Kudos to the NCSE

| 117 Comments

There is an interesting Article on the winning attorneys of the Kitzmiller case, Eric Rothschild and Stephen Harvey.

Rothschild said what he was proudest of throughout this whole trial was his cross-examination of defense expert Michael Behe, a professor at Lehigh University and proponent of intelligent design.

Rothschild said he knew what he was talking about when he moved to the witness stand, and he owes that to the National Center for Science Education, which thoroughly explained intelligent design to the plaintiffs team.

As to the issue of Intelligent Design not being science, the attorneys raise this interesting argument

Rothschild and Harvey were quick to jump to the judge’s defense.

“Both sides really asked this judge to decide whether intelligent design was science or religion,” Rothschild said.

“He did not reach out,” Harvey said. “The parties put that in front of him.”

I argued that the Discovery Institute by arguing that the Judge should not rule on the status of Intelligent Design as a science while also arguing that because Intelligent Design is scientific, its primary purpose is not religious, almost begged the judge to rule on this issue.

The actions of the Discovery Institute in this trial may have been instrumental in the final ruling.

And the victorious lawyers seem to be ready for a next round

Rothschild and Harvey said they feel connected to this controversy and will not stop their involvement with it now that the case is over.

“It’s not the last you’ve heard from me and Steve on this,” Rothschild said.

117 Comments

test

[PvM: This completes the test of PT’s emergency broadcasting system]

Rothschild’s cross-examination of Behe was the first bit of trial transcription I read, and it’s what got me incredibly hooked on this case in the first place. Way to go, Rothschild :)

… and a shout out to Nick, so he won’t be forgotten in all this.

Nick did a fantastic job helping prep the ACLU team, Rothschild included.

Rothschild Wrote:

It’s not the last you’ve heard from me and Steve on this,

This is good news. I really respect what they have done. They have obviously learned a lot gearing up for the trial. If there is another trial anywhere it would be well served to have them on the team. Thanks again Nick for all your work and to all the others that contributed. From your early pod casts of the trial I understand how busy you all must have been.

The N.C.S.E did a great job,and I am very proud to be a member.Not to change the subject but, the St Pete Times have a article “Science Goal Short on Evolution” Gov Jeb Bush stated that the Florida science standards need beefing up ,BUT evolution should not be a part of it. What else should we expect, being dumb must run in the family.

As Rush’s rabble would say, “Dittos on the kudos!” Having attended some of the trial in person, it was a real pleasure to watch two lawyers and their teams pursue this case with knowledge, excellence and unfailing vigor. Kudos also to Nick who, along with the rest of NCSE, must have done a phenomenal job of preparing the legal wizards. It is unfortunate that so many Americans fail to appreciate the value of a good education including a good science education. After attending the trial, I have a much higher and better appreciation of lawyers, too. Very professional!

JONBOY Wrote:

What else should we expect, being dumb must run in the family.

I’m not even from the US, and even I can see that this is a silly attitude to hold. The Bush family are extremely successful politicians. Ergo, they are not idiots. Therefore, the redneck impression that they do so well is, at least in part, an act. What should worry you isn’t that Bush acts like an idiot, but that he evidently thinks the idiots in the audience are more worth cultivating than the smart folks. And the fact that the last couple of elections proved him correct.

Corkscrew,I agree some what with your comments,but dont mistake success with being devious.The Bush family surround themselves with smart people,who do their thinking for them.

Corkscrew: I’m with Jonboy on this. The Bush dynasty already had the money and the political connections. Bush Sr. won an apparently-honest election. His administration was distinctly hostile to my own (liberal) political values, but he was at least serving as a real President. His sons represent a drastic decay of the family line, not just in intelligence, but in moral character.

Shrub made his earlier career running a sucession of companies into the ground, apparently for the tax purposes of his family friends. He then did the same for the state of Texas. *Then* he had two elections handed to him by manipulation. His policies and actions aren’t just hostile to liberalism, they’re hostile to American principles and welfare as a whole, and his behavior and actions indicate that he’s not even aware of that, and probably wouldn’t care if he was. I’d guess that his “legacy” will probably leave the Bush name in the brushpile. Too bad for Bush Sr., but hey… “shit happens”.

but that he evidently thinks the idiots in the audience are more worth cultivating than the smart folks

if you want to win an election, you have to appeal to the larger caucus…

djlactin wrote,

“if you want to win an election, you have to appeal to the larger caucus…”

Did you mean “caucus” or “circus”? (send in the clowns!)

