Dover Penn ID trial - Page 5

chipmunk stew · 24th October 2005, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Out of curiosity does anyone have links to how the "other side" are commenting on the trial?

Here's the Discovery Institute's site about the trial. Such baldly dishonest quotes as:

Quote:

While Discovery Institute does not support efforts to require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it also strongly opposes the ACLU's attempt to censor classroom discussion of intelligent design.

And one from the ironically-named Center for Science and Culture. A sampling of their cattle doo-doo:

Quote:

The ACLU has gone from defending teachers to prosecuting them. In a federal courtroom this week, the ACLU argued that science teachers in the school district of Dover, Pennyslvania, are not free under the Constitution to question evolutionary theory.

chipmunk stew · 24th October 2005, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

Here's the Discovery Institute's site about the trial. Such baldly dishonest quotes as:

And one from the ironically-named Center for Science and Culture. A sampling of their cattle doo-doo:

I found another. A blog called ID the Future

with contributions by several big hitters. They also have a list of contributor websites on the right side of the page.

chipmunk stew · 24th October 2005, 02:33 PM

I've noticed it's been difficult to retrieve some of the pages above, particularly those hosted by Discovery Institute. Makes me think they get a lot of traffic.

I haven't found a good "other side" site with high traffic forums we can troll. Anyone else know of any?

Mojo · 24th October 2005, 05:12 PM

OK. The plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated abundantly that ID is not good science (at least as far as most of us here are concerned). But I don't think that this is what they need to do in order to win the case. Is there anything in the US constitution that says that kids can't be taught nonsense?

I think, in fact, that what the plaintiifs need to demonstrate is that that ID is a religious idea. Have they done this?

Am I right in what I've said in this post?

I think we need a proper American lawyer here.

Brown, where are you?

chipmunk stew · 24th October 2005, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

OK. The plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated abundantly that ID is not good science (at least as far as most of us here are concerned). But I don't think that this is what they need to do in order to win the case. Is there anything in the US constitution that says that kids can't be taught nonsense?

I think, in fact, that what the plaintiifs need to demonstrate is that that ID is a religious idea. Have they done this?

Am I right in what I've said in this post?

I think we need a proper American lawyer here.

Brown, where are you?

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm completely speculating, but I'd think in order to demonstrate ID as religion, they'd first have to establish that it's not science. Otherwise, you get:
"ID is religion."
"Nah-ah, it's science."

It seems that as they've been aggressively thrashing ID as science (and Behe as an expert witness) they've also been laying groundwork for a solid legal argument for ID as religion by showing ID's historical connection to other forms of creationism. If I understand correctly, teaching other forms of creationism has been deemed unconstitutional on the basis of their demonstrable Christian Fundamentalist roots combined with their demonstrably unscientific nature.

Mojo · 24th October 2005, 06:07 PM

OK, they've trashed ID as good science (and Behe as a sentient being). But saying that it's therefore religion is a false dilemma.

I really think they need to do more than that.

Ed · 24th October 2005, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

OK, they've trashed ID as good science (and Behe as a sentient being). But saying that it's therefore religion is a false dilemma.

I really think they need to do more than that.

I think that they have shown that ID=Creationism (thru really slimey subterfuge) and it has been found that Creationism=Religion. They have also shown that everyone and everybody in the least bit associated with ID has a religious political bias. I think that they demonstrated the link and it between the concept (very important) and religion.

Mojo · 24th October 2005, 06:26 PM

I'd love to think that. But I'm waiting for the verdict (and the appeals...).

Dr Adequate · 25th October 2005, 12:53 AM

I think that all they have to do is show that the case falls under the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard; and I think this has been adequately demonstrated. The rest of the trial is an amusing sideshow.

chipmunk stew · 25th October 2005, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

I think that all they have to do is show that the case falls under the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard; and I think this has been adequately demonstrated. The rest of the trial is an amusing sideshow.

This seems to be the strategy. The held opinion in Edwards v. Aguillard states:

Quote:

1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 585-594.
(a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." ....
(b) The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. ....

