Re: Draft ID statutory language
It seems to me this language presents a kind of King Canute conundrum. It makes a legislative statement, a legislative finding, that is at least contestable if not clearly contrary to fact. Were I challenging, I'd challenge the first sentence as factually inaccurate, especially where it says "there is no scientific information available about the actual creation or origin of either." There is plenty fo scientific information about the origins of the universe and the origins of life, in their respective scientific spheres. Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize in 1978 for discovering the "cosmic background radiation" that confirmed Big Bang and, more importantly, disproved Steady State (here's the Nobel site on the award: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1978/). Canute can order the tides to desist, but they won't. The legisl! ature can make claims contrary to fact and history, but the claimsmay not stand, depending on the court. The case of the Utah legislature's covering the clock in order to keep legislating past the deadline for adjournment sine die might be a relevant precedent.It seems to me it would be difficult to find any valid, secular purposes to the blanket banning of information on DNA evidence of heredity, which seems to me clearly covered under the first paragraph; or of any of the other interesting, informative, but inconclusive research done by NASA's astrobiology program, Sidney Fox's protocells, Andrew Ellington's chirality observations, or the Urey-Miller experiments and the consistent follow ups by James Ferris and NASA. This language arguably bans discussions of the work of Luther Burbank and George Washington Carver, in addition to banning the use of plant keys in botany, and the study of the work of Carl Linne, since they pr! ovide supporting evidence for natural selection and especially common descent. I'd have a tough time teaching a Boy Scout merit badge in Forestry or Wildlife Management under such rules. The First Class requirements for plant identification might be allowable, but as I noted, the usual use of plant keys seems to be disallowed. The second clause tends to invalidate teaching about the control of diseases through most of the methods of public health, if we truly are to avoid discrimination against the beliefs of Christian Scientists, I think. Is there any valid reason to want to contradict so much science -- valid secular or religious reason?I haven't had my coffee yet. I may be missing problems with the language, but that's my first reaction.Ed Darrell Dallas "Gibbens, Daniel G." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Belowisdraft language fora billfor our state legislature in light of pro-ID bills filed. Although the deadline has passed for bill-filing this session,some thinksomething of this sort may havefuture use. So comments and criticismare requested.Obviously the draft is an effort under the rubric of pragmatism. It does not address critical issues such as thedefinition for public school purposes of "science", or what's involved in teaching "about religion". On the l! atter issue, it simply relies on Brennan's concurring opinion in Schempp. A. In courses presenting science-based information pertaining to the development processes of life forms, including evolution theory, or the development processes of physical matter, including big bang theory, public school teachersshall make clear that there is no scientific information available about the actual creation or origin of either; provided that related religion-based information, including intelligent design theory, shall not be presented in such courses.B. In non-science courses such as history, literature, and social studies, public school teachers may present information about religion, about differences between ! religious sects, and about religion-based views on the creation, origin or development processes of life forms or of physical matter, including intelligent design theory; provided that such teaching neither treats religion or religious views as truth or as ignorance, nor promotes nor discriminates against religion generally, any particular set of religious beliefs, or any negative views about religion. Dan Gibbens University of Oklahoma College of Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven JamarSent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:57 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: School District drops Intelligent Design Class I don't think is so hard to enforce. Most people most of the time follow guidelines and this should be no different. We should not ban something just because sometimes people stray across a fuzzy boundary inadvertently or just because some people will intentionally try to abuse the guidelines and further their own agendas. This desire for purity in this area baffles me. It is not possible. We ought not fail to do or allow
Re: Draft ID statutory language
Title: Message Gibbens, Daniel G. wrote: Messrs. Brayton's and Darrell's responses are much appreciated. For the religiously oriented,the lack of science-based information is no proof of the existence of "God" (or of "the Force" in sciencefiction). It does importantly leave intellectual space for those who choose to believe in a god (and if so to ponder wherethat godcame from), as well as intellectual space for those who choose to believe there is no god. And I think this is a very reasonable statement. I'm sure there will be some on the extremes on both sides who will argue that this is ceding too much to the other side, but I think it strikes a healthy and constitutionally appropriate balance. And shouldn't curiosityabout the origin and meaning of "time"also be encouraged in public school teaching? As for labeling "intelligent design" a"theory", I'm not sure. Francis Beckwith prefers "an intellectual movement" comprised of "particular strands of thought" (his 2003 book, p. 91). For Forrest Gross, it is a "bold strategy" as well as "a movement with a plan" (their 2004 book, p.16), among other things. One thing for sure, it is offered as contrary to "evolution theory". I think both Beckwith and Forrest and Gross have it right. It's certainly