I apologize for sidetracking the thread, which is apparently about Bush family politics, but I want to say that I thought it was brilliant to ask Behe about astrology. That really brought home the watering down he was attempting with the definition of “science” and “theory”.

yes, let’s leave the politics and Bush-bashing out of this and get back to the fun. Kitzmiller is a boost to science and education that transcends party lines. I still get gleeful each time I read it.

in fact, I think I deserve kudos, too, for being a card-carrying member of NCSE for over 10 years. so… you’re welcome, America!

and obviously greater kudos to the pro bono lawyers at Pepper Hamilton and NCSE themselves. by my count, NCSE contributed not only the formidable Matzke, but three of its board members as expert witnesses: Padian, Forrest, and Alters. hope I did not miss anyone.

I assume the Pepper firm will use the national attention to build their reputation among paying clients. but as someone who believes in the need for continued vigilence, I have to wonder whether NCSE will take advantage of this decision the way they should. otherwise, it risks generating the perverse result of just stimulating donations by disgruntled creationists, and at a time when we’ve got Kansas and Ohio on the horizon, and maybe the Selman appeal heading to the Supremes.… (anyone know how NCSE’s annual budget compares with the Discovery Institute or other creationist orgs?)

and, America (if you’re still listening), you’re welcome again for all those years, through good times and bad, when I kept donating to NCSE. and my name isn’t even Steve.

When I was reading the trial transcripts I was always wondering how the heck a few lawyers were so scientifically astute. Now I know. Very impressive.

I wonder who was teaching/coaching the TMLC about science and evolution? The DI? Behe? No one? Richard Thompson seemed to lack any real scientific grasp. I guess he was relying on his faith to win the case?

Well all is not lost for the TMLC. I get their email alerts and not a week goes by where they do not win a lawsuit for someone who wants to display a nativity scene in their yard or whatnot. Looks like they have found their niche.

..also the Cobb County case in still pending right?

I should be the one to apologize for side tracking the thread, I suspect my motives were to show that we must not be to complacent. The results in Dover were outstanding,but to quote Sir Winston Churchill This is not the end,this is not the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning.

Off Topic:

Not only has Dembski’s uncommon descent been mothballed, it appears that DI’s blog EvolutionNews has had it’s url expired.

weird.

I think I recruited another Steve for Project Steve I see the Steve-o-meter will be topping 700 soon.

I’ve seen multiple times about these transcripts for the trial, could somebody provide me with a URL to that. I’d love to have been there, but I really didn’t know anything about it untill it was almost all over.

Thanks!

Bayesian Bouffant wrote:

I apologize for sidetracking the thread, which is apparently about Bush family politics, but I want to say that I thought it was brilliant to ask Behe about astrology. That really brought home the watering down he was attempting with the definition of “science” and “theory”.

Agreed. This one may have also given some potential ID supporters pause, since astrology and other such “occult” practices are anathema to fundamentalist Christians.

The Jeb Bush thing surprises me, BTW. As a political progressive, I’ve never been a fan of either Bush Major or Bush Minor, but I wouldn’t have picked Jeb to act like a deliberate know-nothing on this issue. Then again, I don’t live in Florida.

m. child Wrote:

in fact, I think I deserve kudos, too, for being a card-carrying member of NCSE for over 10 years. so… you’re welcome, America!

Please find enclosed a collection of backdated kudos :P

I’m pretty sure we have links to the transcripts already posted on the Kitzmiller Update thread.

Or just try the NCSE website, or the ACLU, or…

It was inevitable that one ot the two lead attorneys for the reality-based community would be a “Steve,” of course!

I apologize for sidetracking the thread, which is apparently about Bush family politics, but I want to say that I thought it was brilliant to ask Behe about astrology. That really brought home the watering down he was attempting with the definition of “science” and “theory”.

That was magnificent. As was Behe’s response when confronted with scores of papers and several books on the evolution of the immune system. And making it clear that school board members were serial liars acting as witting dupes of the very TMLC attorneys who were representing them in the case. Barbara Forrest’s testimony was also good fun. Well done, the lot of you.

Miah Wrote:

I’ve seen multiple times about these transcripts for the trial, could somebody provide me with a URL to that. I’d love to have been there, but I really didn’t know anything about it untill it was almost all over.