The Behe bashing covers 1(a).
I have a feeling we'll see the focus of the case and the plaintiff's conclusionary statement crescendo on 1(b).

tsg · 25th October 2005, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

OK. The plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated abundantly that ID is not good science (at least as far as most of us here are concerned). But I don't think that this is what they need to do in order to win the case. Is there anything in the US constitution that says that kids can't be taught nonsense?

I think, in fact, that what the plaintiifs need to demonstrate is that that ID is a religious idea. Have they done this?

Am I right in what I've said in this post?

I think we need a proper American lawyer here.

Brown, where are you?

IANAL, but in order to win, the plaintiffs have to show that teaching ID does constitute teaching religion. The plaintiff's strategy thus far is to show that ID is fundamentally the same as creationism which has already been determined is a violation of the First Amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard.

But, knowing this case will be appealed no matter which side wins, the plaintiffs are going beyond that to show that the Dover Board of Ed's actions violate the Lemon Test all on its own without relying Edwards v. Aguillard so they don't have to rely on a similarity to creationism in the appellate court. If the plaintiffs win on just the similarity to creationism, they could lose the appeal if the defendants can successfully argue that ID is not creationism.

The reason for showing that it is not science is two-fold: first, if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religion (it has already been established that ID is a philosophical/theological argument as well as a "scientific" one, so there is no false dilemma); second, if there is no science, there is no loss by not teaching it in a science class. The ID'ers have been trying to hint at their persecution in the scientific community simply for suggesting that evolution might be wrong, when, in fact, their rejection is due to their lack of science.

Mojo · 25th October 2005, 06:49 AM

New announcement on the ACLUPA Blog: Judge Jones has struck out the Discovery Institute's amicus briefs on the grounds that they were an attempt to introduce Meyer and Dembski's evidence without their being cross-examined.

drkitten · 25th October 2005, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

New announcement on the ACLUPA Blog: Judge Jones has struck out the Discovery Institute's amicus briefs on the grounds that they were an attempt to introduce Meyer and Dembski's evidence without their being cross-examined.

Minor correction. The DI introduced two briefs, one in its own name, and one in the name of the eight or so "scientists" whom the DI could scrape up to sign a statement supporting ID. Only the first brief was struck -- stricken -- strucken -- striked -- thrown out.

Still, it's not a good sign for the defendants....

drkitten · 25th October 2005, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by tsg

IANAL, but in order to win, the plaintiffs have to show that teaching ID does constitute teaching religion. The plaintiff's strategy thus far is to show that ID is fundamentally the same as creationism which has already been determined is a violation of the First Amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard.

Which, of course, is why the ID proponents are trying very hard to discredit Dr. Forrest; she's basically the only expert that can "connect the dots" in her testimony. She's the only expert to which the defense was unwilling to stipulate her qualifications. They worked very hard during the voir dire to undercut her credibiliity by connecting her with political groups such as the Council for Secular Humanism (to the point where the judge had to slam the attorney rather hard). They raised a completely inappropriate hearsay objection to her entire expert report and testimony (again, drawing a red card from the judge), and are now bending if not breaking the rules regarding amici briefs in order to get their rebuttal to Forrest into the record without risking having their own theologians undergo a searching cross-examination as Behe did.

And the reason can be summed up in a single question and answer:

Quote:

Q. Dr. Forrest, is it your view, your opinion, that intelligent design is at its core a philosophical and theological claim?

A. It is my view that at its core intelligent design is a religious belief.

She currently stands in the possibly unenviable position of being the only qualified "expert" on "methdological naturalism and the history and nature of the intelligent design movement." As such, the statement that "intelligent design is a religious belief" stands essentially unopposed and unrefuted in expert testimony.

