In a message dated 12/21/2005 3:07:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But it
stretches credulity that all the defense expert witnesses wanted to
beaddressed as "professor" and all the plaintiff expert witnesses wanted
to beaddressed as "doctor." It strikes me th
Maybe they teach science differently now than when I went to school and when my boys (now ages 19 and 22) went to school, but science was inherently taught as conditional and subject to testing and change. There are things that are known facts, but there is a lot that is still unexplained -- the t
Alan Brownstein writes:
So - suppose someone drafted a statement disclaiming scientific
overreaching as in
1. "In the absence of some external force which is not bound by the
laws of science, the evidence that we CAN test tells us that evolution
is what happened. If there was a supernatur
Dr. Ball, Esq.:
The title game is tricky. I taught at a school where many faculty did
not have Ph..D.'s, leftover from an age when people with an MA could get
tenure, and everyone called himself/herself "professor." I quickly
learned that "Dr." carried great weight. At another place, where
In a clear effort in futility, I
wonder if it would be possible to identify some minimalist consensus on the
list on this issue; one that reflects Mark’s thoughtful recognition of ID’s
current limitations (see below) as well as Brad’s concerns about the
overreaching of some evolutionists.
In science you will find few college assistant professors without a
doctorate and those who do not have it are working on it. My dad (Don L.
Armstrong, B.S., M.S., PhD, M.S.) used to call it the "union card" for a
college teacher.
In the arts, you will find more teachers without a doctorate.
At
It's possible that trial counsel for the defense thought "professor" would
be more impressive and that trial counsel for the plaintiffs thought
"doctor" would be more impressive. That could result in uniform usage on
each side.
A quick point on ID and "design defects":
My sense is that some (or p
For what it's worth, when I went to school in New England we always
called our professors "professors." When I taught in the government
department at the University of Texas, my colleagues and I were
routinely called "Dr.". Memories are vague, but I believe I was more
often called Professor when
For what it's worth, there is a good argument for limiting
the term "Doctor" to physicians (including, by the way, physicians
without a "doctorate" such as British physicians with only an
undergraduate medical degree), and referring to all non-physician
Ph.D.'s as Mr. or Professor or th
Also remember this was a court trial -- no jury -- so this distinction matters little in that sort of way.On Dec 21, 2005, at 3:06 PM, Steve Monsma wrote:But it stretches credulity that all the defense expert witnesses wanted to beaddressed as "professor" and all the plaintiff expert witnesses want
Brad writes:
Perry wrote on 12/21/2005 01:54:14 PM:
> It is therefore consistent with at least the bare bones of
> ID theory that the designer was evil, or a practical joker, or a
> child-god who designed us as part of the heavenly equivalent of a
> kindergarten art project.
Or that
Brad writes:
Perry wrote on 12/21/2005
01:54:14 PM:
> It is
therefore consistent with at least the bare bones of
> ID theory that the designer was evil, or a practical joker, or a
> child-god who designed us as part of the heavenly equivalent of
a
> kindergarten art project.
Or that
Ed Brayton writes:
Actually, this depends on which ID advocate you're talking to at the
time and that fact points up the lack of a coherent ID model.
This is fair enough, in a sense. Yes, to be sure, there are
different versions of ID, just as there are different versions of
most
The text of my speech outside the White House yesterday is pasted below...see also today's front-page story in the Washington Times: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051221-121224-6972r.htm God Bless, Chaplain K. -- CHA
Steve Monsma wrote:
But it stretches credulity that all the defense expert witnesses wanted to be
addressed as "professor" and all the plaintiff expert witnesses wanted to be
addressed as "doctor."
It strikes me that especially when dealing with technical, scientific experts,
"Doctor" would
Perry wrote on 12/21/2005 01:54:14 PM:
> It is therefore consistent with
at least the bare bones of
> ID theory that the designer was evil, or a practical joker, or a
> child-god who designed us as part of the heavenly equivalent of a
> kindergarten art project.