Try the NCSE, the PA ACLU and the very handy html transcripts from Talk Origins.

I am totally pulling for Rothschild and Harvey to represent in Ohio when the time comes.

This is a beautiful state with some wonderful IDiots in it. They just need to realize that Separation of Church and State really is for their protectin and defense as well as it is for everyone else (like me!)

Happy (and Slurpy!) New Year!

I, too, started tracking this issue in detail on Oct 19, after reading a CNN.com article that a Defense witness admitted ID required the same definition of science as Astrology. I read the trial transcript for the day’s cross-examination when I got home from work. I still love how Behe was pidgeon-holed into the ID/Astrology->science comparison!

Trial transcripts are here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dov[…]v_dover.html

(Doesn’t anyone use google anymore?)

Best regards.

Well all is not lost for the TMLC. I get their email alerts and not a week goes by where they do not win a lawsuit for someone who wants to display a nativity scene in their yard or whatnot. Looks like they have found their niche.

I’d say they’ve found their creche.

I loved the New Yorker cartoon with Rothschild grilling Behe, complete with spinning bacterial flagellum in the background. (!!) Anyone know whether NCSE or the ACLU will be selling autographed copies as a fundraiser? And if not, can I get a percentage of the take for coming up with the idea?

I’d be willing to start the bidding at $250, but it has to be poster-framing size. And I would promise to display it prominently but safely in our department hallway.

Jeb Bush seems to be doing flipflops on evolution - unless one paper misquoted him.

Bush added that evolution should “absolutely” be part of science teachings, but he said there are gaps in the theory and he personally would want science teachers to allow discussions about creationism.

This seems to be almost exactly opposite what is being reported in The Miami Herald

The Watchdog Report asked a follow-up question: Does the governor believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution?

Bush said: “Yeah, but I don’t think it should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you. And people have different points of view and they can be discussed at school, but it does not need to be in the curriculum.”

wow.

so… simple schizophrenia, or multiple personality disorder?

or too much alcohol? oxycontin?

Dean that’s a good idea Larry is almost as bad as that preposterous guy who MC’ed the Euro vision Song Contest .… Borat from Kazahkstan

Larry wrote: ****If the individual defendants try to appeal, the new board would just pull the rug out from under them by formally repealing the ID rule (rather than just hiding behind the judge’s decision to ban it), thus rendering the appeal moot.****

Does Larry realize that Heather Geesey who voted for the ID policy is still on the board?

You’re right ! Her seat was not up for election. See — http://www.ydr.com/search/ci_3218302 The media gave the false impression that none of the members who voted for the ID statement were still on the board.

Yes that darn Media again which fails to provide the relevant information which could so easily be found.

But does Larry understand the legal situation here correctly?

And the practical effect of the above little piece of trivia is —- ?

Unless Larry understand the legal precedence and rules, his arguments may be, what is commonly known as strawmen. In this case, Larry seems to be under the false impression that the board was sued as individuals.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 5, column 5, byte 113 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Comment #66955 posted by PvM on January 2, 2006 04:26 PM

But does Larry understand the legal situation here correctly?

Larry answered — ****And the practical effect of the above little piece of trivia is —- ?*****

Unless Larry understand the legal precedence and rules, his arguments may be, what is commonly known as strawmen. In this case, Larry seems to be under the false impression that the board was sued as individuals.

There was no straw man here. The issue was whether or not the decision was likely to be appealed. My point was that even if the former board members could appeal as individuals, the current board would probably vote to formally repeal the ID rule if the former board members appealed, thus rendering the appeal moot. Current board member Geesey, who voted for the ID rule, has only one vote and therefore cannot block repeal by herself. So it probably does not matter whether or not the former board members were sued as individuals or could appeal as individuals. I did not need to investigate those questions here because they almost certainly do not matter in regard to the possibility of appeal. I have enough important issues to investigate without having to worry about about unimportant ones too.

You ARE the strawman, Larry. what did the strawman in OZ need, Larry? do you remember?

You sure are sorely lacking. You should go see the Wizard. I hear he lives over at ARN.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 3, column 5, byte 218 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Comment #66955 posted by PvM on January 2, 2006 04:26 PM

Larry wrote: ****You’re right ! Her seat was not up for election.****

Yes that darn Media again which fails to provide the relevant information which could so easily be found.