a movement that comprises a handful of basic arguments (irreducible complexity, specified information, etc), and it's certainly true that it is often (but not always) offered as being contrary to the theory of evolution, but that does not make it a theory in and of itself. Personally, I think a more accurate term is "model". That is, evolutionary theory is a model of the natural history of life on earth that is made up of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different theories and hypotheses about different aspects of how it occured. It can be stated as a general theory - "the theory that all life on earth is derived from a common ancestor via descent with modification" - but there are innumerable theories and hypotheses within that model. ID is not property called a theory for several reasons. First, it makes no novel predictions about the nature of the evidence, meaning that there is no model of the natural history of life on earth. For some ID advocates, the earth is only 6000 years old and all present life forms were created in a single week and lived on earth simultaneously; for other ID advocates, the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life developed on earth gradually over the course of 3.9 billion years as the evidence indicates. Second, there is no positive statement of ID that can be made, partially because of the first problem and partially because all of the arguments for ID presume and are reliant upon the failure of evolution to explain a given phenomenon (irreducible complexity relies upon the inability of complex biochemical systems to evolve, Dembski's explanatory filter relies upon the inability of the interaction of chance and law to do the same thing, all of Wells' arguments are purely negative in evaluating arguments for evolution, etc.). Third, because there is no way to either test or falsify ID. So it's fair to call it a movement, but not a theory in the scientific sense of the term. 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: Draft ID statutory language
Title: Message With respect, I have a great deal of difficulty in understanding this proposed language, and its purpose. I have a great deal of concern about its probable effects or consequences. Let me just pose three questions for now. First, what is actual creation? Without knowing what that means, it is impossible to assess the duty that the first paragraph would impose on public school teachers. With regard to the second paragraph, why single out evolution/ID? Isnt there far more to teaching ABOUT religion than that? The focus is worrisome. Also with respect to the second paragraph, how are you going to enforce the prohibition contained in the proviso? From: Gibbens, Daniel G. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:48 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Draft ID statutory language Belowisdraft language fora billfor our state legislature in light of pro-ID bills filed. Although the deadline has passed for bill-filing this session,some thinksomething of this sort may havefuture use. So comments and criticismare requested. Obviously the draft is an effort under the rubric of pragmatism. It does not address critical issues such as thedefinition for public school purposes of science, or what's involved in teaching about religion. On the latter issue, it simply relies on Brennan's concurring opinion in Schempp. A. In courses presenting science-based information pertaining to the development processes of life forms, including evolution theory, or the development processes of physical matter, including big bang theory, public school teachersshall make clear that there is no scientific information available about the actual creation or origin of either; provided that related religion-based information, including intelligent design theory, shall not be presented in such courses. B. In non-science courses such as history, literature, and social studies, public school teachers may present information about religion, about differences between religious sects, and about religion-based views on the creation, origin or development processes of life forms or of physical matter, including intelligent design theory; provided that such teaching neither treats religion or religious views as truth or as ignorance, nor promotes nor discriminates against religion generally, any particular set of religious beliefs, or any negative views about religion. Dan Gibbens University of Oklahoma College of Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:57 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: School District drops Intelligent Design Class I don't think is so hard to enforce. Most people most of the time follow guidelines and this should be no different. We should not ban something just because sometimes people stray across a fuzzy boundary inadvertently or just because some people will intentionally try to abuse the guidelines and further their own agendas. This desire for purity in this area baffles me. It is not possible. We ought not fail to do or allow something just because it can sometimes be abused. And we ought not fail to teach something or allow something to be taught just because some people will be upset or draw the line differently. Steve On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Newsom Michael wrote: This is, of course, the central problem: how to enforce the distinction between teaching about religion and teaching religion. Enforcement, it strikes me, is insuperably difficult. How does one make sure that the teachers do not breach the line, and how does one make sure that the curriculum, or lesson plan does not breach the line? I am not sure, therefore, that one can reasonably assume that teaching about religion will not become, in far too many cases, teaching religion. Thus why should one favor teaching about religion in the public elementary and secondary schools at all? Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar ___ 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: Draft ID statutory language