ETA: If this case is decided for the plaintiffs, and then is appealed, the situation gets even worse for the defendants, because expert testimony tends to be even more believable when you're just reading the transcripts and not seeing the expert testify on the stand. So you can understand exactly how panic-stricken the DI folks are about being unable to get their counter-arguments to Forrest into the record....

tsg · 25th October 2005, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

ETA: If this case is decided for the plaintiffs, and then is appealed, the situation gets even worse for the defendants, because expert testimony tends to be even more believable when you're just reading the transcripts and not seeing the expert testify on the stand. So you can understand exactly how panic-stricken the DI folks are about being unable to get their counter-arguments to Forrest into the record....

This is one of the things that makes reading the transcripts so enjoyable. Real scientists are used to having their ideas challenged and are very experienced in defending them (that pesky peer review process). Watching them very calmly and cooly endure the cross without being flustered and then watching Behe almost come apart at the seams makes it readily apparent he's never really had to defend his ideas in a scientific setting. The judge, at the very least, has to have the impression that Behe hasn't really thought this through. It also sheds some light on why Meyer and Dembski may not have wanted to go through cross examination.

Mojo · 25th October 2005, 08:19 AM

I think Behe has published peer-reviewed papers, just not any about ID.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 25th October 2005, 08:20 AM

GOD, I love this stuff.

~~ Paul

Melendwyr · 25th October 2005, 08:23 AM

Determining whether something is religious is quite difficult, as anything could potentially be taken on faith and made the centerpiece of one's religious convictions.

Showing that ID isn't good science - or even science at all - effectively demonstrates that there's no real secular reason to mention it in science classes.

Let's just hope the judge can see that.

drkitten · 25th October 2005, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

I think Behe has published peer-reviewed papers, just not any about ID.

He has, at least as recently as 2004. (His CV is on-line if you want to look at what he's done.)

On the other hand, despite what you might thing, peer review is usually a fairly friendly process if you're doing straightforward, non-controversial work. There's not much you will get criticized for in a paper entitled "Poly[da]@poly[dT] forms very stable mucleosomes at higher temperatures," as long as your lab technique is acceptable.

I think what this really shows is that he's never tried to discuss his work at the "scientific meetings" he's been studiously avoiding. Because you know that if he opened his mouth and this kind of bilge came out of it, some top-flight microbiologist would pwn him like the n00b he is during the question period.

drkitten · 25th October 2005, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Showing that ID isn't good science - or even science at all - effectively demonstrates that there's no real secular reason to mention it in science classes.

But that's insufficient reason to ban a practice under US law. It's necessary to show that teaching ID "advances religion" in order for it to violate the Bill of Rights.

Fortunately, I think I disagree with your statement:

Quote:

Determining whether something is religious is quite difficult, as anything could potentially be taken on faith and made the centerpiece of one's religious convictions.

What you describe is essentially the definition of religion (as proposed by the Georgetown theologian whose name escapes me). If I can show that a substantial number of people have, in fact, taken "ID" on faith and made it the centerpiece of one's religious convictions" -- as Dr. Forrest testified, for example, in demonstrating how some of the ID proponents use John 1:1 as the starting poing for their "investigations" of evolution and the origins of life -- if I can show that, then I've basically demonstrated that it's a religion.

hammegk · 25th October 2005, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by tsg

if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religion

Indeed, cards face up on the table: Science vs. Religion.

hammegk · 25th October 2005, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Hmm, reading comprehension difficulties and context difficulties, all in ten short words.

Your ability to combine fallacious thought, factual inaccuracy, and pig-ignorance into the smallest possible expression continues to astound me. Have you considered writing Haiku?

Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.

Mojo · 25th October 2005, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed.

Nope. It's American Constitution vs. religion.

Ed · 25th October 2005, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.

Are you suggesting that the ID arguments are reasonable in the slightest?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 25th October 2005, 10:21 AM

Hey all, don't miss the article "Why Scientists Get So Angry When Dealing with ID Proponents" in the latest Skeptical Inquisitor. It analyzes one Dembski essay to show how fair and accurate IDers try to be when quoting biologists---not.

~~ Paul

tsg · 25th October 2005, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

But that's insufficient reason to ban a practice under US law. It's necessary to show that teaching ID "advances religion" in order for it to violate the Bill of Rights.