And I suppose that you have never been misinformed or been given a false impression by the media?

Most news reports stated that the members who voted for the ID statement were voted off the board, which was not a correct statement because one of those members remained on the board. Most news reports did not say or indicate that only pro-ID members whose seats were up for election were voted off the board. And the media in general should have added that one of the pro-ID members was not up for re-election. The news article I cited was the first time I saw that.

Why do I have to spend so much time here arguing about trivia? WHY? You act as if the fact that Geesey remained on the board is an important point, and it is not. It was nice to know, and you told me, so we should forget about it. Instead you keep riding it into the ground.

The tactics here are to tie me up in responding to pointless posts so that I have less time to address the real issues.

The tactics here are to tie me up in responding to pointless posts so that I have less time to address the real issues.

That’s what you call it when people point out you have no idea what you’re talking about?

The tactics here are to tie me up in responding to pointless posts so that I have less time to address the real issues.

muhahaha! yes, you go it superlarry. Us evilutionist are just trying to confuse you so you don’t get to address the real issues.

our evil plan is succeeding so well, we seem to have you not knowing whether you are coming or going.

Now over at ARN, they play much nicer with your type, Larry. Really.

And I suppose that you have never been misinformed or been given a false impression by the media?

No.

But then, I spend more than 10 seconds reading the background.

Again, some facts would help your arguments. This is done via research. Research means actually reading the articles you look up. Reading does not mean skimming.

The tactics here are to tie me up in responding to pointless posts so that I have less time to address the real issues.

Which sorta points out that you have no clue what the real issues are.

Hint: if you don’t get the details right, you don’t have a chance of addressing the real issues correctly.

Creationism and finding oil

Good god there are some friggin DUMB people posting to that site!

Comment #66916 posted by Dean Morrison on January 2, 2006 12:06 PM

Laughing Stock Larry wrote: Where would opponents of ID be without the constitutional separation of church and state? In Britain, for example, there is religion in the public schools, so ruling that ID is religious would provide no basis for banning it from public-school science classes there.

DeanTheDunce answered: Actually us Brits can tell the difference between Science and Religion, and it seems, are much better educated on the subject than the majority of your population.

You missed my point. If some British school board with some lunatic-fringe bible-thumping fundy crackpots decides to add ID to the science curriculum, how could the British courts stop them?

Here is what our schools are required to teach, religious or not:

http://tinyurl.com/9q8db

Sc2 Life processes and living things Knowledge, skills and understanding Variation, inheritance and evolution 4) Students should be taught: Evolution 1. that the fossil record is evidence for evolution 2. how variation and selection may lead to evolution or to extinction.

Yes, but you have shown no rules prohibiting the teaching, discussion, or mentioning of ID in science classes. Also, the above British standards only say that evolution should be taught, not that evolution must be taught.

- I know you consider yourself to be infallible, and incapable of making, or at least admitting to, a mistake - but would you like to surprise us all and admit to a factual error in this case mate? Do that and I’ll withdraw the ‘Laughing Stock’ tag.

And what “factual error” is that?

So many people have been giving me nicknames here – mostly derogatory – that I think I will adopt a nickname myself. From now on, I may sign my comments, “Scary Larry.”

So many people have been giving me nicknames here — mostly derogatory — that I think I will adopt a nickname myself. From now on, I may sign my comments, “Scary Larry.”

Trust me, you’re not scaring anyone.

I stopped being afraid of scarecrows when i was about 4. find that brain of yours yet lalarry?

Comment #66827 posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 11:42 PM

Larry wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I think that there is a lot of ambiguity in the Lemon test. The first prong of the test is often simply called the “purpose” prong, and the second prong is often called the “effects” prong. But what kind of “purpose” is the subject of the first prong? Is it the intended purpose (i.e., concerning the motives of the public officials) or the apparent purpose (i.e., what the purpose appears to be without regard to the motives of the public officials)? Or is it both kinds of purposes? >>>>>>>>>>>

In order to answer these questions one has to understand the case law on Lemon. Typically purpose looks to see if the primary purpose is secular. This means that even though there may be religious purposes, the overall or primary purpose needs to be secular. Hence the attempt to ‘teach the controversy’. But as the SC has stated, the stated purpose needs to be sincere and not a sham.

You did not answer the question but changed the subject. I was asking about intended purpose vs.apparent purpose as I defined them above, and you discussed only the subject of secular purpose vs. religious purpose.