Ed Brayton's suggestions were much cooler-headed than my post; if there is to be legislation, he offers some ways to make it almost workable.I am nervous about legislatures stepping into a role where what is known by science is determined by a majority vote of people who are almost completely divorced from science, still. Our colleagues in the tort trenches would be similarly concerned were legislatures to start determining what science can and cannot be used in trial, short-circuiting the trial processes where experts can be put on the stand and queried about what is really known. The present process gets well-researched ideas into the textbooks and into the curriculum without any legislative body required to approve the ideas as science. It seems to me that any attempt to legislate in the area is a step backwards, in the practice of science, in the determination of truth, and in the prac! tice of law. Will the legislature be in session when the science changes? I don't think a case is yet made that current systems are inadequate to determine what is known by science and what gets put in the textbooks.Ed Darrell Dallas"Gibbens, Daniel G." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Messrs. Brayton's and Darrell's responses are much appreciated. Ed Brayton's language suggestions are helpful. My understanding matches these two sentences of his: (1) "It's certainl! y true to say that we don't have any information about what, if anything, originated or caused the big bang." (2)"Scientists continue to research the question of the origin of life, but as of now there is no accepted explanation on that question." Similarly, my understanding matchesEd Darrell'sencouragement of public schoolscience teaching about "early earth environment, giving us information about the environment in which life originated," and"the 'cosmic background radiation' that confirmed Big Bang."The legislative draft language is a pragmaticeffort to distinguish the science-based information about "the development processes"-- including the conditions existing at the start of those processes -- on the one hand, and the lack of science-based information on what actually started those processes -- the source of those conditions --on the other. For the religiously oriented,the lack of science-based information is no proof of the existence of "God" (or of "the Force" in sciencefiction). It does importantly leave intellectual space for those who choose to believe in a god (and if so to ponder wherethat godcame from), as well as intellectual space for those who choose to believe there! is no god.And shouldn't curiosityabout the origin and meaning of "time"also be encouraged in public school teaching?As for labeling "intelligent design" a"theory", I'm not sure. Francis Beckwith prefers "an intellectual movement" comprised of "particular strands of thought" (his 2003 book, p. 91). For Forrest Gross, it is a "bold strategy" as well as "a movement with a plan" (their 2004 book, p.16), among other things. One thing for sure, it is offered as contrary to "evolution theory". Dan Gibbens -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed DarrellSent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 6:08 AM It seems to me this language presents a kind of King Canute conundrum. It makes a legislative statement, a legislative finding, that is at least contestable if not clearly contrary to fact. Were I challenging, I'd challenge the first sentence as ! factually inaccurate, especially where it says "there is no scientific information available about the actual creation or origin of either." There is plenty fo scientific information about the origins of the universe and the origins of life, in their respective scientific spheres. Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize in 1978 for discovering the "cosmic background radiation" that confirmed Big Bang and, more importantly, disproved Steady State (here's the Nobel site on the award: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1978/). Canute can order the tides to desist, but they won't. The legisl! ature can make claims contrary to fact and history, but the claimsmay not stand, depending on the court. The case of the Utah legislature's covering the clock in order to keep legislating past the deadline for adjournment sine ! die might be a relevant precedent.It seems to me it would be difficult to find any valid, secular purposes to the blanket banning of information on DNA evidence of heredity, which seems to me clearly covered under the first paragraph; or of any of the other interesting, informative, but inconclusive research done by NASA's astrobiology program, Sidney Fox's protocells, Andrew Ellington's chirality observations, or the Urey-Miller experiments and the consistent follow ups by James Ferris and NASA. This language arguably bans discussions of the work of Luther Burbank and George Washington Carver, in addition to banning the
Draft ID statutory language
Title: Message Belowisdraft language fora billfor our state legislature in light of pro-ID bills filed. Although the deadline has passed for bill-filing this session,some thinksomething of this sort may havefuture use. So comments and criticismare requested. Obviously the draft is an effort under the rubric of pragmatism. It does not address critical issues such as thedefinition for public school purposes of "science", or what's involved in teaching "about religion". On the latter issue, it simply relies on Brennan's concurring opinion in Schempp. A. In courses presenting science-based information pertaining to the development processes of life forms, including evolution theory, or the development processes of physical matter, including big bang theory, public school teachersshall make clear that there is no scientific information available about the actual creation or origin of either; provided that related religion-based information, including intelligent design theory, shall not be presented in such courses. B. In non-science courses such as history, literature, and social studies, public school teachers may present information about religion, about differences between religious sects, and about religion-based views on the creation, origin or development processes of life forms or of physical matter, including intelligent design theory; provided that such teaching neither treats religion or religious views as