanic veil of reverence that evolutionists have conjured around the theories, allowing open, scientific, critical analysis, then this is a good development for science.

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Francis Beckwith

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 it. Having said that, I believe that the Supreme Court is in fact a branch of the federal government, and if it touches a matter, no matter how small or insignificant in a local setting, it elevates the issue to a federal one. After all, in order to reach its holding it must appeal to federal principles and make the argument that those principles apply in this local case. So, Congress may address the issue if it so chooses, since by the court addressing it the court is in fact saying that the issue is of federal concern. It would be odd, to say the least, that it is a matter of federal law but federal lawmakers cannot address it.

Frank

On 8/2/05 9:04 AM, Ed Darrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In each case in which the federal courts have addressed the issue a governmental body was attempting to impose a religiously-motivated curriculum. This is a violation of the establishment clause. Other than that, the federal courts have remained neutral in curriculum. Protecting the religious rights of citizens against state, local and local school government encroachment is quite a bit different from the executive branch of the federal government mandating curriculum.

As a political matter, every other nation whose students perform better than U.S. students in academic achievement tests, has a national curriculum with high standards to which all schools in the nation aspire or to which all schools are mandated to achieve. In each of those cases evolution is a part of the curriculum. I believe that a significant part of the drop off of educational achievement in U.S. kids is because of the wrangling over putting religion into the curriculum at the local level (4th grade U.S. kids lead the world in science achievement; by 8th grade they are apace with other industrialized nations; by 12th grade they are significantly behind other nations). Repeated studies indicate that U.S. kids are not taught evolution because teachers and administrators fear the hassle of parents and interest groups who complain. But as Mr. Brayton noted, even in the law hoped to improve our kids' educational achievement, amendments! were offered to encourage the watering down the science curriculum. (Mr. Levinson is right -- the language is facially not so damaging; but the amendment, which was written by a leading intelligent design advocate, a lawyer, includes those buzzwords and buzzphrases that indicate the intent to frustrate the teaching of evolution rather than require higher standards of achievement. Gotta know the jargon, sometimes.)

The federal courts' have addressed only whether the insertion of certain materials violates the establishment clause, and not other aspects of the science curriculum.

Ed Darrell
Dallas

Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 federalized.

Frank

On 8/2/05 8:07 AM, Ed Darrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There was a proposed amendment to NCLB endorsing the concept of including alternatives to education made by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-MA strongly opposed the amendment and it was pulled down. ID advocates have argued that a mention of the language in the report on the final bill is as good as law, however. We may see that argument made in the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design case, if it actually goes to trial (the school! district fired their expert witnesses backing ID; most ID advocates have argued this is not the case they should push).

Ed Darrell
Dallas

To me, what is most interesting about the President's statement is that it follows

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Gene Garman





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 amount, large or small, can be levied to support
any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion" (Everson v.
Board of Education).

I do not believe there is a Court ruling which prohibits teaching of world
history or world religions or world philosophies in a public school. However,
the motive of the effort to inject ID into a science class  is obvious. ID
is not science, it is religion and should be in a philosophy or world history
or world religion class, all of which are clearly appropriate. Every public
school student should be taught about all of the major cultures and religions
of the world, as any good broad educational program would provide without
question.

Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org



Rick Duncan wrote:

  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 children.
 
  
 
  Cheers, Rick
  
  
  
  
Rick Duncan 
Welpton Professor of Law 
University of Nebraska College of Law 
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
  
"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred:
middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
  
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."
 --The Prisoner
  __
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com  
  

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design