Or that an omniscient
Perry Dane wrote:
That said, though, one needs to be fair here. The claim of
intelligent design theory is not that NO features of the biological
world can be explained by evolution through natural selection. Nor is
it, as I said before, that the biological world is, according to one
One of the most depressing things about
the Dover disclaimer is the admission that the school is driven by the need to
meet state standards, not what might constitute good education.
Marc Stern
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Darrell
Sent: We
But it stretches credulity that all the defense expert witnesses wanted to be
addressed as "professor" and all the plaintiff expert witnesses wanted to be
addressed as "doctor."
It strikes me that especially when dealing with technical, scientific experts,
"Doctor" would usually be considered th
Our best wishes, Vance. I'm sure I speak for everybody on this list when I say I hope that science can do its best for you, especially to ease any pain -- and many of us will pray for other assistance for you, too. Of course, I can't offer details on either part of that in a high school clas
I must say that I think for most people "professor" rates as a higher
honorific than "Dr." But the pattern *is* odd.
sandy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Monsma
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:10 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla
Ed Darrell writes:
No, urethra design is not beside the point at all. Is there an
intelligent design explanation for that design? There is an
evolutionary explanation (though not wholly satisfactory to
many). How could such a thing have happened, according to
"intelligent design theory?"
As one who over the last few weeks has been made painfully--very painfully--aware of this design, it appears to point to the inescapable reality that there is no necessary correlation between intelligence and benevolence.
VanceOn 12/21/05, Ed Darrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, urethra design is
I'm making the same argument, Perry -- that these facts point to the universe not having been designed by an intelligence. An intelligence would not have designed it this way. I select facts and make an inference. The IDers do the same exact thing. Neither is anything more than a belief that ri
A great teacher would indeed tell about the many experiments Darwin ran, and about the specific observations of nature around the world he made that pointed him to discover evolution theory. In a test-driven curriculum that does not test one's understanding of how science really works, there
No, urethra design is not beside the point at all. Is there an intelligent design explanation for that design? There is an evolutionary explanation (though not wholly satisfactory to many). How could such a thing have happened, according to "intelligent design theory?" The absence of any p
Not having read the transcript, I don't know how the experts introduced themselves or wanted to be addressed or were addressed by counsel. I suspect that Judge Jones was just following the testimony on this one. In my experience judges always referred to the witnesses as they requested to be refer
Robert Lipkin wrote:
I would argue that Steve's inference from the facts of "disease, war,
violence, inequity, inequality, stupidity of some design features
(knees, elbows,
eyes)" to the conclusion that no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect
(loving) deity exists is a perfectly leg
Bobby writes: "I would argue that Steve's inference from the facts of "disease,
war, violence, inequity, inequality, stupidity of some design features (knees,
elbows, eyes)" to the conclusion that no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally
perfect (loving) deity exists is a perfectly legitimate inf
something can be true without being the full truth.2+2 = 4. That is true.But it does a poor job of fully describing nature. Or math.SetveOn Dec 21, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Perry Dane wrote: This doesn't strike me as quite right. It seems to me that real science should also not, in the public sc
What I always heard and sensed from teaching faculty is that "professor"
is more appreciated than "doctor" since there are lots of Ph.D.'s out
there who don't have teaching appointments (such as yours truly) but a
"professor" has achieved not only the degree but the academic status.
David T. Bal
In a message dated 12/21/2005 1:11:00 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Assuming
(as I would) that holding a doctorate gives one more credibility
thansimply being a professor at some college or university, is this
consistent useof titles an indication of a bias on
I would argue that Steve's
inference from the facts of "disease, war, violence, inequity, inequality,
stupidity of some design features (knees, elbows, eyes)" to the conclusion that
no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect (loving) deity exists is a
perfectly legitimate infere
I've just finished reading all 139 pages. I will resist commenting on the
substance of Judge Jones' opinion, but I was struck by one thing. Without
exception, when referring to the plaintiffs' expert witnesses (such as Miller
and Padian), he refers to them as Dr. Miller, Dr. Padian or Drs. Mille
Chris Lund writes:
Where the class happens to fall in the course catalog, in one sense, does
seem completely irrelevant. But the reason why we have this fight is
because whether ID is taught as science or something else will determine
whether it is taught as true. If it's taught outside of sci
Who are "they"?If it is the press-created "they", then keep in mind that the press always looks for the polar advocates - young earthers vs. in-your-face athiests.Let's turn it around for a minute.I look at disease, war, violence, inequity, inequality, stupidity of some design features (knees, elbo
Brad M Pardee wrote:
I think Chris reveals something
significant
here. Among the evolution supporters I have heard (and I'm not
presuming
that they speak for all evolutionists everywhere), it does not seem to
be enough to say that intelligent design is outside the realm of
science.
They se
"In the absence of some external
force which is not bound by the laws of science, the evidence that we CAN test
tells us that evolution is what happened. If there was a supernatural
actor in the process, however, then all bets are off because science cannot test
the supernatural."
Tha
I think Chris reveals something significant
here. Among the evolution supporters I have heard (and I'm not presuming
that they speak for all evolutionists everywhere), it does not seem to
be enough to say that intelligent design is outside the realm of science.
They seem to think it's necessary
I think this is beside the point. The key thrusts of ID are, it seems to me, (1) there is a creator, and (2) the teaching of evolution is inconsistent with that. So, to the minds of the IDers, evolution itself is the cancer to be excised and attacked. It is not that evolution might be right, but
Where the class happens to fall in the course catalog, in one sense, does
seem completely irrelevant. But the reason why we have this fight is
because whether ID is taught as science or something else will determine
whether it is taught as true. If it's taught outside of science class, it
will l
Ed Brayton writes:
But big bang advocates like
George Gamow didn't start a PR campaign to get his ideas into science
classrooms and rant and rave about the "hidebound reactionaries of the
Steady State orthodoxy" or the "Stalinist tactics of the Steady State
Priesthood". They went to work develo
Last night on the PBS Newshour, the head of the Thomas More Law Center said
this:
"RICHARD THOMPSON: Well, first of all [ID is] a scientific theory and
therefore it's proper to be in the science class. After all, all the Dover
area school board did was make students aware that there is a controver
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. If,
as the Dover
court says, “the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science”,
then wouldn’t the principal version of the now-regnant “big bang”
theory be constitutionally prohibited as well? It’s
now generally accepted that the age of the observable
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The Dover case has me so confused that I can’t see what its implications are beyond its narrow facts. A couple of questions came to mind as I read it. Maybe someone can help me sort them out. 1. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs said la
I agree that the judge overreached here, and that helping students so inclined
reconcile the science with their faith is not what made the Dover program
problematic. A sensible and constitutional policy would do precisely this, by
explaining the methodological difference between scientific appr
The Dover case has me so confused that I cant see what its implications are beyond its narrow facts. A couple of questions came to mind as I read it. Maybe someone can help me sort them out.
1. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs said last night on one of the news shows that all this (
The excerpt
below appears at p 44 of the ID cases slip onion .The judge, I think ,reads the
disclaimer for more than it says ( I do no tread the disclaimer as saying that
students cannot consider what id s taught in class or that they must accept
their parents view) and in any event the
A careful reading of the trial transcript would indicate, I think, that such charges had already been leveled at all courts, and especially any court dealing with the issue. I see in the Dallas Morning News today that Judge Jones has been labeled an "activist," and that one of the old school bo
In a message dated 12/21/2005 8:42:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Interesting that you think that a judge's job does not include
being aware of the political impact of his or her decision!
Am I correct in inferring, then, that you consider Brown v. Board wro
Interesting that you think that a judge's job does not include being aware of the political impact of his or her decision!Am I correct in inferring, then, that you consider Brown v. Board wrongly decided on the merits and wrongly written in form and wrongly decided within the Court's processes sin
In a message dated 12/20/2005 6:19:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With regard to the judge's commentary, what I find the most disturbing is
that this particular judge -- a Bush appointee with pretty firm
"conservative" credentials -- felt it necessary to pree
52 matches
Mail list logo