truth or as ignorance, nor promotes nor discriminates against religion generally, any particular set of religious beliefs, or any negative views about religion. Dan Gibbens University of Oklahoma College of Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven JamarSent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:57 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: School District drops Intelligent Design Class I don't think is so hard to enforce. Most people most of the time follow guidelines and this should be no different. We should not ban something just because sometimes people stray across a fuzzy boundary inadvertently or just because some people will intentionally try to abuse the guidelines and further their own agendas. This desire for purity in this area baffles me. It is not possible. We ought not fail to do or allow something just because it can sometimes be abused. And we ought not fail to teach something or allow something to be taught just because some people will be upset or draw the line differently. Steve On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Newsom Michael wrote: This is, of course, the central problem: how to enforce the distinction between teaching about religion and teaching religion. Enforcement, it strikes me, is insuperably difficult. How does one make sure that the teachers do not breach the line, and how does one make sure that the curriculum, or lesson plan does not breach the line? I am not sure, therefore, that one can reasonably assume that teaching about religion will not become, in far too many cases, teaching religion. Thus why should one favor teaching about religion in the public elementary and secondary schools at all? Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar ___ 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: Draft ID statutory language
Title: Message Gibbens, Daniel G. wrote: Belowisdraft language fora billfor our state legislature in light of pro-ID bills filed. Although the deadline has passed for bill-filing this session,some thinksomething of this sort may havefuture use. So comments and criticismare requested. Obviously the draft is an effort under the rubric of pragmatism. It does not address critical issues such as thedefinition for public school purposes of "science", or what's involved in teaching "about religion". On the latter issue, it simply relies on Brennan's concurring opinion in Schempp. A. In courses presenting science-based information pertaining to the development processes of life forms, including evolution theory, or the development processes of physical matter, including big bang theory, public school teachersshall make clear that there is no scientific information available about the actual creation or origin of either; provided that related religion-based information, including intelligent design theory, shall not be presented in such courses. I don't think this is really an accurate statement. As regards abiogenesis, the origin of life on Earth, there is a difference between saying "there is no consensus as to how life originated" (which is a perfectly valid statement) and saying "there is no scientific information available" about it. We do have scientific information on which to build testable hypotheses about the origin of life. For instance, we can use air trapped in rock matrices and amber deposits to determine the ratio of different gasses in the early earth environment, giving us information about the environment in which life originated. We can test the ability of clay to catalyze the formation of amino acids and polymers and so forth. All of that is information that is useful in developing theories about the origin of life even if it's true that we don't currently have an accepted explanation for how it did occur. I think cosmologists would also argue that the statement about the origin of matter is also inaccurate, though this is not really my area of specialty. They would likely argue that the big bang itself was the origin of matter in all of its various forms, particularly the origin of the elements. It's certainly true to say that we don't have any information about what, if anything, originated or caused teh big bang. It's even likely true to say that in that instance we really don't have any information to go on, at least nothing past the point of Planck time. I would think it would be more useful to make a statement something like this: "The theory of evolution is the accepted explanation for the diversity of life on earth, but it doesn't directly address the origin of the first life forms. Scientists continue to research the question of the origin of life, but as of now there is no accepted explanation on that question." That should perhaps be accompanied by a broader statement saying something like: "Science is only equipped to answer questions of an empirical nature, questions about 'how' things happen. It can't answer 'why' questions, nor does it attempt to. Science is incapable of addressing the existence of God. Individual scientists do of course have a wide range of opinion on the subject, but science itself cannot address it either positively or negatively. Nothing taught in science should be viewed as a position for or against the existence of God or the truth of anyone's religious views." B. In non-science courses such as history, literature, and social studies, public school teachers may present information about religion, about differences between religious sects, and about religion-based views on the creation, origin or development processes of life forms or of physical matter, including intelligent design theory; provided that such teaching neither treats religion or religious views as truth or as ignorance, nor promotes nor discriminates against religion generally, any particular set of religious beliefs, or any negative views about religion. This seems fairly reasonable to me, all in all, though I don't think I'd use the phrase "intelligent design theory". There is no such theory at this point, so there's really nothing to teach. One could discuss various arguments for intelligent design, I suppose, but that phrase is a bit of an oxymoron. 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.
