In a message dated 8/23/2005 3:51:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
facts are what they are. Many American students have been drivenaway
from the natural sciences because of the overreaching of
somereligionists.
But you didn't say that at all: you said the
In a message dated 8/23/2005 7:36:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In 2003 the Justice Department investigated a report of religious
discrimination at Texas Tech University, where a popular and tough biology
professor required students to pass his classes in
In a message dated 8/23/2005 11:21:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
accusation that he was antagonistic to religion was and remains patently
false. The fact of the matter was that the kid had made no demonstration
of the academic horsepower required, and I
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
What would be an example of values trumping science? Now, Ive read articles and books in which authors offer arguments as to why certain scientific experiments and research are unethical. Because of these suggested
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Example: Evolution should not be
taught because Genesis (at least in the view of some, certainly not including
me) teaches otherwise. (Alternatively, students should be discouraged
from learning about evolution.)
The facts are what they are. Many American students have been driven
away from the natural sciences because of the overreaching of some
religionists.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:01 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Unfortunately, it seems likely that many students who are religious have
been driven away from the sciences (in particular the biological sciences)
by the anti-religious attitudes of some scientists. See, e.g., some of the
statements quoted in today's NY Times at
In 2003 the Justice Department investigated a report of religious discrimination at Texas Tech University, where a popular and tough biology professor required students to pass his classes in biology before he'd write them a recommendation to medical school. He also required kids to explain
Ed,
We discussed that Texas Tech case at length
on this list, IIRC (or it might have been on conlawprof). The professor required
that students affirm a personal belief in evolution. He did not just require
that they understand it.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of
Didn't mean to kick off a different fight. Yes, I know what Dini's website said originally -- quickly worded, and open to opportunistic misinterpretation by a publicity-seeking legal firm, but the fact remains that Dini asked only that kids explain the scientific version of evolution to indicate
Francis Beckwith wrote:
Ed:
We are veering off the church-state issue. So, in order to not irritate
Eugene, I will respond briefly.
I think the Craig-Smith debate makes my point. Both Craig and Smith agree
that Big Bang cosmology, because it is knowledge, has implications for
theology.
There is no secular purpose here. ID
is not science. It is a cover for the theology of a particular religious
group. To say that one should teach religious objections of a particular religious
group in science class clearly violates the EC. There can be no secular
purpose behind this
Michael,
Ask Pascal about the role of faith in inspiring reason. Ask Newton.
For that matter, ask Einstein.
It is nothing but pap and drivel that can be found in the
mischaracterization that those who find design in nature are seeking to
drive high school students away from the natural
Rick Duncan wrote:
Ed: The Court held that the purpose of the legislature
was to bring religion into the classroom.It was the legislature's bad
purpose that was the problem. If the Court had found that the
legislature had a secular purpose, the Act would not have been
vulnerable to a facial
Ed: I guess we just read the case differently. Because the law was not allowed to go into effect, there was no curriculum everadopted in any school for the Court to make any finding about whatsoever.You have to read quotations in context!
I guess I'll teach Edwards in my Con Law II class based
Rick Duncan wrote:
Ed: I guess we just read the case differently. Because the law
was not allowed to go into effect, there was no curriculum everadopted
in any school for the Court to make any finding about whatsoever.You
have to read quotations in context!
Of course you have to read
Could not a claim both be scientific and religious at the same time?
Conceptually, I don't see any problem with that. But this raises an
interesting problem. Suppose a particular scientific theory happens to lend
support to a religious point of view in strong way, e.g., the Big Bang lends
Frankie Beckwith wrote:
Could not a claim both be scientific and religious at the same time?
Conceptually, I don't see any problem with that. But this raises an
interesting problem. Suppose a particular scientific theory happens to lend
support to a religious point of view in strong way,
I think Ed's point extends beyond science to other parts of the school
curriculum as well. History, art, literature, and other subjects may
reinforce or conflict with various religious beliefs. Generally speaking, I
don't think the Establishment Clause is violated when that occurs
incidentally
Ed:
We are veering off the church-state issue. So, in order to not irritate
Eugene, I will respond briefly.