Actually, it's not (to my limited understanding, at least). The first prong of the Lemon Test is that the government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose. Violating any one of the three prongs makes it unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Showing that it violates more than one prong certainly strengthens the case, though, so if they can also show that it advances religion it would violate the second prong as well.

chipmunk stew · 25th October 2005, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

Are you suggesting that the ID arguments are reasonable in the slightest?

No, he didn't say that. He said the ID guys lack the "ability to ignore things because they are not by [drkitten's] standards logical & scientific". This could mean two things:

1. They have no ability to filter out things that appear illogical and unscientific.

or

2. They have no ability to make their argument without introducing their own standards for what is logical and scientific. (such that astrology makes the cut

)

chipmunk stew · 25th October 2005, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Hey all, don't miss the article "Why Scientists Get So Angry When Dealing with ID Proponents" in the latest Skeptical Inquisitor.

link?

tsg · 25th October 2005, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Originally Posted by tsg

if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religion

Indeed, cards face up on the table: Science vs. Religion.

Way, way, way out of context, but whatever...

Originally Posted by hammegk

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.

There is no dichotomy: science does not address the supernatural, philosophical or theological. The people who constantly try to make it a dichotomy are those who can't reconcile their religious beliefs with known facts.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 25th October 2005, 10:49 AM

Chipmunk, I was about to tell you it was in a magazine, but it is online!

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdes...designers.html

~~ Paul

m0nngis · 25th October 2005, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

GOD, I love this stuff.

Heh, me too!

I think productivity at work has halved since I started to read the transcripts.

drkitten · 25th October 2005, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.

By what standard is ID "logical and scientific"?

For that matter, by what standard are any of your contributions in this thread "logical and scientific"?

I'm not unreasonable. If the problem is that I'm using the wrong standards to evaluate an argument, convince me. I fear the problem is that I have standards at all, and that I'm not willing to uncritically accept whatever drivel drips from your keyboard.

Ed · 25th October 2005, 01:12 PM

Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.

Melendwyr · 25th October 2005, 01:24 PM

No. "If there is currently no known rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural."

You need to remove the verbal ambiguity. "Something that cannot be explained by rational means" implies that no such explanation is possible, rather than that no such explanation is known at present, which I think is what you meant.

tsg · 25th October 2005, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ed

Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.

I would revise it thusly: "ID states that whether or not something can be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural."

hammegk · 25th October 2005, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ed

Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.

If you are a materialist -- whether you recognize it or not -- yes, of course.

Originally Posted by chippy_monk

Well, well! Look who arrived late to the party, looking smashing as always.

Originally Posted by hammegk (I'm paraphrasing, of course) :
I'm no creationist, but I sure do like their arguments!

You are as wrong as you are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by mojo

Nope. It's American Constitution vs. religion.

Other see it differently. BTW, are you even a US citizen? If not, what dog do you have in this fight?

Originally Posted by dr.kitten

By what standard is ID "logical and scientific"?

Unknown. I've never suggested it is or was.

Quote:

For that matter, by what standard are any of your contributions in this thread "logical and scientific"?

That depends on one's understanding, or lack thereof.

Ed · 25th October 2005, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

No. "If there is currently no known rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural."

You need to remove the verbal ambiguity. "Something that cannot be explained by rational means" implies that no such explanation is possible, rather than that no such explanation is known at present, which I think is what you meant.

I thought that is what I wrote. Perhaps taking out the "known" which is implied:

"If there is currently no rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural"

I could say

"If there is no rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural"

Which implies that we do not, nor is it possible, to have a rational explination. It seems that what they are arguing is that where we are now, from a scientific standpoint, is the pinnicle of understanding and that answers to things that Behe cited will never be forthcoming so we might as well not look.

so I go with... actually, I am not sure now. What is the guiding principle of ID? Once something is deemed to be "created" do they consider it blasphamy to investigate further?

tsg · 25th October 2005, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by hammegk

If you are a materialist -- whether you recognize it or not -- yes, of course.