Anyway, I think the Lemon test “sucks.”

Anyway, I think the Lemon test “sucks.”

Larry, you’ve never given us any reason to care WHAT you think, except as a constant source of amusement.

checked out ARN yet? In addition to Free Beer, i hear they are much less critical of irrational folks like yourself.

You did not answer the question but changed the subject.

Well, that’s the point. If YOU don’t understand how the judge got where he did, but keep on screaming “It’s wrong! It’s wrong!”, you’re certainly not going to get anywhere.

There’s a reason why it’s discussed in terms of secular purpose vs. religious purpose. And if you don’t accept it, then the argument’s over.

Scary Larry Wrote:

You missed my point. If some British school board with some lunatic-fringe bible-thumping fundy crackpots decides to add ID to the science curriculum, how could the British courts stop them?

Well it wouldn’t need to get to the courts to stop them - we have a powerful school inspection body called OFSTED which has powers to put schools into ‘Special Measures’ or even close them down. We have a different constitution to you of course so we look to parliament for answers on this rather than appealing to a written constitution via a ‘Supreme Court’ (our top Judges sit in Parliament at the moment):

http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/called44.htm

I guess ‘should’ is used instead of ‘must’ throughout the National Curriculum because they don’t want to come across as all ‘Schoolmissy’ - it still has the same legal implications though.

You will be pleased to know that in recent years a number of ‘City Technology Colleges’ have been set up which are technically Independant of the State - as they receive private funding - but also receive state funding. They are required to teach the National Curriculum. One of these is suspected of teaching ‘Creationism’ alongside Evolution in it’s science classes - and this has caused quite a stink - questions have been asked in parliament:

http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs[…]tionists.htm

However even they are careful (although slippery) about what they say:

“What we’ve said is we will teach evolution - because it is a theory still, unless someone has found the missing link and proofs to put it to bed once and for all - and creationism, in the appropriate subjects. Certainly evolution is usually taught in science and creationism is usually in RE, but that would not exclude a closer look at comparative theories of the origins of the world in either subject.”

They are soon due for an OFSTED inspection so they will need to get their act straight pretty quick.

.Yes, but you have shown no rules prohibiting the teaching, discussion, or mentioning of ID in science classes.

It would be pretty boring to have to write a list of things not to teach wouldn’t it now? We don’t outlaw teaching about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the (now officially recognised) Jedi religion either - but most teachers have more pressing uses for school time, and most parents aren’t going to be happy if little Johnny isn’t being prepared for his GCSE exams. These obviously don’t recognise ID, and any kid putting ID answers down in his Biology GCSE will fail, pure and simple.

Most of our faith schools, the majority of which are Church of England or Catholic have no problems with evolution anyway.

Fine old bit of messy British pragmatism if you ask me - but then we don’t tend to get our knickers in a twist about religion over here…

Comment #67080 posted by gwangung on January 3, 2006 03:52 AM

Larry wrote – ****You did not answer the question but changed the subject.****

Well, that’s the point. If YOU don’t understand how the judge got where he did, but keep on screaming “It’s wrong! It’s wrong!”, you’re certainly not going to get anywhere.

There’s a reason why it’s discussed in terms of secular purpose vs. religious purpose. And if you don’t accept it, then the argument’s over.

I asked a very simple question – does the Lemon test’s “purpose” prong concern the intended purpose, the apparent purpose (without regard to intentions), or both? You couldn’t answer, so you just ducked the question by telling me that I “don’t understand.” You didn’t have the honesty to admit that you could not answer the question. No one can answer, because there is no agreement on what the Lemon test means. I searched the Internet for definitions of the Lemon test’s “purpose” prong, and I could not get a consistent answer.

Here is what the Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia says about the Lemon test –

“Lemon’s future is somewhat uncertain. Sustained criticism by conservative Justices such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, lack of a clear reaffirmation of the central tenets of Lemon over the years since the 1980s, and inconsistent application in major Establishment Clause cases has led some legal commentators and lower court judges to believe that Lemon’s days are numbered, and that the Court has implicitly left the decision of whether to apply the test in a specific case up to lower courts. This has resulted in a patchwork pattern of enforcement in circuit courts across the nation; while some courts apply Lemon in all or most cases, others apply it in few or none.”