I think the Craig-Smith debate makes my point. Both Craig and Smith agree
that Big Bang cosmology, because it is knowledge, has implications for
theology. For Smith, it better comports
At 12:23 PM 8/21/2005 -0700, you wrote:
Yes, a scientific view could be religious -- and this is why it is so
important that what is claimed as science be science.
Darwin was Christian when he discovered evolution. He had no religious
intent in publishing the theory. As some wag noted,
In a message dated 8/21/2005 10:47:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
district court in Edwards issued summary judgment, based in large
part on the decision in McLean. It is worth remembering that in
that case, in deposition, each of the creationists'
In a message dated 8/20/2005 12:48:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, the
notion that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has long been discredited.
And the reason it is a test subject on the MCAT would be . . . . . ?
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
Might I suggest (a) that the limited number of participants in this
thread (and related ones in the recent past), and (b) the
comparative advantage of most list members in law rather than
the philosophy of science, indicates that perhaps the thread has
played itself out?
Content-Type:
In a message dated 8/20/2005 8:31:03 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And, in
any case, it's a college level exam. There is no way this outline could
be presented as evidence of what high school texts and curricula
say.
You seem to be suggesting that the level of
In a message dated 8/20/2005 12:56:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
." But
if you give a perfectly plausible account for how a complex biochemical system
might have evolved, complete with tracing the possible mutations, locating
gene duplications, and so forth,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/20/2005 12:48:40 A.M. Eastern Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, the notion that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has
long been discredited.
And the reason it is a test subject on the MCAT would be . . . .
. ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/20/2005 12:56:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
." But if you give a perfectly plausible account for how a
complex biochemical system might have evolved, complete with tracing
the possible mutations,
No, I'm not saying high schools are more sophisticated -- the opposite, actually. In college classes discussions may be had in state-sponsored schools on topics and proposalsthat would be impermissible in high schools for establishment clause violations. I don't think there's a lot of litigation
tomorrow's NYTimes will have a very interesting story on the
Discovery Institute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?ei=5094en=88f0b94e7eb26357hp=ex=1124596800partner=homepagepagewanted=print
Among other interesting quotes is the following:
"All ideas go through three
The idea that "pharyngeal arches" mutated into gills in fish and lungs in
other animals is really far fetched from a practical genetic standpoint.
Mutations occur very rarely in a given population and are generally
deleterious. It is also true that mutations are generally recessive traits
Gene, I will make an attempt to relate
this thread to religion law. According to many scholars, the religion
clauses require that the government, including the public schools, be neutral
with respect to religion. Is that possible, especially in the area of public
education? More
Ellis,
You are right. I should have been more
specific. I am also enjoying the EC aspects of this debate with respect to
teaching in public schools. My point, which I made quite poorly, was that
discussing whether specific tenets of ID or evolution are correct or false,
seems to be leading
Gene Summerlin wrote:
The idea that "pharyngeal arches" mutated into
gills in fish and lungs in other animals is really far fetched from a
practical genetic standpoint. Mutations occur very rarely in a given
population and are generally deleterious. It is also true that
mutations are
As a further note on the connection between this and EC jurisprudence,
there is a major lawsuit going on right now in Pennsylvania over this
and the central question will be whether ID is a scientific theory or
merely old-fashioned creationism dressed up in vaguely
scientific-sounding
Ed,
There
is a huge difference between mutation creating variation which combined with
natural selection results in a given population and saying that genetic
mutations can take an organism from being a fish to being a giraffe. Even
with respect to variation, genetic variation for many
Gene Summerlin wrote:
Ed,
There is a huge difference between mutation
creating variation which combined with natural selection results in a
given population and saying that genetic mutations can take an organism
from being a fish to being a giraffe. Even with respect to variation,
Rick Duncan wrote:
Edwards did not hold that "creation science" could not
be taught in the govt schools. Nor did it hold that "creation science"
was religion andnot science.It held only that the particular law (the
"Balanced Treatment Act") was invalid because it did not have a secular
When read in conjunction with the decision in McLean v. Arkansas, which was used by the Louisiana district court, what Edwards says is that science, backed by data and corroborated by experiment, must be taught in science classes.
The easiest way to get something into the science books would be
Rick Duncan wrote:
Well, Ed, I think you are just misreading the decision. The case
was decided based solely on the legislature's non-secular purpose. The
Court did not hold that any particular book or curriculum was religion
and not science. Indeed, no book or creation science curriculum
Steve: I am not afraid of anyone teaching secular subjects. I do it myself, all the time.
My problem is with the government school monopoly, which creates a captive audience of impressionable children for (to quote JS Mill) "moulding" children in a mold designed (or evolved) by those who control
In a message dated 8/19/2005 12:46:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the
other hand, if they can be universally applied, and there are in fact
universal, unchanging bits of knowledge we call the moral law, then we have
the problem of accounting for that
With due respect to Frank Beckwith, a great many people disagree with
his theory of ethics, indeed a great many prominent philosophers
disagree with his theory of ethics, which is not to say that the claim
that morality is universal and unchanging is not legitimate, only it is
contestable and it
If the argument from
design was demolished in the 18th Century, as Sandy argues, then it must
have been on philosophical or religious grounds, rather than scientific ones. Darwin's On the Origin of
Species was not published until 1859. See, e.g.,
In a message dated 8/19/2005 2:14:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And do
Mark and Sandy really equate Behe's scholarship with the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion and Holocaust Denials?
I wonder whether anyone on this list has read Darwin's Black Box?
On
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
I not only read it, but I reviewed it for Journal of Law and Religion in Fall 2001.
Frank
On 8/19/05 1:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/19/2005 2:14:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
In a message dated 8/19/2005 1:56:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note
that the second part of Bobby's explanation of why intelligent design was
rejected is an explicitly theological argument about the nature of any posited
deity. (Aside: I believe many
Let me put the question this way for Sandy and Mark: Do they really
believe it would violate the EC for a public school to assign, say, Behe's
Darwin's Black Box for a high school science class? Is this
really the same thing as wanting to teach "malevolent design" or "the Protocols
of the
I believe the only proper response of a biologist or
physicist is that the question of whether there is any "meaning" or "point" to
life, either in general or in particular, is the subject of a different
course. A physician qua physician simply has no professional competence to
say, "I'm
Sandy reads the EC as requiring a book, that could lawfully be taught in the public schools,to belabelled"pseudo science"before being assigned.This view of Sandy's about the ECstrikes me as "pseudo law."
Cheers, Rick DuncanSanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me put the question this
I don't think the Establishment Clause requires that
labelling; I think that respect for science requires it. Indeed, I think
it might violate the EC to force teachers who reject ID to present it as
"serious science" instead of theology masking as science.
I have no objection at all to
In a message dated 8/19/2005 4:15:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A physician qua
physician simply has no professional competence to say, "I'm sure you're son
is in heaven" OR "You're son's life has no meaning other than the meaning you
choose to give it."
There are all sorts of
ways to provide comfort. But a nonbelieving physician would simply be
lying if he/she said "I'm sure you're son is in heaven." S/he could say,
"I have some sense of how you feel because my own child/parent/sibling died
recently," or "I can only dimly imagine the grief
In a message dated 8/19/2005 4:59:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, it
seems to me that your are ignoring the "physician qua physician" part of
Sandy's post -- a physician has no special expertise or knowledge or training
from her professional training to
I'm sure Sandy understands that and was making quite a different point, as he himself made clear in his follow up.On Aug 19, 2005, at 5:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point is that what Sandy says just doesn't work in the real world of patients and physicians. Patients expect more from
Any scientific theory that needs bad constitutional law to protect its dominace in public schoolsis a theory that may be in trouble.
Under the EC, it seems clear that a school board could require Behe's book to be taught in science class for the purpose of exposing students to a competing
Well, if it could be established that Behe's book had science in it. That's an evidence issue, and so far no one has ever volunteered to defend the book on that ground. This is why the Dover case is so critical to intelligent design -- the defenders of ID have been challenged to present their
In a message dated 8/19/2005 5:50:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There
are companies traded on the NYSE whose sole raison d'etre is
evolution.
This observation, is, frankly, strange to me. The meaning of the EC
is derived from placing one's future public
In a message dated 8/19/2005 5:50:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have
methods for determining good science from bad, or current science from
disproven science.
Here we agree and disagree. Utter silence from that side of the aisle
when I mentioned the
Rick's question below proceeds from a false premise; public school
classrooms are not the public square. None of the posts have suggested
that ID should be banned from the public square; the first amendment
pretty obviously would forbid that, and on that point I suspect we would
all agree.
I see
Rick
writes:
Whether it is good science or bad science is forelected
officialsin charge of the schools--not federal courts--to decide.
This is actually quite a bizarre notion. It may be, as a
matter of constitutional law, that public school officials have the legal right
to make all
But of course, the issue here is whether that's exactly so. In Texas, a group of biologists argued with publishers to get rid of ancient drawings. What was substituted was actual photographs that some would argue show that. It's not that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny -- but it is that embryonic
Yes, the blood clotting example is testable in field observations. It turns out that some mammals lack some of the things Dr. Behe termed critical, or "irreducibly complex," and yet their blood coagulates just the same (some dolphins, for example). Deeper investigation reveals several different
In a message dated 8/19/2005 6:26:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No
textbook in the past decade, and maybe in the past 40 years, that I have
found, claims ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. It's a red herring
(there are those fish again!) to claim that is
The relationship of the brachial arches in different mammals, for
example, demonstrates evolutionary heritage. Critics complain it's
inaccurate to call them gill slits. Well, yeah -- they only develop into
gills in gilled animals. But the heritage relationship is shown whether
Rick Duncan wrote:
I am not (nor do I have any desire to be) a scientist. But I do teach
and write about free speech, and when I hear that the powers that be
are trying to suppress a new idea, my 1A instincts are triggered and
go into high gear.
Such is the case with ID--when I read about
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/19/2005 5:50:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have methods for determining good science from bad, or
current science from disproven science.
Here we agree and disagree. Utter silence from that side
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Darwin's Black Box, a description is offered of the cascade
of proteins and hormones that are released when the integrity of the
epidermis is disrupted (when the skin is cut). The proposition is
offered that were conditions wrong, the clotting begun
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You call"critics" those that complain that it is "inaccurate"
to "call them gill slits." Language matters. How can science be
served by making words meaningless. Because gills are related in some
way (functionality) to lungs, why not call them lungs. In fact,
Ed Brayton replied while I was away from my office with a link to the
quite thorough critique written by Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley
R. Elsberry; I would have posted the same link, which should more than
suffice. For a less technical but no less devastating critique of ID's
claim to be
Scarberry, Mark wrote:
Pardon me, but I think the original post involved retaliation taken by
Smithsonian Institution officials against a scientist who did not believe in
ID but who had edited a respected journal in which a peer-reviewed piece
appeared making certain arguments with respect to
Mark:
Having been the victim of such retaliation here at Baylor, I am skeptical of
Ed's response (though I like Ed personally, and carr no ill will toward him).
Some of these people will stop at nothing to destroy anyone who even entertains
the possibility that ID advocates are raising
Francis Beckwith wrote:
Mark:
Having been the victim of such retaliation here at Baylor, I am skeptical of Ed's response (though I like Ed personally, and carr no ill will toward him). Some of these people will stop at nothing to destroy anyone who even entertains the possibility that ID
Francis Beckwith wrote:
Mark:
Having been the victim of such retaliation here at Baylor, I am skeptical of Ed's response (though I like Ed personally, and carr no ill will toward him). Some of these people will stop at nothing to destroy anyone who even entertains the possibility that
74 matches
Mail list logo