No. That it is, as of yet, unexplained does not make it unexplainable.

Mojo · 25th October 2005, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by hammegk

BTW, are you even a US citizen? If not, what dog do you have in this fight?

We have creationist loons over here as well. Consider me as a sort of amicus curiae, if you will.

Anyway, do you claim to be a US citizen? If so, can you prove it to the sort of standard that you expect of others?

Mojo · 25th October 2005, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Yes, although I choose not to do so, here.

Do you mean you choose not to claim to be a US citizen, or you choose not to prove it?

24th October 2005, 05:12 PM	#164
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 38,549	OK. The plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated abundantly that ID is not good science (at least as far as most of us here are concerned). But I don't think that this is what they need to do in order to win the case. Is there anything in the US constitution that says that kids can't be taught nonsense? I think, in fact, that what the plaintiifs need to demonstrate is that that ID is a religious idea. Have they done this? Am I right in what I've said in this post? I think we need a proper American lawyer here. Brown, where are you?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

24th October 2005, 06:07 PM	#166
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 38,549	OK, they've trashed ID as good science (and Behe as a sentient being). But saying that it's therefore religion is a false dilemma. I really think they need to do more than that.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

24th October 2005, 06:22 PM	#167
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658	Originally Posted by Mojo OK, they've trashed ID as good science (and Behe as a sentient being). But saying that it's therefore religion is a false dilemma. I really think they need to do more than that. I think that they have shown that ID=Creationism (thru really slimey subterfuge) and it has been found that Creationism=Religion. They have also shown that everyone and everybody in the least bit associated with ID has a religious political bias. I think that they demonstrated the link and it between the concept (very important) and religion.
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658

24th October 2005, 06:26 PM	#168
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 38,549	I'd love to think that. But I'm waiting for the verdict (and the appeals...).
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

25th October 2005, 12:53 AM	#169
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766	I think that all they have to do is show that the case falls under the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard; and I think this has been adequately demonstrated. The rest of the trial is an amusing sideshow.
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766

24th October 2005, 02:11 PM	#161
chipmunk stew Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 7,448	Originally Posted by Darat Out of curiosity does anyone have links to how the "other side" are commenting on the trial? Here's the Discovery Institute's site about the trial. Such baldly dishonest quotes as: Quote: While Discovery Institute does not support efforts to require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it also strongly opposes the ACLU's attempt to censor classroom discussion of intelligent design. And one from the ironically-named Center for Science and Culture. A sampling of their cattle doo-doo: Quote: The ACLU has gone from defending teachers to prosecuting them. In a federal courtroom this week, the ACLU argued that science teachers in the school district of Dover, Pennyslvania, are not free under the Constitution to question evolutionary theory.

24th October 2005, 02:28 PM	#162
chipmunk stew Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 7,448	Originally Posted by chipmunk stew Here's the Discovery Institute's site about the trial. Such baldly dishonest quotes as: And one from the ironically-named Center for Science and Culture. A sampling of their cattle doo-doo: I found another. A blog called ID the Future with contributions by several big hitters. They also have a list of contributor websites on the right side of the page.

24th October 2005, 02:33 PM	#163
chipmunk stew Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 7,448	I've noticed it's been difficult to retrieve some of the pages above, particularly those hosted by Discovery Institute. Makes me think they get a lot of traffic. I haven't found a good "other side" site with high traffic forums we can troll. Anyone else know of any?

24th October 2005, 05:26 PM	#165
chipmunk stew Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 7,448	Originally Posted by Mojo OK. The plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated abundantly that ID is not good science (at least as far as most of us here are concerned). But I don't think that this is what they need to do in order to win the case. Is there anything in the US constitution that says that kids can't be taught nonsense? I think, in fact, that what the plaintiifs need to demonstrate is that that ID is a religious idea. Have they done this? Am I right in what I've said in this post? I think we need a proper American lawyer here. Brown, where are you? I'm not a lawyer, so I'm completely speculating, but I'd think in order to demonstrate ID as religion, they'd first have to establish that it's not science. Otherwise, you get: "ID is religion." "Nah-ah, it's science." It seems that as they've been aggressively thrashing ID as science (and Behe as an expert witness) they've also been laying groundwork for a solid legal argument for ID as religion by showing ID's historical connection to other forms of creationism. If I understand correctly, teaching other forms of creationism has been deemed unconstitutional on the basis of their demonstrable Christian Fundamentalist roots combined with their demonstrably unscientific nature.

25th October 2005, 03:42 AM	#170
chipmunk stew Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 7,448	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate I think that all they have to do is show that the case falls under the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard; and I think this has been adequately demonstrated. The rest of the trial is an amusing sideshow. This seems to be the strategy. The held opinion in Edwards v. Aguillard states: Quote: 1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 585-594. (a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." .... (b) The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. .... The Behe bashing covers 1(a). I have a feeling we'll see the focus of the case and the plaintiff's conclusionary statement crescendo on 1(b).

25th October 2005, 06:32 AM	#171
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by Mojo OK. The plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated abundantly that ID is not good science (at least as far as most of us here are concerned). But I don't think that this is what they need to do in order to win the case. Is there anything in the US constitution that says that kids can't be taught nonsense? I think, in fact, that what the plaintiifs need to demonstrate is that that ID is a religious idea. Have they done this? Am I right in what I've said in this post? I think we need a proper American lawyer here. Brown, where are you? IANAL, but in order to win, the plaintiffs have to show that teaching ID does constitute teaching religion. The plaintiff's strategy thus far is to show that ID is fundamentally the same as creationism which has already been determined is a violation of the First Amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard. But, knowing this case will be appealed no matter which side wins, the plaintiffs are going beyond that to show that the Dover Board of Ed's actions violate the Lemon Test all on its own without relying Edwards v. Aguillard so they don't have to rely on a similarity to creationism in the appellate court. If the plaintiffs win on just the similarity to creationism, they could lose the appeal if the defendants can successfully argue that ID is not creationism. The reason for showing that it is not science is two-fold: first, if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religion (it has already been established that ID is a philosophical/theological argument as well as a "scientific" one, so there is no false dilemma); second, if there is no science, there is no loss by not teaching it in a science class. The ID'ers have been trying to hint at their persecution in the scientific community simply for suggesting that evolution might be wrong, when, in fact, their rejection is due to their lack of science.
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

25th October 2005, 06:49 AM	#172
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 38,549	New announcement on the ACLUPA Blog: Judge Jones has struck out the Discovery Institute's amicus briefs on the grounds that they were an attempt to introduce Meyer and Dembski's evidence without their being cross-examined.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

25th October 2005, 07:00 AM	#173
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 21,629	Originally Posted by Mojo New announcement on the ACLUPA Blog: Judge Jones has struck out the Discovery Institute's amicus briefs on the grounds that they were an attempt to introduce Meyer and Dembski's evidence without their being cross-examined. Minor correction. The DI introduced two briefs, one in its own name, and one in the name of the eight or so "scientists" whom the DI could scrape up to sign a statement supporting ID. Only the first brief was struck -- stricken -- strucken -- striked -- thrown out. Still, it's not a good sign for the defendants....

25th October 2005, 07:13 AM	#174
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 21,629	Originally Posted by tsg IANAL, but in order to win, the plaintiffs have to show that teaching ID does constitute teaching religion. The plaintiff's strategy thus far is to show that ID is fundamentally the same as creationism which has already been determined is a violation of the First Amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard. Which, of course, is why the ID proponents are trying very hard to discredit Dr. Forrest; she's basically the only expert that can "connect the dots" in her testimony. She's the only expert to which the defense was unwilling to stipulate her qualifications. They worked very hard during the voir dire to undercut her credibiliity by connecting her with political groups such as the Council for Secular Humanism (to the point where the judge had to slam the attorney rather hard). They raised a completely inappropriate hearsay objection to her entire expert report and testimony (again, drawing a red card from the judge), and are now bending if not breaking the rules regarding amici briefs in order to get their rebuttal to Forrest into the record without risking having their own theologians undergo a searching cross-examination as Behe did. And the reason can be summed up in a single question and answer: Quote: Q. Dr. Forrest, is it your view, your opinion, that intelligent design is at its core a philosophical and theological claim? A. It is my view that at its core intelligent design is a religious belief. She currently stands in the possibly unenviable position of being the only qualified "expert" on "methdological naturalism and the history and nature of the intelligent design movement." As such, the statement that "intelligent design is a religious belief" stands essentially unopposed and unrefuted in expert testimony. ETA: If this case is decided for the plaintiffs, and then is appealed, the situation gets even worse for the defendants, because expert testimony tends to be even more believable when you're just reading the transcripts and not seeing the expert testify on the stand. So you can understand exactly how panic-stricken the DI folks are about being unable to get their counter-arguments to Forrest into the record....

25th October 2005, 08:02 AM	#175
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by drkitten ETA: If this case is decided for the plaintiffs, and then is appealed, the situation gets even worse for the defendants, because expert testimony tends to be even more believable when you're just reading the transcripts and not seeing the expert testify on the stand. So you can understand exactly how panic-stricken the DI folks are about being unable to get their counter-arguments to Forrest into the record.... This is one of the things that makes reading the transcripts so enjoyable. Real scientists are used to having their ideas challenged and are very experienced in defending them (that pesky peer review process). Watching them very calmly and cooly endure the cross without being flustered and then watching Behe almost come apart at the seams makes it readily apparent he's never really had to defend his ideas in a scientific setting. The judge, at the very least, has to have the impression that Behe hasn't really thought this through. It also sheds some light on why Meyer and Dembski may not have wanted to go through cross examination.
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

25th October 2005, 08:19 AM	#176
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 38,549	I think Behe has published peer-reviewed papers, just not any about ID.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

25th October 2005, 08:20 AM	#177
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,137	GOD, I love this stuff. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

25th October 2005, 08:23 AM	#178
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	Determining whether something is religious is quite difficult, as anything could potentially be taken on faith and made the centerpiece of one's religious convictions. Showing that ID isn't good science - or even science at all - effectively demonstrates that there's no real secular reason to mention it in science classes. Let's just hope the judge can see that.
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064

25th October 2005, 08:25 AM	#179
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 21,629	Originally Posted by Mojo I think Behe has published peer-reviewed papers, just not any about ID. He has, at least as recently as 2004. (His CV is on-line if you want to look at what he's done.) On the other hand, despite what you might thing, peer review is usually a fairly friendly process if you're doing straightforward, non-controversial work. There's not much you will get criticized for in a paper entitled "Poly[da]@poly[dT] forms very stable mucleosomes at higher temperatures," as long as your lab technique is acceptable. I think what this really shows is that he's never tried to discuss his work at the "scientific meetings" he's been studiously avoiding. Because you know that if he opened his mouth and this kind of bilge came out of it, some top-flight microbiologist would pwn him like the n00b he is during the question period.

25th October 2005, 08:32 AM	#180
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 21,629	Originally Posted by Melendwyr Showing that ID isn't good science - or even science at all - effectively demonstrates that there's no real secular reason to mention it in science classes. But that's insufficient reason to ban a practice under US law. It's necessary to show that teaching ID "advances religion" in order for it to violate the Bill of Rights. Fortunately, I think I disagree with your statement: Quote: Determining whether something is religious is quite difficult, as anything could potentially be taken on faith and made the centerpiece of one's religious convictions. What you describe is essentially the definition of religion (as proposed by the Georgetown theologian whose name escapes me). If I can show that a substantial number of people have, in fact, taken "ID" on faith and made it the centerpiece of one's religious convictions" -- as Dr. Forrest testified, for example, in demonstrating how some of the ID proponents use John 1:1 as the starting poing for their "investigations" of evolution and the origins of life -- if I can show that, then I've basically demonstrated that it's a religion.

25th October 2005, 08:35 AM	#181
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413	Originally Posted by tsg if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religion Indeed, cards face up on the table: Science vs. Religion.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413

25th October 2005, 09:15 AM	#182
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413	Originally Posted by drkitten Hmm, reading comprehension difficulties and context difficulties, all in ten short words. Your ability to combine fallacious thought, factual inaccuracy, and pig-ignorance into the smallest possible expression continues to astound me. Have you considered writing Haiku? Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries. I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413

25th October 2005, 09:34 AM	#183
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 38,549	Originally Posted by hammegk I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Nope. It's American Constitution vs. religion.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

25th October 2005, 10:14 AM	#184
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658	Originally Posted by hammegk Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries. I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you. Are you suggesting that the ID arguments are reasonable in the slightest?
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658

25th October 2005, 10:21 AM	#185
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,137	Hey all, don't miss the article "Why Scientists Get So Angry When Dealing with ID Proponents" in the latest Skeptical Inquisitor. It analyzes one Dembski essay to show how fair and accurate IDers try to be when quoting biologists---not. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

25th October 2005, 10:23 AM	#186
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by drkitten But that's insufficient reason to ban a practice under US law. It's necessary to show that teaching ID "advances religion" in order for it to violate the Bill of Rights. Actually, it's not (to my limited understanding, at least). The first prong of the Lemon Test is that the government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose. Violating any one of the three prongs makes it unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Showing that it violates more than one prong certainly strengthens the case, though, so if they can also show that it advances religion it would violate the second prong as well.
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

25th October 2005, 10:26 AM	#187
chipmunk stew Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 7,448	Originally Posted by Ed Are you suggesting that the ID arguments are reasonable in the slightest? No, he didn't say that. He said the ID guys lack the "ability to ignore things because they are not by [drkitten's] standards logical & scientific". This could mean two things: 1. They have no ability to filter out things that appear illogical and unscientific. or 2. They have no ability to make their argument without introducing their own standards for what is logical and scientific. (such that astrology makes the cut )

25th October 2005, 10:28 AM	#188
chipmunk stew Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 7,448	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Hey all, don't miss the article "Why Scientists Get So Angry When Dealing with ID Proponents" in the latest Skeptical Inquisitor. link?

25th October 2005, 10:37 AM	#189
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by hammegk Originally Posted by tsg if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religion Indeed, cards face up on the table: Science vs. Religion. Way, way, way out of context, but whatever... Originally Posted by hammegk I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you. There is no dichotomy: science does not address the supernatural, philosophical or theological. The people who constantly try to make it a dichotomy are those who can't reconcile their religious beliefs with known facts.
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

25th October 2005, 10:49 AM	#190
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,137	Chipmunk, I was about to tell you it was in a magazine, but it is online! http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdes...designers.html ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

25th October 2005, 11:05 AM	#191
m0nngis Scholar Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 76	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos GOD, I love this stuff. Heh, me too! I think productivity at work has halved since I started to read the transcripts.
m0nngis Scholar Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 76

25th October 2005, 11:55 AM	#192
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 21,629	Originally Posted by hammegk Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries. By what standard is ID "logical and scientific"? For that matter, by what standard are any of your contributions in this thread "logical and scientific"? I'm not unreasonable. If the problem is that I'm using the wrong standards to evaluate an argument, convince me. I fear the problem is that I have standards at all, and that I'm not willing to uncritically accept whatever drivel drips from your keyboard.

25th October 2005, 01:12 PM	#193
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658	Querry: If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off : ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658

25th October 2005, 01:24 PM	#194
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	No. "If there is currently no known rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural." You need to remove the verbal ambiguity. "Something that cannot be explained by rational means" implies that no such explanation is possible, rather than that no such explanation is known at present, which I think is what you meant.
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064

25th October 2005, 01:26 PM	#195
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by Ed Querry: If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off : ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural. I would revise it thusly: "ID states that whether or not something can be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural."
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.