Scary Larry

Well ‘armless Black Knight Larry who is really really really scary If you think a few pesky lawyers and scientists will be the only objectors in Establishment Clause cases wait until the Churches get wind of it. Jews Islamist’s, Catholics, FSMists the whole lot will be “asking questions”.

Now Larry time for a joke

A duck walks into a pub and says to the barman: “Got any bread?” Barman says: “No.” Duck says: “Got any bread?” Barman says: “No.” Duck says: “Got any bread?” Barman says: “No, we have no bread.” Duck says: “Got any bread?” Barman says: “No, we haven’t got any &%$#@ bread.” Duck says: “Got any bread?” Barman says: “No, are you deaf, we haven’t got any &%$#@ bread, ask me again and I’ll nail your &%$#@ Beak to the bar you irritating &%$#@ bird!” Duck says: “Got any nails?” Barman says: “No.” Duck says: “Got any bread?”

Larry there is an old saying In law as in love, too much concentration on technique can often lead to impotence

Comment #67098 posted by Dean Morrison on January 3, 2006 05:31 AM

Scary Larry wrote: ****You missed my point. If some British school board with some lunatic-fringe bible-thumping fundy crackpots decides to add ID to the science curriculum, how could the British courts stop them?*****

Well it wouldn’t need to get to the courts to stop them - we have a powerful school inspection body called OFSTED which has powers to put schools into ‘Special Measures’ or even close them down.

Well, you missed this little quote from the British curricular standards that you provided –

“( c ) Science curriculum *********Schools do teach how scientific controversies can arise from the interpretation of empirical evidence and this is likely to include Darwin’s theory of evolution. Pupils are encouraged to explore different views, theories and beliefs.*********” —-from http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/called44.htm

I am wondering – are these standards just recommendations or are they actually in effect?

Also, the other URL link you provided, for an article titled, “Creationists taking over state schools,” shows a lot more support for teaching ID/creationism in British state-supported schools than you admitted to in your post. See –http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs[…]tionists.htm

There seems to be this myth in the USA that the campaign to teach ID/creationism in the public schools is a uniquely American thing that threatens to cause the USA to fall behind other nations in science education.

So you British appear to be much more relaxed than Americans in regard to the entanglement of the state and religion. Many Americans are really uptight about this church-state separation thing – it is almost paranoid. I personally am extremely opposed to school prayer – to me it is an invasion of the privacy of religious belief. My reasons for supporting ID are not religious. I also support non-ID criticisms of evolution.

Scary Larry

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 9, column 41, byte 582 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Larry In dear old blighty a Myth is

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.

In the land of the Brave and home of the Free a myth is A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology

And you have yet to know the difference

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 18, column 6, byte 1770 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

… and of course, as usual, Larry MISSES the key point while he quote mines:

Schools do teach how scientific controversies can arise from the interpretation of empirical evidence

do you even know what “empirical evidence” means, Larry?

Nobody here, or on any science website EVER, has rejected controversy in the face of empiracal evidence, Larry.

The problem is that creationism, ID, and whatever else it ends up morphing into, HAS NO EMPIRACAL EVIDENCE, period. no ifs ands or buts about it. Ask the key proponents of the ID concept itself, like Dembski or Paul Nelson, and they will readily tell you so themselves, if you don’t believe me.

Or hell, take a gander at the list of “peer reviewed publications” in “support” of ID over at the DI and tell me if ANY of them contain ANY empiracal evidence whatsoever.

gees, how is it that you are so damn dense?

Hi Larry!

.. you understand our interest in what happens in your schools - a good arguement to keep ‘wealthy American creationists’ out of our schools when we can say “look! - they only want to teach here what they aren’t allowed to teach over there!”

“Not on your Nelly” as we say…

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 1, 2006 11:40 AM (e) (s)

Where would opponents of ID be without the constitutional separation of church and state? In Britain, for example, there is religion in the public schools, so ruling that ID is religious would provide no basis for banning it from public-school science classes there. One big reason why opponents of ID keep insisting that ID is religious is so they can use the church-state separation principle to attack it.

Oh, how little you know! In the UK, I have never heard of religion being taught in a science class.

I am fairly sure in the USA, even without a church/state separation, it would still be unlawful to teach religion as science.

Would it be OK to teach geography as maths?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on December 30, 2005 2:40 AM.

Judge Jones: A Devout Christian? was the previous entry in this blog.

Don Wise and Incompetent Design is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter