subject:"Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design"

Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design



Touche, maty!

Frank, one eye and loving it. 

On 8/3/05 3:04 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


In a message dated 8/3/05 2:58:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


As an Italian, however, I am offended by the use of spaghetti. Perhaps in order to more diverse you can change it to taco or matzah in future postings.


If it were my own letter I'd be happy to do that, and also to substitute "ACLU Lawyers" for "Pirates" in case there are any offended pirates out there.
Art Spitzer





___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

On 8/3/05 2:48 PM, "Ed Brayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Francis Beckwith wrote:
>> Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design Clearly, there is potential data
>> that count against theistic accounts of the universe. For example, if there
>> is a good argument that the universe did not begin to exist, then that would
>> show that God as an explanation for the universe¹s beginning is unnecessary.
> 
> But one can hardly imagine what kind of evidence there could be the universe
> always existing. And showing that God is unnecessary as an explanation for one
> thing doesn't falsify the existence of God. If it did, the failure of every
> god of the gaps argument in history would have falsified it and it didn't.
> "Unnecessary" is not synonymous with "falsified".

But it seems that there are entire is cluster of rational beliefs that
cannot be falsified that are nevertheless essential. For example, the claim
that falsification is necessary itself can't be falsified.  So, clearly
there is at least one necessary, though unfalsifiable, belief. Second, if I
hold to the belief that George Washington had an affair with Abigale Adams,
I can't really falsify it, but I can marshal evidence against it and show
that the belief is unreasonable. Because it is possible that the belief is
true, one cannot technically falsify it. But that actually counts against
falsification as a test of rationality, since we know it is rational to
reject this belief and it is nevertheless unfalsifiable.

I think you may be confusing a believer's subjective adherence with a belief
with the grounds for a belief. You are correct that people will believe all
sorts of things in spite of the evidence, but that does not mean that the
defeaters they ignore are not real defeaters or at least count against the
belief.  

>> Since genetic inheritance is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for
>> Darwinism, it¹s falsification would falsify every theory of biological change
>> that relies on inheritance including Darwinism.   So, that isn¹t much of a
>> test.
> 
> I don't understand the reasoning here. If it can falsify more than one
> explanation, it's "not much of a test"? All that is required for
> falsifiability is that the explanation be falsified if a given set of data is
> found; whether the data also falsifies another potential explanation is
> irrelevant. If the police had 3 suspects for a murder, 2 male and 1 female and
> genetic evidence showed that it must have been female, the fact that this
> evidence falsified two of the three possible explanations hardly makes the
> falsification of those explanations any less true or compelling.

What I was thinking here was a test that would uniquely falsify Darwinism
and keep in tact genetic inheritance.  Since, after all, nobody denies
genetic inheritance, not even Duane Gish (as far as I know).  Specificity in
these matters is virtue.

> 
>> The other examples are equally unpersuasive:  ³Find a single hominid (or even
>> mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is
>> dead.²  I doubt it. I can easily imagine someone saying any of the following:
>> maybe our dating methods are wrong; maybe evolution worked differently than
>> we supposed; or maybe this anomaly will be explained in the future, but one
>> anomaly is no reason to give up an otherwise fruitful theory.

> Falsifiability is not based upon whether someone will admit that a theory is
> falsified, but rather on whether the evidence logically does falsify it. If it
> required admission, then the potential falsification you offered above for the
> existence of God is even weaker and less compelling.

I probably wasn't clear in my example. What I was trying to show is that
fruitful theories do not collapse under the weight of one or two, or even
many, anomalies. It is perfectly acceptable to offer ad hoc hypotheses to
cover for problems.

In fact, anomalies sometimes inspire changes in research programs to try to
account for anomalies. So, it's not about the personal virtue of the
scientist (whether he or she "will admit" the game is up); it's about the
problem in trying to come with what counts as evidence that does falsify a
theory. I think it's much more difficult and complicated that you let on,
especially when vested interests and professional reputations are at stake.
I think we all underestimate the sociology of science and extra-scientific
factors play in the history of progress of science.

> 
>> Here¹s the other example: ³If the fossil record showed that all life forms
>> lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead.²  Actually, we
>> wouldn¹t be here to make that observation, because we would be one of

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

I missed Art's post for some reason, it never came here. And while the 
open letter is obviously parody, parody often reveals a kernel of truth 
and this is no exception. My friend Rob Pennock wrote in his first book 
on ID about all the possible alternatives to evolution that, under an 
"equal time" policy, would also have to be given equal time. One that he 
mentioned in particular was the Raelians, who believe that life on earth 
was bioengineered by aliens. A few months after his book was published, 
the Raelians actually issed a press release applauding the efforts of 
the ID advocates to open up science classrooms to alternatives and hoped 
that this would pave the way for them to introduce their "theories" into 
the public schools as well. And of course, there are others as well. You 
have the Hindu creationism of Cremo and Thompson, with actual 
credentialed scientists working to prove that humans have been here for 
hundreds of millions of years and that all of life is cyclical in nature.


One could go beyond biology as well. If the "teach the controversy" 
message is to be taken seriously, we must implement it in all 
disciplines. Logically, would we not then also have to teach geocentrism 
along with heliocentrism in earth science classes (bear in mind that the 
geocentrists also have their own organizations with genuine credentialed 
scientists, Gerardus Buow in particular)? Or flat earthism? Or even give 
equal time to holocaust denial in history classes, or to those who think 
that the Illuminati are behind everything? Do we have to teach astrology 
along with astronomy? Or along with the germ theory of disease, do we 
also teach Christian Scientism or the new age mind-over-matter nonsense 
of Deepok Chopra? One could go on all day, of course.


Ed Brayton


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05

___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread ArtSpitzer


In a message dated 8/3/05 2:58:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


As an Italian, however, I am offended by the use of spaghetti. Perhaps in order to more diverse you can change it to taco or matzah in future postings.


If it were my own letter I'd be happy to do that, and also to substitute "ACLU Lawyers" for "Pirates" in case there are any offended pirates out there.
Art Spitzer
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread ArtSpitzer


In a message dated 8/3/05 2:51:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I can understand what you might not agree with ID.  I can even understand why you might be offended by the way in which some people have advocated it.  I cannot, however, understand how you can find ID offensive.  

Fair enough.   I should have said that I'm offended by what seems to me the disingenuous way in which people advocate ID.

What you have posted here, however, IS offensive because its sole purpose is to mock the people you don't agree with.

The "open letter" doesn't mock people -- no person is even mentioned -- it mocks the *argument* that ID should be taught in the public schools.   I think satire is often an effective, and fair, way in which to show that something is foolish.   If people feel offended because their argument can so easily be mocked, perhaps the problem is with the argument.

Art Spitzer
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Art:

I thought you found ID to be mistaken. I’m relieved. I can live with offense, since it has nothing to do with what is true.

As an Italian, however, I am offended by the use of spaghetti. Perhaps in order to more diverse you can change it to taco or matzah in future postings.

Frank

On 8/3/05 2:34 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The following useful perspective on ID comes from http://www.venganza.org/index.htm , which also contains related materials. If I properly understood Jim Henderson's posts yesterday, I believe the ACLJ would support FSM on the same grounds that it supports ID.
Art Spitzer
Washington, DC
(I hope no one finds the following offensive. If anyone does, he or she might bear in mind that some of us find ID offensive.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

[graph omitted from e-mail]

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Brad M Pardee


Art Spitzer wrote on 08/03/2005 01:34:26 PM:

> (I hope no one finds the following offensive.  If anyone does,
he or
> she might bear in mind that some of us find ID offensive.)

I can understand what you might not agree with ID.
 I can even understand why you might be offended by the way in which
some people have advocated it.  I cannot, however, understand how
you can find ID offensive.  Although I have not agreed with everything
the advocates of evolution have said here, I never found their belief in
evolution offensive.  What you have posted here, however, IS offensive
because its sole purpose is to mock the people you don't agree with.  Making
fun of people we don't agree with or don't approve of may have a place
in a late night talk show monologue or an editorial cartoon.  But
it has no place in any serious discussion of an issue.  No matter
how fervently you believe in the truth of evolution and no matter how passionately
you disagree with ID, that's no excuse for mocking people on the other
side.

Brad Pardee___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design




Francis Beckwith wrote:

  
  Clearly, there is potential data that count
against theistic accounts of the universe. For example, if there is a
good argument that the universe did not begin to exist, then that would
show that God as an explanation for the universe’s beginning is
unnecessary.   
  

But one can hardly imagine what kind of evidence there could be the
universe always existing. And showing that God is unnecessary as an
explanation for one thing doesn't falsify the existence of God. If it
did, the failure of every god of the gaps argument in history would
have falsified it and it didn't. "Unnecessary" is not synonymous with
"falsified". 

Since genetic inheritance is a
necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for Darwinism, it’s
falsification would falsify every theory of biological change that
relies on inheritance including Darwinism.   So, that isn’t much of a
test.

I don't understand the reasoning here. If it can falsify more than one
explanation, it's "not much of a test"? All that is required for
falsifiability is that the explanation be falsified if a given set of
data is found; whether the data also falsifies another potential
explanation is irrelevant. If the police had 3 suspects for a murder, 2
male and 1 female and genetic evidence showed that it must have been
female, the fact that this evidence falsified two of the three possible
explanations hardly makes the falsification of those explanations any
less true or compelling.

  The other examples are equally
unpersuasive:  “Find a single hominid (or even mammalian or avian)
fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is dead.”  I
doubt it. I can easily imagine someone saying any of the following:
maybe our dating methods are wrong; maybe evolution worked differently
than we supposed; or maybe this anomaly will be explained in the
future, but one anomaly is no reason to give up an otherwise fruitful
theory.
Falsifiability is not based upon whether someone will admit that a
theory is falsified, but rather on whether the evidence logically does
falsify it. If it required admission, then the potential falsification
you offered above for the existence of God is even weaker and less
compelling. 

  Here’s the other example: “If the
fossil record showed that all life forms lived and died at the same
time, evolution would be dead.”  Actually, we wouldn’t be here to make
that observation, because we would be one of those dead life forms. 
  
Okay, so make it "all other life forms" or "all other life forms were
on the planet simultaneously". Either way, it's still a valid potential
falsification because it would negate the possibility of ancestral
relationships.


The debates about the nature of science, falsification, etc. are much
more complicated than can be written about here.  Nevertheless, much of
this discussion on design and naturalistic evolution is poorly
assessed, in my opinion, because of the disciplinary fragmentation of
the academy.  A result of this is the ridiculous notion that calling an
argument “philosophical” or “religious” means that the argument can
never serve as a defeater to the deliverances of “science.”  But if
knowledge is seamless, as I believe it is, then a good philosophical
argument against a scientific hypothesis counts against it.  If, for
example, I can show that it is conceptually impossible for an infinite
series of causes to exist in reality, then I don’t care how many
multiple universes Stephen Hawking wants to postulate in order to avoid
the daunting conclusion that the ground of being is indeed personal.
 Just like I know there can’t be five married-bachelors in the next
room without having to look, I can know that an infinite regress of
causes is impossible without peering through a telescope or lifting a
pyrex tube.  
  

I would agree with this, but in terms of the existence of God I would
suggest that it's trivially easy to show that every possible answer is
logically impossible. Which leaves us with quite a problem on our hands
- which I'm okay with, by the way. 

Keep this mind: the distinction between science and non-science is not
a judgment of science, but a philosophical conclusion about science.

But surely you wouldn't argue that if we can't define a perfect
demarcation between science and non-science, we should have no
standards at all for what goes in science curricula and what doesn't. 

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05
___
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

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread ArtSpitzer

[graph omitted from e-mail]

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

___
To post, s

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

The notion of falsifiability as a criterion for truth claims—whether inside or outside of science—has come under withering criticism by philosophers of science over the past 40 years. Proposed in its most robust and sophisticated form by Karl Popper, there is a no consensus on its adequacy. For example, we know that theories that encounter contrary data—possible defeaters—are some time supplemented by ad hoc hypotheses. Does that make the original theory “unfalsifiable,” or is postulating ad hoc hypotheses a legitimate tactic in the face of a possible defeaters to an otherwise fruitful theory. When do we know that a theory has been falsified? Is it one anomaly, 20, 50? Nobody knows.

Clearly, there is potential data that count against theistic accounts of the universe. For example, if there is a good argument that the universe did not begin to exist, then that would show that God as an explanation for the universe’s beginning is unnecessary. Since genetic inheritance is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for Darwinism, it’s falsification would falsify every theory of biological change that relies on inheritance including Darwinism. So, that isn’t much of a test. The other examples are equally unpersuasive: “Find a single hominid (or even mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is dead.” I doubt it. I can easily imagine someone saying any of the following: maybe our dating methods are wrong; maybe evolution worked differently than we supposed; or maybe this anomaly will be explained in the future, but one anomaly is no reason to give up an otherwise fruitful theory. Here’s the other example: “If the fossil record showed that all life forms lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead.” Actually, we wouldn’t be here to make that observation, because we would be one of those dead life forms.

The debates about the nature of science, falsification, etc. are much more complicated than can be written about here. Nevertheless, much of this discussion on design and naturalistic evolution is poorly assessed, in my opinion, because of the disciplinary fragmentation of the academy. A result of this is the ridiculous notion that calling an argument “philosophical” or “religious” means that the argument can never serve as a defeater to the deliverances of “science.” But if knowledge is seamless, as I believe it is, then a good philosophical argument against a scientific hypothesis counts against it. If, for example, I can show that it is conceptually impossible for an infinite series of causes to exist in reality, then I don’t care how many multiple universes Stephen Hawking wants to postulate in order to avoid the daunting conclusion that the ground of being is indeed personal. Just like I know there can’t be five married-bachelors in the next room without having to look, I can know that an infinite regress of causes is impossible without peering through a telescope or lifting a pyrex tube.

Keep this mind: the distinction between science and non-science is not a judgment of science, but a philosophical conclusion about science.

Frank

On 8/3/05 1:21 PM, "Ed Brayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some add to this pot the concept of falsafiability; and this important consideration is what I find most troubling about the devoted adherents of evolutionary faith. Where the scientific method and falsafiability would require, for example, that the theory of relativity be subjected to testing intentional designed to show how the theory FAILS to explain, evolutionary theories are not subjected to falsifiability analysis; the closest anyone comes to such analysis is when ID proponents or neo Darwinists or others point out the gaps and failures of explanation.

I don't think you understand the concept of falsifiability. Falsifiability does not mean that you must subject a theory to testing "designed to show how the theory fails to explain" something. It only means that one must, in principle, be able to imagine a set of data that would falsify the explanation if that data were found. In the case of evolution, this is rather easy to imagine. Find a single hominid (or even mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is dead. If the fossil record showed that all life forms lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead. If genetics did not allow traits to be inherited, evolution would be dead. One could go on all day. The fact that evolution hasn't been falsified doesn't mean it's not falsifiable, it more likely means it's true. On the other hand, how could creationism (broadly defined) possibly be falsified? No matter what the data said, one could simply say that God created in that manner for reasons unknown to us. Now creationism as narrowly defined, say as young earth global flood

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Some add to this pot the concept of falsafiability; and this
important consideration is what I find most troubling about the devoted
adherents of evolutionary faith.  Where the scientific method and
falsafiability would require, for example, that the theory of
relativity be subjected to testing intentional designed to show how the
theory FAILS to explain, evolutionary theories are not subjected to
falsifiability analysis; the closest anyone comes to such analysis is
when ID proponents or neo Darwinists or others point out the gaps and
failures of explanation.  
  
  

I don't think you understand the concept of falsifiability.
Falsifiability does not mean that you must subject a theory to testing
"designed to show how the theory fails to explain" something. It only
means that one must, in principle, be able to imagine a set of data
that would falsify the explanation if that data were found. In the case
of evolution, this is rather easy to imagine. Find a single hominid (or
even mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata
and evolution is dead. If the fossil record showed that all life forms
lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead. If genetics
did not allow traits to be inherited, evolution would be dead. One
could go on all day. The fact that evolution hasn't been falsified
doesn't mean it's not falsifiable, it more likely means it's true. On
the other hand, how could creationism (broadly defined) possibly be
falsified? No matter what the data said, one could simply say that God
created in that manner for reasons unknown to us. Now creationism as
narrowly defined, say as young earth global flood creationism, which
makes specific claims about the natural history of life on earth that
are testable, has long been falsified because it fails completely as an
explanation for the data. 

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Ross S. Heckmann




Well, if you are polling lurkers, I really thought 
this was a very interesting and informative thread.
 
Very truly yours,
 
Ross S. Heckmann
Attorney at Law
Arcadia, California

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Steven 
  Jamar 
  To: Law & Religion issues for Law 
  Academics 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 9:40 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Pres. Bush Supports 
  Intelligent Design
  Well, I think we've provide quite enough entertainment for the 
  lurkers out there on this issue.  :-)  
  
  I know it is time to stop writing when Rick Duncan (1) says he 
  agrees with anything I say and (2) trots out his same tiresome solution -- 
  which may in fact address part of the problem, but creates so many others that 
  some of us find seriously unpalatable (not to mention unconstitutional).
  
  I wonder how many subscribers to the list have now dropped it after all 
  this.  :-)
  
  Cheers,
  Steve
  
  
  
  
  -- 
  Prof. Steven D. Jamar     
                        
      vox:  
  202-806-8017
  Howard University School of Law               
        fax:  
  202-806-8567
  2900 
  Van Ness Street NW       
              mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Washington, DC  20008 
    http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/
  
  "Any 
  intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent.  It takes a touch of genius - and a 
  lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction."
  
  Albert Einstein
  
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread JMHACLJ





In a message dated 8/3/2005 12:31:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There 
  have been literally thousands of scientists testing evolutionary theories 
  (which, by the way, have evolved well beyond Charles Darwin) for over a 
  century.  Evolution is not a single hypothesis, but rather thousands of 
  hypotheses that have been tested using scientific theory.  And they will 
  continue to be tested.  Sounds like the scientific method to me, not a 
  "priesthood."  The priesthood in this arena are those on the other side, 
  who do not have the science to rebut evolution, but think faith is 
  enough.  That is why evolution must stay in the science curriculum, 
  unless and until its hypotheses are proven by scientific method to be 
  wrong.  And intelligent design, or creationism as it was first dubbed, 
  belongs in a theory course -- either on beliefs about the origins of the world 
  or beliefs about the role of humans in the world, or 
whatever. 

I have been chastised for referring to evolutionary hypotheses.  I 
think my use of the term is quite correct in the sense that theory and 
hypothesis are elements of something that we all learned about a long time 
ago:  the scientific method.  Observation, propounding explanatory 
mechanisms (hypothecating), testing, refinement and/or changes in hypothesis 
based on testing, ultimately, when testing consistently demonstrates the 
reliability of the explanatory mechanism then the hypothesis is described as a 
theory.
 
Some add to this pot the concept of falsafiability; and this important 
consideration is what I find most troubling about the devoted adherents of 
evolutionary faith.  Where the scientific method and falsafiability would 
require, for example, that the theory of relativity be subjected to testing 
intentional designed to show how the theory FAILS to explain, evolutionary 
theories are not subjected to falsifiability analysis; the closest anyone comes 
to such analysis is when ID proponents or neo Darwinists or others point out the 
gaps and failures of explanation.  But the hard core center of 
evolutionaries consistent offer the talismanic approach.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Sanford Levinson




I 
know that I should simply forbear from comment, but when Rick 
writes:

We humans--whether evolved or 
  created--don't know much about what happened even yesterday. It is hubris to 
  pretend that we know what happened 10,000 or 10 billion years 
ago

I cannot help but wonder why in the world he 
has any faith as to his knowledge of events that purportedly happened sometime 
between 2000-3500 years ago for which (in the case of, say, a Jewish presence in 
the Sinai), there is no archeological evidence--i.e., not the barest 
scintilla--whatsover.  
 
sandy
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Hamilton02





Rick-- That means that astronomy should be abandoned, because an 
astronomist today examines phenomena that took place thousands 
and millions of years ago.  It takes time for information to flow through 
space, as Einstein showed.   Science is all about drawing conclusions based 
on data, and it is no more illegitimate to draw conclusions about events 
occurring long ago in the evolution context than it is in the astronomy 
context.
 
Marci  

   
 
 
In a message dated 8/3/2005 12:29:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We 
  humans--whether evolved or created--don't know much about what happened even 
  yesterday. It is hubris to pretend that we know what happened 10,000 or 10 
  billion years ago

 
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

I didn't call anyone a non-believer, Marci. I simply asked what kind of God is the God of natural selection? That is not name-calling.  It is asking the most essential question anyone can ask of a "believer"--who is God, and did He create you, or did you create Him?
 
Those, I know, are not question for debate on this list. But they are the key questions you must ask yourself if you are willing to accept the theory that human beings are the result of a purposeless process of natural selection.
 
Cheers, Rick  
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 
There are millions of Christians who believe that evolution is the best theory we have to date on the origin and development of humans.  I am one of them.  Calling people who think evolution is scientifically persuasive nonbelievers is just that-- name-calling, without any factual basis.
 Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."  --The Prisoner
		 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page ___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Steven Jamar

Well, I think we've provide quite enough entertainment for the lurkers out there on this issue.  :-)  I know it is time to stop writing when Rick Duncan (1) says he agrees with anything I say and (2) trots out his same tiresome solution -- which may in fact address part of the problem, but creates so many others that some of us find seriously unpalatable (not to mention unconstitutional).I wonder how many subscribers to the list have now dropped it after all this.  :-)Cheers,Steve --  Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/  "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent.  It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction."  Albert Einstein  ___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design




Rick Duncan wrote:

Darwin on Trial is not just an attack on evolution, but on the very 
modern principles of science. Johnson believes Galileo and his 
descendants worked to solve the questions of our existence based on 
science, not faith, but that for several centuries since then, men of 
reason -- astronomers, mathematicians, philosophers -- have conspired 
to purge God from the handiwork of the universe. By the time Darwin 
published Origin of Species in 1859, the fatal blow had been cast.



Here's a perfect illustration of how the ID movement speaks with a 
Janus-like duality (read: dishonesty). Phil Johnson will rail against 
"atheistic science" and proclaim that ID is all about restoring a 
Christian culture and overthrowing atheism and establishing a "theistic 
science". He'll say things like, "The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] 
is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus 
shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of 
God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 
'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin and finally 
'introduced to Jesus.'"  But then when people like me say that ID is 
religiously motivated and intrinsically religious in nature, they scream 
bloody murder and claim that ID doesn't have anything to do with God or 
religion, and for all they know the "designer" might be an alien (which 
is flatly contradicted by the DI's definition of intelligent design). 
They do this because they know that they must hide the religious 
motivations or risk being stuck on the purpose prong of the Lemon test 
(whether rightly or wrongly is irrelevant). So they engage in 
dishonesty. When speaking to their followers they speak boldly of 
standing up for Jesus; when speaking to the media they pretend that it's 
purely about science. And when you bring up their many statements to the 
contrary, they react with feigned outrage - how DARE you accuse us of 
religious motivation!






 
Phil can tell you that there are lots of reputable scientists who have 
remained in the closet for fear of career suicide with their doubts 
about Darwin and their support for ID.



And quite convenient that, because they're in the closet, his claim can 
never be verified, don't you think?


Ed Brayton


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05

___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Hamilton02





There have been literally thousands of scientists testing evolutionary 
theories (which, by the way, have evolved well beyond Charles Darwin) for over a 
century.  Evolution is not a single hypothesis, but rather thousands of 
hypotheses that have been tested using scientific theory.  And they will 
continue to be tested.  Sounds like the scientific method to me, not a 
"priesthood."  The priesthood in this arena are those on the other side, 
who do not have the science to rebut evolution, but think faith is enough.  
That is why evolution must stay in the science curriculum, unless and until its 
hypotheses are proven by scientific method to be wrong.  And intelligent 
design, or creationism as it was first dubbed, belongs in a theory course -- 
either on beliefs about the origins of the world or beliefs about the role of 
humans in the world, or whatever.  
 
There are millions of Christians who believe that evolution is 
the best theory we have to date on the origin and development of humans.  I 
am one of them.  Calling people who think evolution is scientifically 
persuasive nonbelievers is just that-- name-calling, without any factual 
basis.
 
Marci
 
In a message dated 8/3/2005 12:13:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Hmmm. So the only scientists whose views count about the case for 
  evolutionary biology are evolutionary biologists? And exactly what would 
  happen to the career of an evolutionary biologist--or any other scientist--who 
  went public with his or her doubts about evolution? Would they still get 
  grants? Would they still be able to publish--even on unrelated topics--in 
  professional journals? Would they even be allowed to teach their classes 
  without restrictions?
   
  Johnson is right about a priesthood of Darwin, and you know 
  what happens to heretics who denounce the true faith!
   
  As for as Marci's reference to "believers," exactly what kind 
  of God is the God of natural selection? A real God in control of destiny who 
  loves us and wants us to abide with Him for eternity? Or a house god made of 
  wood by evolved germs in trousers afraid of being alone in a purposeless 
  Universe?
   
  Cheers, Rick 

 
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

I agree with Steve Jamar that educators ought to be allowed to teach science free of any interference from government. That is why I support school choice--let's allow science teachers and educators to design the science curriculum for their respective public or private schools and allow parents to choose (without penalty) which curriculum (public or private) is best for their children.
The only reason this is a problem is because whoever controls the public school curriculum can impose that curriculum on all of our children through the government school monopoly. I don't care whether evolution is taught as a fact at the school your kids attend, Steve. But I do care about what my children are taught. I would like my children to be taught the way McConnell and Johnson suggest.
We humans--whether evolved or created--don't know much about what happened even yesterday. It is hubris to pretend that we know what happened 10,000 or 10 billion years ago.
Cheers, Rick Duncan
Steven Jamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Who created god?

Some of us believe that indeed the universe "was not designed and has no purpose" and that the question "why is there anything?" is interesting, but at present beyond the ability of anyone to answer convincingly.

Some of us also believe that "we humans are the product of [evolutionary] processes that care nothing about us."

And many of us who believe these things use the current best scientific understanding of the universe and evolution as part of the basis for why we believe like this.

But others who do not believe these same things also point to the lack of answers to why is there anything and to the gaps in our knowledge about many things in physics and evolution and infer the existence of some creator.

Some creationists do not have any difficulty with the fact of evolution. Some do. All but the most rabid creationists recognize "micro-evolution," extinction, mutation, and many other aspects that are explained by evolutionary concepts.

The rhetoric about what the other actually believes tends to be about what is going on at the other's polar extreme. And the press tends to grab the poles rather than anything even 10 degrees from the pole because it makes better copy.

So where should the state be in all of this? Let science texts and scientists teach science. Then have their courses about philosophy and religion. But that isn't acceptable to many in the creationist and literalist Christian faction -- most liberals I know -- like many people (liberals and others) who have posted on this issue on this list -- would be fine with having science taught as science and philosophy and religion taught about. Not all, but many.

The spin put on Bush's remarks by his science advisor sit well with most of us -- but not those on the Christian right.

Steve

On Aug 3, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Rick Duncan wrote:

Here is a very recent article on Phil Johnson, the man who put Darwin on trial and got a conviction! Here is a good excerpt:

--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/

"If we are to receive full service from government, the universities must give us trained [people]. That means a constant reorientation of university instruction and research not for the mere purpose of increasing technical proficiency but for the purpose of keeping abreast with social and economic change. . . . Government is no better than its [people]."

William O. Douglas___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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 messa

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Steven Jamar

Who created god?Some of us believe that indeed the universe "was not designed and has no purpose" and that the question "why is there anything?" is interesting, but at present beyond the ability of anyone to answer convincingly.Some of us also believe that "we humans are the product of [evolutionary] processes that care nothing about us."  And many of us who believe these things use the current best scientific understanding of the universe and evolution as part of the basis for why we believe like this.But others who do not believe these same things also point to the lack of answers to why is there anything and to the gaps in our knowledge about many things in physics and evolution and infer the existence of some creator.Some creationists do not have any difficulty with the fact of evolution.  Some do.  All but the most rabid creationists recognize "micro-evolution," extinction, mutation, and many other aspects that are explained by evolutionary concepts.The rhetoric about what the other actually believes tends to be about what is going on at the other's polar extreme.  And the press tends to grab the poles rather than anything even 10 degrees from the pole because it makes better copy.So where should the state be in all of this?  Let science texts and scientists teach science.  Then have their courses about philosophy and religion.  But that isn't acceptable to many in the creationist and literalist Christian faction -- most liberals I know -- like many people (liberals and others) who have posted on this issue on this list -- would be fine with having science taught as science and philosophy and religion taught about.  Not all, but many.The spin put on Bush's remarks by his science advisor sit well with most of us -- but not those on the Christian right.SteveOn Aug 3, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Rick Duncan wrote:Here is a very recent article on Phil Johnson, the man who put Darwin on trial and got a conviction! Here is a good excerpt:   Darwin on Trial is not just an attack on evolution, but on the very modern principles of science. Johnson believes Galileo and his descendants worked to solve the questions of our existence based on science, not faith, but that for several centuries since then, men of reason -- astronomers, mathematicians, philosophers -- have conspired to purge God from the handiwork of the universe. By the time Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859, the fatal blow had been cast.  "The very persons who insist upon keeping religion and science separate are eager to use their science as a basis for pronouncements about religion," he wrote. "The literature of Darwinism is full of antitheistic conclusions, such as that the universe was not designed and has no purpose, and that we humans are the product of blind natural processes that care nothing about us."   --  Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/  "If we are to receive full service from government, the universities must give us trained [people].  That means a constant reorientation of university instruction and research not for the mere purpose of increasing technical proficiency but for the purpose of keeping abreast with social and economic change. . . .  Government is no better than its [people]."  William O. Douglas  ___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Hmmm. So the only scientists whose views count about the case for evolutionary biology are evolutionary biologists? And exactly what would happen to the career of an evolutionary biologist--or any other scientist--who went public with his or her doubts about evolution? Would they still get grants? Would they still be able to publish--even on unrelated topics--in professional journals? Would they even be allowed to teach their classes without restrictions?
 
Johnson is right about a priesthood of Darwin, and you know what happens to heretics who denounce the true faith!
 
As for as Marci's reference to "believers," exactly what kind of God is the God of natural selection? A real God in control of destiny who loves us and wants us to abide with Him for eternity? Or a house god made of wood by evolved germs in trousers afraid of being alone in a purposeless Universe?
 
Cheers, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that to gain any converts.  Are we expected to believe that scientists who have devoted their lives to evolutionary biology have kept their doubts to themselves?  Or is the claim that scientists who have specialized in other areas have their doubts?  As someone who is married to a scientist, in science, the area of one's expertise means a lot.  Indeed, I would put no credence into even a biological scientist's concerns about evolution if he has not been testing the hypotheses him or herself.
 
And let's be very clear --  this is not a debate between believers and atheists.  There are plenty of believers who do not think intelligent design is scientific and who think evolution is the best science there is on the origins of human life.
 
Marci
 
 
In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:46:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Phil can tell you that there are lots of reputable scientists who have remained in the closet for fear of career suicide with their doubts about Darwin and their support for ID.
 
Cheers, Rick

 ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."  --The Prisoner__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail!
  has the
 best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread RJLipkin





In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:53:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There 
  are plenty of believers who do not think intelligent design is scientific and 
  who think evolution is the best science there is on the origins of human 
  life.
Marci's point puts the lie 
to those who characterize this debate as between theism and atheism.  
Instead, it is a debate between certain kinds of theists, on the one hand, and 
certain theists together with atheists on the other. 
 
My own complaint against 
Darwin is that the "origin" of the materials which ultimately evolve into life 
are never explained. But then again, neither is the "origin" of the 
intelligent designer who created life directly. Further, if there exists an 
intelligent designer, one can seriously question whether it had any serious 
concern for the natural (even if one puts aside the moral) cruelty suffered by 
its creations.  
 
Bobby
 
Robert Justin 
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of 
LawDelaware
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Hamilton02





You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that to gain any 
converts.  Are we expected to believe that scientists who have devoted 
their lives to evolutionary biology have kept their doubts to themselves?  
Or is the claim that scientists who have specialized in other areas have their 
doubts?  As someone who is married to a scientist, in science, 
the area of one's expertise means a lot.  Indeed, I would put no credence 
into even a biological scientist's concerns about evolution if he has not been 
testing the hypotheses him or herself.
 
And let's be very clear --  this is not a debate between believers and 
atheists.  There are plenty of believers who do not think intelligent 
design is scientific and who think evolution is the best science there is on the 
origins of human life.
 
Marci
 
 
In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:46:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Phil can tell you that there are lots of reputable scientists who have 
  remained in the closet for fear of career suicide with their doubts about 
  Darwin and their support for ID.
   
  Cheers, Rick

 
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Here is a very recent article on Phil Johnson, the man who put Darwin on trial and got a conviction! Here is a good excerpt:

Darwin on Trial is not just an attack on evolution, but on the very modern principles of science. Johnson believes Galileo and his descendants worked to solve the questions of our existence based on science, not faith, but that for several centuries since then, men of reason -- astronomers, mathematicians, philosophers -- have conspired to purge God from the handiwork of the universe. By the time Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859, the fatal blow had been cast.
"The very persons who insist upon keeping religion and science separate are eager to use their science as a basis for pronouncements about religion," he wrote. "The literature of Darwinism is full of antitheistic conclusions, such as that the universe was not designed and has no purpose, and that we humans are the product of blind natural processes that care nothing about us."
Johnson suggests that evolution has become a faith-based movement in its own right. He maintains that biologists have become so invested in the Darwinian worldview that they have ceased looking for contradictory evidence. "As the creation myth of scientific naturalism, Darwinism plays an indispensable ideological role in the war against fundamentalism," he wrote. "For that reason, scientific organizations are devoted to protecting Darwinism rather than testing it, and the rules of scientific investigation have been shaped to help them succeed."
Johnson regards scientists as today's reigning priesthood -- a monklike discipline that controls our culture's story of creation and protects its orthodoxy as ruling paradigms have done for centuries. "They are jealous of their power," he says. "They will do anything to protect it. If that means labeling someone like me as a Bible-thumper, then that's what they'll do. They'll say, 'You don't agree with evolution, therefore you believe in the Bible's account! You read Genesis literally!' Of course, that's the stereotype they want to preserve."
Evolutionary biologist William Provine is one member of the "priesthood" who has publicly debated Johnson. Provine has his Cornell University students read Darwin on Trial and has invited Johnson in for quizzing. After class the two men have shared cocktails. Provine considers Johnson "a very worthy opponent."
But Provine lambastes Johnson's notion that the universe has been put together with outside help. "Phil has never persuaded me to change one of my views on evolution, ever," says Provine, a no-doubt-about-it atheist. "I do admire his clear-cut focus on assumptions -- Phil is one smart cookie, and his mental apparatus in his head -- whoa, man -- he's got some great mental power. ... But intelligent design is complete and utter bullshit. ... By the end of the semester, I believe he's made more evolutionists than I have."
Phil can tell you that there are lots of reputable scientists who have remained in the closet for fear of career suicide with their doubts about Darwin and their support for ID.
Cheers, RickRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page ___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

I think Mike McConnell's excellent post on evolution vs. design from March 19, 1997 on this list is worth re-posting. So here's Michael!
 
"Larry Ingle writes:> Beg pardon, but my understanding of evolutionary theory, as a> non-scientist, is that evolution has been "raised . . . beyond the level> of theory" in the same way that Copernicianism has:  until something else

> comes along that more adequately explains the facts, the "theory" of> evolution is valid.  Or, to make sure that this remains roughly on an> acceptable topic, so long as courts and law school profs accept Chief> Justice Marshall's formulation in 1803 and do not challenge whether> judicial review reflects original intent, it remains valid.I don't understand this, and will expose my ignorance to the world inthe hope of being instructed by those with a better education inphilosophy of science than I have.My understanding of the Copernican "theory" is that the earthrevolves around the sun, rather than vice versa. Sandy Levinson saysthat this is "theory laden," but I don't understand why. I canunderstand why, from an earthly vantage point, the sun *appears* torevolve about the earth, and I can understand why, from a Biblicalstandpoint, it might seem to make sen!
 se that
 the earth is the centerof the Universe; but once we have access to a vantage point outsideof the earth and the sun, it there any room for doubt that Copernicuswas right? Is there any competing theory that accounts for thesensory data? If the claim that the earth revolves around the sun isa "theory," then is it equally a "theory" that food assuages hunger,or that I have three children?Darwinian evolution, it seems to me, is an entirely different sort of"theory." The point of the theory, for present purposes, is that thecomplexity of life forms came about by natural, materialistic means,through chance variation and natural selection. Now, as even the workof evolutionary biologists tells us, it remains rather unclearprecisely how this occurred; no one knows how life itself began (oneprominent biologist says it must have arrived from outer space, atheory no more scientific than Genesis 1); there are surprisingly feweven
 arguable intermediate species forms in the fossil record;Darwin's original conception, that small changes over an incrediblylong time gradually produced the current state of life forms, isclearly inconsistent with the evidence; different biologists offerdifferent theories in an attempt to account for as much of theevidence as possible.(This is quite different from the Copernican theory, which as far asI know perfectly accounts for the evidence. There is nosensory evidence suggesting that the sun revolves around the earth.There is, by contrast, lots of evidence that even the best theoriesof evolutionary biology cannot account for. That is why biology issuch a lively and exciting field--though in my opinion it would beeven livelier and more exciting if it were less defensive.)My view is that biologists should carry on with their scientifictask: trying to devise a naturalistic explanation that comports withthe
 evidence. Whatever appears, at any given point in time, to be the*best* naturalistic theory, should be taught as such. But unless anduntil biologists come up with a theory that truly explains theevidence (as the Copernican "theory" explains the evidence), there isroom for doubt. The anti-evolutionist may continue to conclude thatthe alternative explantion--design--is more persuasive. Since thealternative theory cannot be directly proven or disproven (and henceis not "scientific" under some definitions of that term), theplausibility of the theory of design must be judged on the basis ofthe plausibility (or implausibility) of the best naturalistic theory.As long as the best naturalistic theory has so many gaps, it is notunreasonable or unscientific for people to be skeptical of it.The theory of design is *not* parallel to Ptolemaic astronomy. Theclaim that the sun revolves around the earth is inconsistent with thedat!
 a. The
 claim that life forms were the product of design is notinconsistent with the data.Creationists should not be hostile to the work of evolutionarybiology. If the creationists are correct about the world, thebiologists will never come up with a plausible naturalisticexplanation. The only way to find out is to let them do theirwork. The only legitimate complaint on the creationists' part has todo with the way science is taught in the schools, which should avoiddogmatism and inaccuracy. Scientists should be for that, too.It seems to me that the evolutionary controversy is a greatopportunity for high schools to explain to their students both thenature of the scientific enterprise and the limits of science. Ithink that science educators are so frightened by and hostile toward"creationists" that they retreat into an unscientific dogmatismrather than give their "opponents" an inch. No scientist should everbe embarra!
 ssed to
 admit that we don't

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design





Gene Summerlin wrote:

  
  
  Ed,
   
  I'm sorry if I misunderstood the
tenor of some of the arguments being made on this list.  From my quick
preview of the posts I gained the impression that some had articulated
the notion that real scientists rejected intelligent design or the idea
of a supreme creator as unscientific and indefensible.  I apologize for
my mistake and just wanted to point out that many well respected and
accomplished scientists believe that their studies, in fact, provide
evidence of an intelligent creator behind their scientific discoveries.


Saying that the idea of God is "unscientific" is not the same as saying
it is "indefensible". Science is a set of tools for providing
explanations about the natural world and how it works. Like any set of
tools, it is only useful when applied in the proper context. A chainsaw
does a great job of clearing trees but a lousy job of fixing your
television set. Because God is outside of the natural world and not
subject to physical laws, science cannot answer questions about God or
determine God's existence or non-existence. One can draw inferences
from science to inform their philosophical or religious views, but
those views are still not a part of science. For instance, Quentin
Smith argues that big bang cosmology provides evidence against the
existence of God while William Lane Craig argues that big bang
cosmology provides evidence for the existence of God. So what does big
bang cosmology say about God? Absolutely nothing. Both arguments are
philosophical inferences from science, not science proper. 

We also have to bear in mind that "intelligent design" is not
synonymous with belief in God. In fact, ID advocates attempt
(dishonestly) to argue that ID isn't about God at all. But ID is, at
this point, little more than a set of arguments about evolution and
cosmology. Thankfully, the existence of God does not depend on the
truth of those arguments, so one can reject ID and believe in God (my
colleague Howard Van Till is a devout Christian and a physicist and he
has written volumes critiquing the ID arguments). 

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Gene Summerlin




Ed,
 
I'm sorry if I misunderstood the tenor of some of the 
arguments being made on this list.  From my quick preview of the posts I 
gained the impression that some had articulated the notion that real scientists 
rejected intelligent design or the idea of a supreme creator as unscientific and 
indefensible.  I apologize for my mistake and just wanted to point out that 
many well respected and accomplished scientists believe that their studies, in 
fact, provide evidence of an intelligent creator behind their scientific 
discoveries.
 
Gene SummerlinOgborn, Summerlin & Ogborn, P.C.210 
Windsor Place330 South Tenth StreetLincoln, NE  68508(402) 
434-8040(402) 434-8044 (facsimile)(402) 730-5344 
(mobile)[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.osolaw.com  
 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
BraytonSent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:34 PMTo: Law 
& Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Pres. Bush 
Supports Intelligent Design
Gene Summerlin wrote: 

  
  To the extent that our current discussion indicates that 
  no "true" scientist believes in God or the intelligent design theory, the 
  following nobel prize winners state 
otherwise.This is simply a straw man being 
beaten. No one in this discussion has taken anything even approaching this 
position. My organization, Michigan Citizens for Science, has a 7 member board. 
I know the religious views of 6 of the 7 and only one is an atheist. But "God" 
is not synonomous with "intelligent design theory". There is no "intelligent 
design theory", there is at most a god of the gaps argument. "I don't believe 
theory X" does not constitute "theory Y". 

  
  It's been the conventional wisdom 
  that scientists are atheists, but not so, by a long shot. Professor Richard 
  Bube of Stanford says, "There are [proportionately] as many atheistic truck 
  drivers as atheistic scientists." But among Nobel laureates, the number who 
  recognize the hand of God in the universe is remarkably 
  high.Where exactly is this 
"conventional wisdom" contained or spoken? I've never heard anyone say anything 
as stupid as "scientists are atheists" and if I had, I would certainly have 
pointed out the stupidity of it. This looks like the same straw man as above, 
still being beaten. Neither claim has the vaguest relationship to anything said 
by anyone in this discussion, or anything I've ever heard said by anyone in any 
context for that matter. 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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design





Gene Summerlin wrote:

  
  
  To the extent that our current
discussion indicates that no "true" scientist believes in God or the
intelligent design theory, the following nobel prize winners state
otherwise.

This is simply a straw man being beaten. No one in this discussion has
taken anything even approaching this position. My organization,
Michigan Citizens for Science, has a 7 member board. I know the
religious views of 6 of the 7 and only one is an atheist. But "God" is
not synonomous with "intelligent design theory". There is no
"intelligent design theory", there is at most a god of the gaps
argument. "I don't believe theory X" does not constitute "theory Y". 


  
  It's been the
conventional wisdom that scientists are atheists, but not so, by a long
shot. Professor Richard Bube of Stanford says, "There are
[proportionately] as many atheistic truck drivers as atheistic
scientists." But among Nobel laureates, the number who recognize the
hand of God in the universe is remarkably high.
  


Where exactly is this "conventional wisdom" contained or spoken? I've
never heard anyone say anything as stupid as "scientists are atheists"
and if I had, I would certainly have pointed out the stupidity of it.
This looks like the same straw man as above, still being beaten.
Neither claim has the vaguest relationship to anything said by anyone
in this discussion, or anything I've ever heard said by anyone in any
context for that matter. 

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Gene Summerlin




As Eugene patiently and consistently reminds us, this list 
is not made up of scientists or theologians.  Though my legal interests lie 
in constitutional law, I make my living by representing a number of genetics 
companies.  I consistently run into scientists who reject Darwin's theory 
of macro-evolution, though giving significant credence to natural 
selection.  To the extent that our current discussion indicates that 
no "true" scientist believes in God or the intelligent design theory, the 
following nobel prize winners state otherwise.
The German physicist Max Born, who 
pioneered quantum mechanics, said, "Those who say that the study of science 
makes a man an atheist, must be rather silly people." American physicist Arno 
Penzias shared the 1978 Nobel Prize for discovering microwaves in space -- 
patterns that physicists have interpreted as showing that the universe was 
created from nothing. Penzias said, "If I had no other data than the early 
chapters of Genesis, some of the Psalms, and other passages of Scripture, I 
would have arrived at essentially the same picture of the origin of the 
universe, as is indicated by the scientific data."
German-British researcher 
Ernst Boris Chain was awarded a Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work with 
penicillin. Chain says, "The principle of [divine] purpose ... stares the 
biologist in the face wherever he looks ... The probability for such an event as 
the origin of DNA molecules to have occurred by sheer chance is just too small 
to be seriously considered ..."  
Chain also 
said that, "The assumption of directive forces in the origin and development of 
vital processes becomes a necessity in any kind of interpretation."
American physicist Arthur Compton 
discovered what we call the Compton Effect, relating to X-rays. He said, "For 
me, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the 
universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this 
faith, for an orderly, intelligent universe testifies to the greatest statement 
ever uttered: 'In the beginning, God ...' "
William D. Phillips won the 1997 
Nobel Prize in chemistry for using lasers to produce temperatures only a 
fraction of a degree above absolute zero.  
Phillips also stated that so 
many of his colleagues were Christians he couldn't walk across his church's 
fellowship hall without "tripping over a dozen physicists."
It's been the conventional wisdom that 
scientists are atheists, but not so, by a long shot. Professor Richard Bube of 
Stanford says, "There are [proportionately] as many atheistic truck drivers as 
atheistic scientists." But among Nobel laureates, the number who recognize the 
hand of God in the universe is remarkably high.
Gene SummerlinOgborn, Summerlin & Ogborn, P.C.210 
Windsor Place330 South Tenth StreetLincoln, NE  68508(402) 
434-8040(402) 434-8044 (facsimile)(402) 730-5344 
(mobile)[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.osolaw.com  
 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
DarrellSent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:44 PMTo: Law & 
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Pres. Bush Supports 
Intelligent Design

I could be convinced, I think, about intelligent design -- were there 
any significant evidence for it. (Don't mistake my skepticism for an 
anti-faith statement, though, please).
 
The difficulty is that there really isn't any evidence that withstands 
surface scrutiny.
 
Consider this:  Studies indicate that there are about 10,000 papers 
published each year on evolution, either explaining how it works, or how it 
doesn't work as somebody else predicted, or applying evolution to solving 
problems.  
 
In the past 15 years, there have been two papers published on intelligent 
design in biology.  150,000 evolution papers, 2 papers on intelligent 
design.  Heck, there are more than two dozen papers on cold fusion listed 
at PubMed, 12 times as many as intelligent design.
 
There may be a case to be made for intelligent design.  We can't know 
now.  There has not been a significant attempt made to make the case.
 
If we teach intelligent design, shouldn't we also teach cold fusion?  
Were you required to find an expert witness on intelligent design, with just two 
papers in the literature on the subject, do you think you could find someone 
and, with a straight face, make a case to a judge that the person is an expert 
on intelligent design?  If there are no certifiable experts, or very, very 
few, should we really stop the study of the spread of malaria, the conquest of 
the boll weevil, the propagation of maple trees and wheat, the fight against 
cancer, the quest for a cure for cystic fibrosis, to spend time on it?
 
It doesn't have anything to do with hostility to the supernatural.  It 
has to do with my hostility toward junk science, pseudo science

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Gene Garman

Such demonstrated conflict and confusion is the result of any attempt to
establish "religion" by law. Recognize the wisdom of the men at both national
and state levels who drafted and approved the wording of First Amendment's
religion clauses as written:

1. The First Amendment was a restriction on the power of Congress, not an
empowerment.

2. Congress was restricted from making laws even "respecting an establishment
of religion."

3. The word is "religion." And, thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, in America
religion is not the business of Congress or of government at any level. Government
is the essence of coercion, which is why the Constitution ("the supreme law
of the land") restricts government in matters of religion. It is not hostility.
It is the guarantee of voluntarism, freedom, and peace in a society composed
of citizens of many religions and of none, all allowed the freedom to believe
whatever they wish and to freely practice their beliefs, within the restrictions
of the laws of the land, which apply to all citizens equally, regardless
of religion.

Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org

Brad M Pardee wrote:

This is probably beginning to get a bit
far afield of the issue of law and religion, so I'll let it go with this
final response before the list custodian needs to ask us to let it go. :)

Ed Brayton wrote:

Can we agree that it's the only explanation that many find coherent but some
do not, and that there are those who do not find the Biblical account of
creation either simplistic or mythical?

Brad Pardee

___
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.

___
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

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Title: Message




Gibbens, Daniel G. wrote:

  
  
  
  
  However “science” is defined, there
is scientific support for the big bang theory as descriptive of the cosmos development process, but
only non-scientific speculation on where the matter and/or energy came
from that went into the big bang.  Similarly, there is scientific
support for evolution as descriptive
of  the development process
  of life forms into the
present myriad, but only speculation
on how the first life form occurred.  Along with the scientific
"process" theories, these current speculations ("theories") should
be explained as examples of current nonscientific thinking.  This
absence of scientific information about the actual beginnings should be
made crystal clear -- certainly in teaching about science and perhaps
elsewhere in the curriculum.  
  
  


I would agree with this, though I wouldn't put the scare quotes around
"theories" as you do, nor would I equate theories with speculation. But
I do agree that we should not pretend that the question of the origin
of life has been answered. Abiogenesis research suggests several
potential answers, but none that compels any certainty at this point.
Common descent, on the other hand, is established quite soundly on the
basis of numerous lines of evidence. That evolution is responsible for
the biodiversity on the planet is well established enough and
successful enough as an explanation that we may for all intents and
purposes regard it as true. 

  
  
  Human curiosity about where we came
from, and where our cosmic environment came from,
must be addressed in public schools (what are we doing here, anyway?). But
no scientific answers exist.  There are interesting and to some,
captivating religious explanations, i.e.,
dependent on  the existence of a creative deity, scientifically
unsupported (and with no speculation on where such a deity came from,
the ultimate mystery; cf. our concept of "time").  "Intelligent design"
is rationally attractive, based
on our common usage of "causation," i.e., how else could all of this
occurred if not "created".  As with the other theories about beginnings
unsupported by science, intelligent design could be explained in
science courses as informative about current nonscientific  thinking.
  


I would prefer to simply keep it out of science classrooms. All
sciences are equally non-theistic in the sense that supernatural
explanations are kept out because they are, by definition, untestable
and unfalsifiable. Science cannot give us an answer to the question of
ultimate origins, the origin of existence, so we should keep such
questions for the humanities.

Ed BRayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Brad M Pardee wrote:
> This is a blatant misstatement of what
students are being taught.
In
> no public school are students taught that "if their parents
believe

> God created the world, then they are fools". 

  It may be a misstatement of what
students
ought to be taught, but I have talked to people whose experience was
exactly
that, not only on this issue but on others as well, where the
instructor
begins by saying, "Of course, everybody here is too smart to believe
... ".

In an elementary or secondary school? If any teacher at that level ever
said anything like "if you believe in God, you're a fool" to their
students, they should be fired. Immediately. 

  > > But maybe I'm naive to
think
that the hostility to any possibility 
> > of the supernatural in some realms of the scientific
community
can 
> > be overcome. 

  > 
> I would submit that this has far more to do with hostility toward

> evolution than with hostility toward the supernatural. Evolution
is

> precisely as "atheistic" or "anti-supernatural"
as plumbing, the 
> kinetic theory of gasses or the germ theory of disease - which is
to
> say, it's not at all. It is simply the only coherent explanation
we

> have for the natural history of life on earth, regardless of
whether
> it happens to threaten an overly simplistic and overly literal 
> translation of the Biblical creation myth.

Can we agree that it's the only explanation that many find coherent but
some do not, and that there are those who do not find the Biblical
account
of creation either simplistic or mythical?

Until someone comes up with another coherent explanation, I think we're
stuck with the one we have. Alternatives have been proposed but have
failed as explanations. Creationism fails as an explanation (and here I
mean "special creation"). ID, to this point, doesn't have any real
content to judge whether it has failed, which is exactly why it's not
taken seriously. But when there is an actual alternative model
presented, like the young earth global flood model of creationism, it
fails to explain the date rather dramatically. 

Ed Brayton

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design





Ed Darrell wrote:

  I could be convinced, I think, about intelligent design -- were
there any significant evidence for it. (Don't mistake my
skepticism for an anti-faith statement, though, please).


I don't have any hostility at all to the idea that God exists. I am not
an atheist and I do believe that the universe was created. If I found
out that whatever created the universe also had a direct role in
creating life, it would not bother me in the least and I would not have
to change anything that I believe. But I think the arguments for ID are
are just plain bad. I think it's an idea almost entirely devoid of
scientific content that has been sold by an aggressive and essentially
dishonest marketing campaign and that I object to.

   
  The difficulty is that there really isn't any evidence that
withstands surface scrutiny.
   
  Consider this:  Studies indicate that there are about 10,000
papers published each year on evolution, either explaining how it
works, or how it doesn't work as somebody else predicted, or applying
evolution to solving problems.  
   
  In the past 15 years, there have been two papers published on
intelligent design in biology.  150,000 evolution papers, 2 papers on
intelligent design.  Heck, there are more than two dozen papers on cold
fusion listed at PubMed, 12 times as many as intelligent design.

And even this doesn't tell the real story. Neither of those two
articles on ID actually had any research involved. Both were review
articles and neither of them proposed an actual ID model or any
testable hypotheses that might flow from such a model. 

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Sanford Levinson

Title: Message



 Dan Gibbens 
asks,
 
 In this 
context, who can argue with this W quote:  “I think that part of education 
is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking 
me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is 
yes.”
 
Does this mean that Bush 
believes that teachers should expose their students to all sorts of ideas that 
their parents will find offensive--say, for example, that gay and lesbian 
relationships are of equal value with heterosexual ones--or that challenge 
certain pieties of patriotism?  We know what the answer is, don't we.  
So the question is, what exactly counts as "this context"?  

 
sandy
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Gibbens, Daniel G.

Title: Message




I applaud Rick's recommendation of the DeWolf article, 
below, which I used in a follow-up piece, attempting perhaps 
simplistic advocacy on public school teaching (55 Okla. L. Rev. 
613):
However “science” is defined, there is 
scientific support for the big bang theory as 
descriptive of the cosmos development 
process, but only non-scientific 
speculation on where the matter and/or energy came from that went into the big 
bang.  Similarly, there is scientific support for evolution as descriptive of  the 
development process of life 
forms into the present myriad, but only speculation on how the first life form 
occurred.  Along with the scientific "process" theories, these current 
speculations ("theories") should be explained as examples 
of current nonscientific thinking.  This absence of scientific 
information about the actual beginnings should be made crystal clear -- 
certainly in teaching about science and perhaps elsewhere in the 
curriculum.  

Human curiosity about where we came from, and where our cosmic environment came from, must be 
addressed in public schools (what are we doing here, anyway?). But 
no scientific answers exist.  There are interesting and to some, 
captivating religious explanations, i.e., 
dependent on  the existence of a creative deity, scientifically 
unsupported (and with no speculation on where such a deity came from, the 
ultimate mystery; cf. our concept of "time").  "Intelligent design" is rationally 
attractive, based on our common usage 
of "causation," i.e., how else could all of this occurred if not 
"created".  As with the other theories about beginnings unsupported by 
science, intelligent design could be explained in science courses as informative 
about current nonscientific  thinking.
In this context, who can argue with this W quote:  
“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of 
thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed 
to different ideas, the answer is yes.”   

Dan Gibbens    
Regents' Professor Emeritus   
University of Oklahoma College of 
Law
 

-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:43 
AMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: 
Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
Prof. David DeWolf has an excellent article on "teaching the controversy." 
See DeWolf, Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, 
Or Speech, 2000 Utah L.Rev. 39.
 
As always, the solution to the culture war over the public school 
curriculum is parental choice and equal funding for all children.
 
Cheers, RickRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University 
of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 
68583-0902
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Brad M Pardee

This is probably beginning to get a
bit far afield of the issue of law and religion, so I'll let it go with
this final response before the list custodian needs to ask us to let it
go. :)

Ed Brayton wrote:

> Brad M Pardee wrote: 
> 
> > Maybe I'm misreading this, but it appears to me that the general

> > consensus of those who are defending the status quo of the evolution
> > monopoly is that those who believe in intelligent design are
either 
> > deluded fools or disingenuous charlatans.  Isn't it possible
to 
> > simply say, "We respectfully disagree with those who are
persuaded 
> > by the arguments for intelligent design"? 
> 
> I don't believe anyone has said any such thing. It certainly doesn't
> describe my position. 

Then I did misread the debate.  Although
those weren't the exact words used, it was the impression that I was getting,
but this is one of those cases where I'm glad to find out I was misreading
it.

> At this point it is nothing more
than a 
> classic God of the gaps argument - "evolution can't explain feature

> X, therefore God must have done it".

I would agree that we can't simply assume
everything that can't be explained is automatically God.  But I would
also assert that we can't assume that everything that can't be explained
is automaticaly anything but God.  I'm not saying this is your position.
 But it is a position I have seen, where any explanation is accepted
as possible except God, which is immediately excluded from the possibilities.

> > When this becomes a matter
of law where curriculum is concerned, 
> > you have students going to taxpayer-financed schools run by the

> > state being told that, if their parents believe God created the

> > world, then they are fools.  
> 
> This is a blatant misstatement of what students are being taught.
In
> no public school are students taught that "if their parents believe

> God created the world, then they are fools". 

It may be a misstatement of what students
ought to be taught, but I have talked to people whose experience was exactly
that, not only on this issue but on others as well, where the instructor
begins by saying, "Of course, everybody here is too smart to believe
... ".

> > But maybe I'm naive to think
that the hostility to any possibility 
> > of the supernatural in some realms of the scientific community
can 
> > be overcome. 
> 
> I would submit that this has far more to do with hostility toward

> evolution than with hostility toward the supernatural. Evolution is

> precisely as "atheistic" or "anti-supernatural"
as plumbing, the 
> kinetic theory of gasses or the germ theory of disease - which is
to
> say, it's not at all. It is simply the only coherent explanation we

> have for the natural history of life on earth, regardless of whether
> it happens to threaten an overly simplistic and overly literal 
> translation of the Biblical creation myth.

Can we agree that it's the only explanation that many find coherent but
some do not, and that there are those who do not find the Biblical account
of creation either simplistic or mythical?

Brad Pardee___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

I could be convinced, I think, about intelligent design -- were there any significant evidence for it. (Don't mistake my skepticism for an anti-faith statement, though, please).
 
The difficulty is that there really isn't any evidence that withstands surface scrutiny.
 
Consider this:  Studies indicate that there are about 10,000 papers published each year on evolution, either explaining how it works, or how it doesn't work as somebody else predicted, or applying evolution to solving problems.  
 
In the past 15 years, there have been two papers published on intelligent design in biology.  150,000 evolution papers, 2 papers on intelligent design.  Heck, there are more than two dozen papers on cold fusion listed at PubMed, 12 times as many as intelligent design.
 
There may be a case to be made for intelligent design.  We can't know now.  There has not been a significant attempt made to make the case.
 
If we teach intelligent design, shouldn't we also teach cold fusion?  Were you required to find an expert witness on intelligent design, with just two papers in the literature on the subject, do you think you could find someone and, with a straight face, make a case to a judge that the person is an expert on intelligent design?  If there are no certifiable experts, or very, very few, should we really stop the study of the spread of malaria, the conquest of the boll weevil, the propagation of maple trees and wheat, the fight against cancer, the quest for a cure for cystic fibrosis, to spend time on it?
 
It doesn't have anything to do with hostility to the supernatural.  It has to do with my hostility toward junk science, pseudo science, and very poorly evidenced claims.
 
Ed Darrell
DallasBrad M Pardee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's true, there are those who do believe in God, and it's also true that this does not make intelligent design science.  That's why I referred to"some realms of the scientific community".  I'm just saying that, among those who ARE hostile to the idea of the supernatural, there is no explanation for intelligent design that will satisfy them, no matter how much solid science might be behind it.  (And the same is true of the hostility of some Christians whose view of psychology is so jaundiced that no idea that comes forth from the study of the human mind will be accepted.) 
Brad 

Steve Jamar wrote: 
There are many scientists who also believe in god.  That does not make intelligent design science. 
But there are also many scientists and others who dismiss the supernatural entirely. And a few who are, as you put it, hostile to it. 
But rejection of ID as valid science does not imply hostility to the supernatural.  There is a range of belief about the supernatural or god among scientists as among those in any walk of life.  Some are believers, some are agnostics, some are athiests, some are hostile.___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Brad M Pardee


That's true, there are those who do believe
in God, and it's also true that this does not make intelligent design science.
 That's why I referred to"some realms of the scientific community".
 I'm just saying that, among those who ARE hostile to the idea of
the supernatural, there is no explanation for intelligent design that will
satisfy them, no matter how much solid science might be behind it.  (And
the same is true of the hostility of some Christians whose view of psychology
is so jaundiced that no idea that comes forth from the study of the human
mind will be accepted.)
Brad

Steve Jamar wrote:
There are many scientists who also believe
in god.  That does not make intelligent design science.
But there are also many scientists and others
who dismiss the supernatural entirely. And a few who are, as you put it,
hostile to it.
But rejection of ID as valid science does
not imply hostility to the supernatural.  There is a range of belief
about the supernatural or god among scientists as among those in any walk
of life.  Some are believers, some are agnostics, some are athiests,
some are hostile.___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

It seems to me our disagreement here is on which end of the telescope to look into.  
 
As I understand your position, you argue that teaching science that tends to conflict with the religious views of students (or their parents) tends to be a violation of the establishment clause, and therefore should be stopped.  Your argument for federal power to intervene stems from the federal courts' having intervened to stop the teaching of religious views previously -- and now you're arguing that Congress and the executive may intervene to even up the sides, or to level the playing field.
 
I'm looking at it the other way (the correct way, in my view, of course).  Specifically with regard to a religious view, even one added to "balance" something else, the Constitution requires neutrality.  Moreover, neither the federal Constitution nor the state constitutions grant any branch of government any authority to act to balance out anything in this regard.  "Congress shall make no law" in this view simply means that Congress cannot get around the Constituitonal ban by inventing a new authority or a new entity and delegating the power to it.  Congress lacks the power to intervene.  Under this view, since Congress lacks the power to intervene, the executive also lacks the authority to act.  The courts have simply been ruling to stop such actions by the other two branches, or by the states.  
 
And while I think incorporation only recognizes the view that Madison had, in this case incorporation means not only that Congress can make no law requiring science be "balanced" by an insertion of religious material, but neither can any state make such a law.
 
I don't think it would be easy to argue that the teaching of science -- especially right down the middle of the road established, mainstream science like evolution -- is oppressive to any faith.  The Constitution does not require that we pretend reality is different than it is in order to avoid offending any particular sect.  Consider the Christian Scientists, for example:  Germ theory is a direct conflict with their beliefs in many cases.  In no case does the law require that we "balance" germ theory of disease with Christian Science teachings.  I think they have a better case than creationists, who often argue for creationism against the creeds or lack of creeds of their denominations.
 
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 equally protects all faiths, or a lack of faith.  It enforces the citizen's right to believe as the citizen wishes.  Congress respects no establishment of religion in passing such laws, but instead honors the intent of the First Amendment more directly, by protecting the right of the citizen to believe, the right the the amendment is designed to promote.  
 
Ed Darrell
DallasFrancis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But given incorporation, it would follow that no one shall make no law.  In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expands religious liberty by banning discrimination based on religion in the workplace (if involved with interstate commerce), would be unconstitutional under your construal.I cant out-flag-wave you, however. :-)FrankOn 8/2/05 12:24 PM, "Ed Darrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But isn't that exactly what the First Amendment means when it says "Congress shall make no law?"  It's not odd at all, to me.  It is historically, patriotically, and liberty-confirmingly comforting. Ed Darrell'DallasFrancis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ed:Cause and effect correlations are extremely complicated on issues such as these, since there are a variety of reasons that American students may under perform.  Im always suspicious of the use of such data, regardless of who offers it. Having said that, I believe that the Supreme Court is in fact a branch of the federal government, and if it touches a matter, no matter how small or insignificant in a local setting, it elevates the issue to a federal one. After all, in order to reach its holding it must appeal to federal principles and make the argument that those principles apply in this local case.  So, Congress may address the issue if it so chooses, since by the court addressing it the court is in fact saying that the issue is of federal concern.  It would be odd, to say the least, that it is a matter of federal law but feder! al lawmakers cannot address it.  Frank 

___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, se

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Steven Jamar

There is a difference between grants of power and limits on that power, isn't there?  At least with respect to what Congress can address.  Merely because something is within the Beckwithian concept of "federal concern" does not give Congress the power to act.  Even when Congress has the power to act, e.g., 14th Amendment, the Court has indicated a willingness, nay desire, to limit the scope of that power.Congress has been granted no such power in the First Amendment.Any power touching on religion exercised by Congress would need to come under some other grant, such as equal protection or commerce clause.  And if Congress did act under one of its powers in the area of religion, then its actions would be limited by the first amendment.  Title VII is a commerce clause power bit of legislation -- and banning discrimination on the basis of religion in the workplace seems not a lot like establishing religion, though it could limit the free exercise of employers in some instances (free to avoid being "unevenly yoked" or to use the Bible as the business operating manual or to require employees to be exposed to employer's witnessing, etc.).SteveEd:  Cause and effect correlations are extremely complicated on issues such as these, since there are a variety of reasons that American students may “under perform.”  I’m always suspicious of the use of such data, regardless of who offers it. Having said that, I believe that the Supreme Court is in fact a branch of the federal government, and if it touches a matter, no matter how small or insignificant in a local setting, it elevates the issue to a federal one. After all, in order to reach its holding it must appeal to federal principles and make the argument that those principles apply in this local case.  So, Congress may address the issue if it so chooses, since by the court addressing it the court is in fact saying that the issue is of federal concern.  It would be odd, to say the least, that it is a matter of federal law but feder! al lawmakers cannot address it.    Frank  --  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  "Years ago my mother used to say to me... 'In this world Elwood' ... She always used to call me Elwood... 'In this world Elwood, you must be Oh So Smart, or Oh So Pleasant.' Well for years I was smart -- I recommend pleasant.  You may quote me." --Elwood P. Dowd  - Mary Chase, "Harvey", 1950  ___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Francis Beckwith

Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

But given incorporation, it would follow that “no one shall make no law.” In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expands religious liberty by banning discrimination based on religion in the workplace (if involved with interstate commerce), would be unconstitutional under your construal.

I can’t out-flag-wave you, however. :-)

Frank

On 8/2/05 12:24 PM, "Ed Darrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Francis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ed:

Cause and effect correlations are extremely complicated on issues such as these, since there are a variety of reasons that American students may under perform. Im always suspicious of the use of such data, regardless of who offers it. Having said that, I believe that the Supreme Court is in fact a branch of the federal government, and if it touches a matter, no matter how small or insignificant in a local setting, it elevates the issue to a federal one. After all, in order to reach its holding it must appeal to federal principles and make the argument that those principles apply in this local case. So, Congress may address the issue if it so chooses, since by the court addressing it the court is in fact saying that the issue is of federal concern. It would be odd, to say the least, that it is a matter of federal law but feder! al lawmakers cannot address it.

Frank

___
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.

___
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

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Steven Jamar

On Aug 2, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: But maybe I'm naive to think that the hostility to any possibility of the supernatural in some realms of the scientific community can be overcome.  Brad Pardee__There are many scientists who also believe in god.  That does not make intelligent design science.But there are also many scientists and others who dismiss the supernatural entirely. And a few who are, as you put it, hostile to it.But rejection of ID as valid science does not imply hostility to the supernatural.  There is a range of belief about the supernatural or god among scientists as among those in any walk of life.  Some are believers, some are agnostics, some are athiests, some are hostile.Steve --  Prof. Steven D. Jamar                                         vox:  202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567 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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design





Brad M Pardee wrote:

  Maybe I'm misreading this, but it
appears
to me that the general consensus of those who are defending the status
quo of the evolution monopoly is that those who believe in intelligent
design are either deluded fools or disingenuous charlatans.  Isn't
it possible to simply say, "We respectfully disagree with those who
are persuaded by the arguments for intelligent design"?
  


I don't believe anyone has said any such thing. It certainly doesn't
describe my position. 

  As far as intelligent design fitting
the scientific method of testing, doesn't the very definition of
intelligent
design render that impossible because the scientists are not able to
replicate
or control the external intelligence?
This is not something that science requires. You don't have to be able
to "replicate or control" the force that acted in order to determine
that a force did in fact act. We can't replicate a massive flood, but
we can still determine that a given set of strata was deposited by such
a flood. The problem with ID is not that they can't replicate or
control the external intelligence, it's that they have no model at all
from which one might derive testable hypotheses. We don't even know
what ID actually is or what it says as a model for the natural history
of the earth and the answers given by ID advocates conflict enormously
(Behe accepts common descent, Dembski sometimes does and sometiems
doesn't, Nelson doesn't at all). There just isn't any "there" there, no
model that can be tested at all. At this point it is nothing more than
a classic God of the gaps argument - "evolution can't explain feature
X, therefore God must have done it".


  When this becomes a matter of law where
curriculum is concerned, you have students going to taxpayer-financed
schools
run by the state being told that, if their parents believe God created
the world, then they are fools.  
  

This is a blatant misstatement of what students are being taught. In no
public school are students taught that "if their parents believe God
created the world, then they are fools". Evolution has nothing to do
with the creation of "the world", only the biodiversity on earth, and
it says nothing whatsoever about the existence of God (some evolution
advocates may take a position on that question, but it's not a part of
evolution, nor even a part of science, and it's not taught in science
textbooks). The theory of evolution says that all modern life on earth
is derived from a common ancestor. That's it. It doesn't finish with
"and therefore there is no god" and even less so with "and therefore
anyone who believes in God is a fool". 

But maybe I'm naive to think that the
hostility to any possibility of the supernatural in some realms of the
scientific community can be overcome.
  


I would submit that this has far more to do with hostility toward
evolution than with hostility toward the supernatural. Evolution is
precisely as "atheistic" or "anti-supernatural" as plumbing, the
kinetic theory of gasses or the germ theory of disease - which is to
say, it's not at all. It is simply the only coherent explanation we
have for the natural history of life on earth, regardless of whether it
happens to threaten an overly simplistic and overly literal translation
of the Biblical creation myth.

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Brad M Pardee


Maybe I'm misreading this, but it appears
to me that the general consensus of those who are defending the status
quo of the evolution monopoly is that those who believe in intelligent
design are either deluded fools or disingenuous charlatans.  Isn't
it possible to simply say, "We respectfully disagree with those who
are persuaded by the arguments for intelligent design"?

As far as intelligent design fitting
the scientific method of testing, doesn't the very definition of intelligent
design render that impossible because the scientists are not able to replicate
or control the external intelligence?  To use an analogy, suppose
you put a man-made birdhouse in a tree in the forest while on vacation
and then go home.  To the birds (assuming a measure of intellect for
them, for the sake of argument), wondering how the birdhouse got there,
there's going to be nothing they can do by way of observation or testing
to determine how it happened unless they were there to watch you put it
in the tree.  If you say to them, "An external agent placed it
there," they would be forced (using the model I see in evolution debates)
to say that's simply an untestable myth.  The fact that they are unable
to test it, though, wouldn't make it any less true.  It's this kind
of exclusion of the possibility that something might be beyond the ability
of science to test and observe that cripples science's ability to fairly
evaluate the possibility of intelligent design.

When this becomes a matter of law where
curriculum is concerned, you have students going to taxpayer-financed schools
run by the state being told that, if their parents believe God created
the world, then they are fools.  If I had children, I would understandably
be unhappy to have the state actively undermining my attempts to teach
my children, supposedly in the name of the Establishment Clause.  If
you want to teach evolution, teach the criticisms of it as well.  Then
teach them why some people are persuaded by the arguments for intelligent
design as well as the criticisms of THAT as well.  Giving an honest
statement of the reasons why people accept or do not accept both arguments
(without slams like "Because they don't believe in real science"
or similar insults).

But maybe I'm naive to think that the
hostility to any possibility of the supernatural in some realms of the
scientific community can be overcome.

Brad Pardee___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

But isn't that exactly what the First Amendment means when it says "Congress shall make no law?" It's not odd at all, to me. It is historically, patriotically, and liberty-confirmingly comforting.
Ed Darrell'
DallasFrancis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ed:Cause and effect correlations are extremely complicated on issues such as these, since there are a variety of reasons that American students may under perform. Im always suspicious of the use of such data, regardless of who offers it. Having said that, I believe that the Supreme Court is in fact a branch of the federal government, and if it touches a matter, no matter how small or insignificant in a local setting, it elevates the issue to a federal one. After all, in order to reach its holding it must appeal to federal principles and make the argument that those principles apply in this local case. So, Congress may address the issue if it so chooses, since by the court addressing it the court is in fact saying that the issue is of federal concern. It would be odd, to say the least, that it is a matter of federal law but feder!
al
lawmakers cannot address it. Frank ___
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

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Gene Garman





Re Rick's commentary, this is more than just a "culture war," it is a constitutional
war. From a Court precedent which Chief Justice Rehnquist and the ACLJ (just
a guess) do not accept:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least
this: ... No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support
any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion" (Everson v.
Board of Education).

I do not believe there is a Court ruling which prohibits teaching of world
history or world religions or world philosophies in a public school. However,
the motive of the effort to inject ID into a science class  is obvious. ID
is not science, it is religion and should be in a philosophy or world history
or world religion class, all of which are clearly appropriate. Every public
school student should be taught about all of the major cultures and religions
of the world, as any good broad educational program would provide without
question.

Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org



Rick Duncan wrote:

  Prof. David DeWolf has an excellent article on "teaching the controversy."
  See DeWolf, Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or
Religion, Or Speech, 2000 Utah L.Rev. 39.
 
   
 
  As always, the solution to the culture war over the public school
curriculum is parental choice and equal funding for all children.
 
   
 
  Cheers, Rick
  
  
  
  
Rick Duncan 
Welpton Professor of Law 
University of Nebraska College of Law 
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
  
"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred:
middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
  
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."
 --The Prisoner
  __
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com  
  

___
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.




___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Francis Beckwith

Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Ed:

Cause and effect correlations are extremely complicated on issues such as these, since there are a variety of reasons that American students may “under perform.” I’m always suspicious of the use of such data, regardless of who offers it. Having said that, I believe that the Supreme Court is in fact a branch of the federal government, and if it touches a matter, no matter how small or insignificant in a local setting, it elevates the issue to a federal one. After all, in order to reach its holding it must appeal to federal principles and make the argument that those principles apply in this local case. So, Congress may address the issue if it so chooses, since by the court addressing it the court is in fact saying that the issue is of federal concern. It would be odd, to say the least, that it is a matter of federal law but federal lawmakers cannot address it.

Frank

On 8/2/05 9:04 AM, "Ed Darrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Francis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because the federal courts have addressed the question of evolution curriculum in a number of opinions, has not the issue now been federalized? So, though Ed is correct that curriculum is a local issue, but at least one aspect of it has been federalized.

Frank

On 8/2/05 8:07 AM, "Ed Darrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Using NCLB to require a change in curriculum would be a federal power grab in education quite unprecedented. Heck, the federal establishment was nervous about simply making available lesson plans used in schools through the old (soon-to-be-gone) ERIC Library System, and both parties and all players were insistent that federal curriculum not be a possibity when I was partly responsible for redesigning the ERIC system in 1987. It's a quietly sensitive issue.
There was a proposed amendment to NCLB endorsing the concept of including alternatives to education made by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-MA strongly opposed the amendment and it was pulled down. ID advocates have argued that a mention of the language in the report on the final bill is as good as law, however. We may see that argument made in the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design case, if it actually goes to trial (the school! district "fired" their expert witnesses backing ID; most ID advocates have argued this is not the case they should push).
But generally, curriculum is off-limits for federal action. There are no curriculum writers at the Department of Education, by design, by tradition, and by several different laws. Curriculum is a local issue.
Ed Darrell
Dallas

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

The difficulty comes when anti-evolution advocates (I'm trying to avoid inflammatory labels) put forth what they regard to be the criticisms of evolution, rather than searching science journals for the same issues.  There was -- still is -- a solid and good debate about rates of evolution, and the relative importance of things such as sexual selection versus natural selection, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer, etc., etc.  These discussions are not what are advanced by ID and creationists as critiques of evolution.
 
Instead, in Texas for example, what was proposed was a claim that moth researchers lied about what they found in peppered moths, (to pick one popular "criticism").  The proposed criticisms were of such a nature that, had most of us gotten such a paper in our classes and been able to track down the footnotes, we would have had a serious discussion with the author over the ethics of using sources in such a manner.  One should understand that there is no serious moth scientist today who disagrees with the general conclusion of Bernard Kettlewell's research on melanism in peppered moths.   Perhaps more important, each and every scientist claimed, by the critics of evolution, to question the research has written that  they agree with Kettlewell and that their writings are being misused by the critics.
 
Or, there were lengthy criticisms aimed at claims that textbooks and curricula make claims against the existence of deity, when the books go to some lengths to avoid exactly that claim.
 
One of the difficulties is that a good understanding of evolution is required in order to see how the legitimate criticisms of Darwinian theory apply and why they are important.  I have the distinct impression that most "critics" of Darwin do not want kids to know that much about evolution.  There is no drive among critics to "teach the facts."  Each criticism is aimed at preventing those facts from being comprehended well by students, it seems to me.  The "criticisms" tend to depend on a great lack of knowledge about evolution to make them stick.
 
Biology books teach evolution agnostically, with no reference to origins other than a history of the planet geologically and a factual listing of the research on the conditions scientists find necessary for early life. It is that agnostic teaching exactly that the critics find offensive.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas
 
 
 
 
Jim also wrote, earlier:  >>One thing I know that I know is that a great deal that is taught in high school biology courses is taught, and is capable of being taught, from a point of view agnostic on origins, and without reference to origins.<<[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:02:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They claim that they only want the "evidence against evolution" taught, but this is primarily a tactical maneuver. Their stated goal remains not only equal time, but the replacement of evolution with ID, as their own documents clearly shows.

I am perplexed by this response to those critical of evolutionary theories, acting as though there is some dark cabal in it all.
 
Scientific theory invites inquisition of explanatory statements:  this because that.  If ID has no purpose other than reminding folks that evolutionary "theories" are able to be disproved, and to remove the talismanic veil of reverence that evolutionists have conjured around the theories, allowing open, scientific, critical analysis, then this is a good development for science.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:02:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  They claim that they only want the "evidence against
evolution" taught, but this is primarily a tactical maneuver. Their
stated goal remains not only equal time, but the replacement of
evolution with ID, as their own documents clearly shows.
  
  I am perplexed by this response to those critical of
evolutionary theories, acting as though there is some dark cabal in it
all.
  

I didn't say anything about a "dark cabal". I simply said that their
ultimate and stated goal is the replacement of evolution (and
"materialism" or "materialistic atheism", terms they use
interchangably) with ID and "theistic science". That statement is
entirely true, that is indeed their stated goal. I could show you the
entire document, but I'm sure you've seen it.
 

  Scientific theory invites inquisition of explanatory
statements:  this because that.  If ID has no purpose other than
reminding folks that evolutionary "theories" are able to be disproved,
and to remove the talismanic veil of reverence that evolutionists have
conjured around the theories, allowing open, scientific, critical
analysis, then this is a good development for science.
  

If they actually did some science, you might have a point. As soon as
ID advocates produce an actual model from which one can derive testable
hypotheses and go about proposing some means of testing their ideas,
they will be taken seriously. But I'm not holding my breath. They are
engaged primarily in the act of public relations and marketing, not
science.

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Rick Duncan

Prof. David DeWolf has an excellent article on "teaching the controversy." See DeWolf, Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech, 2000 Utah L.Rev. 39.
 
As always, the solution to the culture war over the public school curriculum is parental choice and equal funding for all children.
 
Cheers, RickRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."  --The Prisoner__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Rick Garnett



Dear all,
Just a quick note in response to Marci's (below) . . . but first, three
quick caveats:  First, I am neither a theologian nor a scientist, so
I might well get some things wrong below; second, I apologize if this
post strays too far off-topic; and third, I am not here endorsing or
defending the entirety of Cardinal Schonborn's recent NYT op-ed,
"Finding Design in Nature," which Marci references in her
note.
I think Marci reads fairly Schonborn's op-ed, and I share some of the
concerns that have been expressed in many quarters about the essay's
attack on what Schonborn understand to be
"neo-Darwinism."  That said, I am not sure it is right to
assume that the op-ed's tone and content were "permitted and
encouraged . . . by the Pope."  (I mention this only because it
seems relevant to Marci's question whether there is reason to expect
cooperation by the Holy See or the American bishops with the various
political efforts to include, in some form, Intelligent Design or
criticism of evolution in schools' curricula.)  
As Schonborn's op-ed notes, the present Pope was, a few years ago, head
of a theological Commission that produced a document, "Communion and
Stewardship:  Human Persons Created in the Image of God"
(available here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
).  The document offered, among other things, a theological
reflection on the claim that human persons are "created" in the
image of God.  The document is not, in any way, a defense of
biblical literalism, but instead an effort to identify carefully the
content of this central, and challenging, claim.  As I see it, the
Commission's primary aim -- and also, I think, the primary point of the
present Pope's own recent statements (which Schonborn quotes) -- was to
propose that, as a matter of moral anthropology, "[w]e are not some
casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of
a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us
is necessary."  This proposal assumes, or argues, that science
does not, and could not, reveal (or rule out) the (proposed) fact that
persons are "willed", "loved", and (in some sense)
"necessary"; or somehow demonstrate our
"meaningless[ness]."
The Commission was careful to endorse (what it understood to be) the
scientific account of the origins of the universe and the development of
life.  For those who might be interested, here's a blurb (sorry for
the long quote):

The endeavor to understand the universe has marked human culture in
every period and in nearly every society. In the perspective of the
Christian faith, this endeavor is precisely an instance of the
stewardship which human beings exercise in accordance with God's plan.
Without embracing a discredited concordism, Christians have the
responsibility to locate the modern scientific understanding of the
universe within the context of the theology of creation. The place of
human beings in the history of this evolving universe, as it has been
charted by modern sciences, can only be seen in its complete reality in
the light of faith, as a personal history of the engagement of the triune
God with creaturely persons.

63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe
erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the Big Bang and
has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged
the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the
condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the
formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about
4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the
emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about
how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there
is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this
planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that
all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually
certain that all living organisms have descended from this first
organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and
biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of
evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on
earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of
evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to
revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a
convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about
150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a
continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution
were permanently altered: with the introduction of the

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread JMHACLJ





In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:02:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They 
  claim that they only want the "evidence against evolution" taught, but this is 
  primarily a tactical maneuver. Their stated goal remains not only equal time, 
  but the replacement of evolution with ID, as their own documents clearly 
  shows.

I am perplexed by this response to those critical of evolutionary theories, 
acting as though there is some dark cabal in it all.
 
Scientific theory invites inquisition of explanatory statements:  this 
because that.  If ID has no purpose other than reminding folks that 
evolutionary "theories" are able to be disproved, and to remove the talismanic 
veil of reverence that evolutionists have conjured around the theories, allowing 
open, scientific, critical analysis, then this is a good development for 
science.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread FRAP428

I wonder what would have been the result had President Bush been admitted to the University of Texas law school instead of getting his post-baccalaureate education at Harvard Business School (another one of my infamous conversation stopping contributions).  Not a snide on HBS since my future son-in-law is getting his Ph.D. there. 

Well, no surprise that the only violation of EC President Bush, like Justice Scalia, would recognize would be under coercion analysis--and defining coercion very narrowly at that. No Lemon or endorsement test need apply. 

Frances Paterson
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread JMHACLJ




Evangelicals and Catholics in a grand conspiracy to undermine evolutionary 
theory and overwhelm the valient common school instructor in her effort to 
protect our children from the voodoo and hoodoo of young earth 
creationism?
 
I think Marci, your tongue was firmly in cheek, yes?
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

In each case in which the federal courts have addressed the issue a governmental body was attempting to impose a religiously-motivated curriculum. This is a violation of the establishment clause. Other than that, the federal courts have remained neutral in curriculum. Protecting the religious rights of citizens against state, local and local school government encroachment is quite a bit different from the executive branch of the federal government mandating curriculum.
As a political matter, every other nation whose students perform better than U.S. students in academic achievement tests, has a national curriculum with high standards to which all schools in the nation aspire or to which all schools are mandated to achieve. In each of those cases evolution is a part of the curriculum. I believe that a significant part of the drop off of educational achievement in U.S. kids is because of the wrangling over putting religion into the curriculum at the local level (4th grade U.S. kids lead the world in science achievement; by 8th grade they are apace with other industrialized nations; by 12th grade they are significantly behind other nations). Repeated studies indicate that U.S. kids are not taught evolution because teachers and administrators fear the hassle of parents and interest groups who complain. But as Mr. Brayton noted, even in the law hoped to improve our kids' educational achievement, amendments!
were
offered to encourage the watering down the science curriculum. (Mr. Levinson is right -- the language is facially not so damaging; but the amendment, which was written by a leading intelligent design advocate, a lawyer, includes those buzzwords and buzzphrases that indicate the intent to frustrate the teaching of evolution rather than require higher standards of achievement. Gotta know the jargon, sometimes.)
The federal courts' have addressed only whether the insertion of certain materials violates the establishment clause, and not other aspects of the science curriculum.
Ed Darrell
DallasFrancis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because the federal courts have addressed the question of evolution curriculum in a number of opinions, has not the issue now been federalized? So, though Ed is correct that curriculum is a local issue, but at least one aspect of it has been federalized. FrankOn 8/2/05 8:07 AM, "Ed Darrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Using NCLB to require a change in curriculum would be a federal power grab in education quite unprecedented. Heck, the federal establishment was nervous about simply making available lesson plans used in schools through the old (soon-to-be-gone) ERIC Library System, and both parties and all players were insistent that federal curriculum not be a possibity when I was partly responsible for redesigning the ERIC system in 1987. It's a quietly sensitive issue. There was a proposed amendment to NCLB endorsing the concept of including alternatives to education made by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-MA strongly opposed the amendment and it was pulled down. ID advocates have argued that a mention of the language in the report on the final bill is as good as law, however. We may see that argument made in the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design case, if it actually goes to trial (the school!
district
"fired" their expert witnesses backing ID; most ID advocates have argued this is not the case they should push). But generally, curriculum is off-limits for federal action. There are no curriculum writers at the Department of Education, by design, by tradition, and by several different laws. Curriculum is a local issue. Ed DarrellDallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was a story in yesterday's NYT about a group placing "Bible" classes in various public schools. Apparently, the content includes assertions about intelligent design. So it would appear there is a mutli-pronged approach. To me, what is most interesting about the President's statement is that it follows on the heels of the Viennese Catholic Archbishop's statement that evolution is in doubt. I think it is a mistake to underestimate the political ties between the anti-abortion forces in the right Catholic and the right evangelical Christian groups. That political unity appears to have yielded another issue where they are in synch. The ID offensive is a fairly coordinated social movement to push science aside for the purpose of furthering religion through the public schools. (Even more interesting, I suppose, is that Catholic schools, in the US at least, are not changing !
their
curricula in response to the Catholic statement, even though it was apparently endorsed, or permitted and encouraged, by the Pope.) Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left Behind as a base of power to force public schools to teach ID? Could the Bush Administration put in place regulations under NCLB that would do as much? It's also very interesting that t

RE: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Sanford Levinson







At one level I don't 
understand what the problem is with the Santorum Amendment, which could easily 
be interpreted as a mandate to teach students the difference between analysis 
founded on genuine science (e.g., evolution) from analysis that is, from a 
scientific perspective, simply and utterly bogus (e.g., ID).  Imagine a 
mandated class on "comating Holocaust denial," devoted to offering specific 
responses to the claims of deniers.  I suppose that one might argue that 
such a class would be unwise inasmuch has it suggested that one could even 
"debate" (rather than merely express contempt for) Holocuast deniers, but if one 
believed that too many people were vulnerable to their claims (especially 
because of easy access to Internet sites and the like), then I could imagine 
offering such a class.  But, of course, no one believes that the Santorum 
amendment is motivated by a desire to rip out the week of 
ID.
 
In any event, I think the amendment is an interesting exercise for 
interpretation buffs, since I can readily imagine that proponents of ID would be 
furious at the linguistically identical amendment if it had been offered by, 
say, a liberal Democrat with a degree in biology who expressed his concern about 
the inability of contemporary students adequately to refute the pop-"science" of 
ID (that has apparently conquered the White House).
 
sandy



From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ed BraytonSent: Tue 
8/2/2005 9:04 AMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law 
AcademicsSubject: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent 
Design
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left Behind as 
  a base of power to force public schools to teach ID?  Could the Bush 
  Administration put in place regulations under NCLB that would do as 
  much?The original language of the NCLB contained 
something called the Santorum Amendment, which read:"It is the sense of 
the Senate that- (1) good science education should prepare students to 
distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or 
religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological 
evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this 
subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the 
students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the 
subject."That language was stripped out of the bill by the conference 
committee that reconciled the House and Senate versions and was not in the final 
bill that was signed by the President. But ID advocates have nonetheless claimed 
that it is binding and that it establishes a guideline for public schools to 
"teach the controversy". 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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Hamilton02





An issue is not federalized simply because the federal Constitution has 
been applied to a state.  
 
Marci
 
In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:13:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because the federal courts have addressed the question of 
  evolution curriculum in a number of opinions, has not the issue now been 
  “federalized”?  So, though Ed is correct that curriculum is a local 
  issue, but at least one aspect of it has been federalized. 
  Frank

 
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Hamilton02





Well, at one time, most issues were local issues.  Now we have federal 
regulation of local land use under RLUIPA, with the Bush Administration 
defending Congress's power to regulate local land use law.   This 
Administration  is constantly touting No Child Left Behind.  If there 
is an opening, and it looks politically advantageous, I would imagine we'll see 
a President trying to force curriculum reform from above, with or without 
curriculum experts in the DOE.
 
Marci
 
 
In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:08:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Curriculum is a local issue.
   
  Ed Darrell
  Dallas

 
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Francis Beckwith

Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Because the federal courts have addressed the question of evolution curriculum in a number of opinions, has not the issue now been “federalized”? So, though Ed is correct that curriculum is a local issue, but at least one aspect of it has been federalized.

Frank

On 8/2/05 8:07 AM, "Ed Darrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Using NCLB to require a change in curriculum would be a federal power grab in education quite unprecedented. Heck, the federal establishment was nervous about simply making available lesson plans used in schools through the old (soon-to-be-gone) ERIC Library System, and both parties and all players were insistent that federal curriculum not be a possibity when I was partly responsible for redesigning the ERIC system in 1987. It's a quietly sensitive issue.
There was a proposed amendment to NCLB endorsing the concept of including alternatives to education made by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-MA strongly opposed the amendment and it was pulled down. ID advocates have argued that a mention of the language in the report on the final bill is as good as law, however. We may see that argument made in the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design case, if it actually goes to trial (the school district "fired" their expert witnesses backing ID; most ID advocates have argued this is not the case they should push).
But generally, curriculum is off-limits for federal action. There are no curriculum writers at the Department of Education, by design, by tradition, and by several different laws. Curriculum is a local issue.
Ed Darrell
Dallas

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was a story in yesterday's NYT about a group placing "Bible" classes in various public schools. Apparently, the content includes assertions about intelligent design. So it would appear there is a mutli-pronged approach.
To me, what is most interesting about the President's statement is that it follows on the heels of the Viennese Catholic Archbishop's statement that evolution is in doubt. I think it is a mistake to underestimate the political ties between the anti-abortion forces in the right Catholic and the right evangelical Christian groups. That political unity appears to have yielded another issue where they are in synch. The ID offensive is a fairly coordinated social movement to push science aside for the purpose of furthering religion through the public schools. (Even more interesting, I suppose, is that Catholic schools, in the US at least, are not changing their curricula in response to the Catholic statement, even though it was apparently endorsed, or permitted and encouraged, by the Pope.)
Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left Behind as a base of power to force public schools to teach ID? Could the Bush Administration put in place regulations under NCLB that would do as much?
It's also very interesting that this issue comes to the fore in the midst of the Roberts nomination. Having chosen the business interests' favorite candidate and gotten pilloried by some right Christian groups, Bush may well now be placating those same groups.
Marci
___
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.

___
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.

___
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

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Using NCLB to require a change in curriculum would be a federal power grab in education quite unprecedented.  Heck, the federal establishment was nervous about simply making available lesson plans used in schools through the old (soon-to-be-gone) ERIC Library System, and both parties and all players were insistent that federal curriculum not be a possibity when I was partly responsible for redesigning the ERIC system in 1987.  It's a quietly sensitive issue.
 
There was a proposed amendment to NCLB endorsing the concept of including alternatives to education made by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA.  Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-MA strongly opposed the amendment and it was pulled down.  ID advocates have argued that a mention of the language in the report on the final bill is as good as law, however.  We may see that argument made in the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design case, if it actually goes to trial (the school district "fired" their expert witnesses backing ID; most ID advocates have argued this is not the case they should push).
 
But generally, curriculum is off-limits for federal action.  There are no curriculum writers at the Department of Education, by design, by tradition, and by several different laws.  Curriculum is a local issue.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


There was a story in yesterday's NYT about a group placing "Bible" classes in various public schools.  Apparently, the content includes assertions about intelligent design.  So it would appear there is a mutli-pronged approach.  
 
To me, what is most interesting about the President's statement is that it follows on the heels of the Viennese Catholic Archbishop's statement that evolution is in doubt.  I think it is a mistake to underestimate the political ties between the anti-abortion forces in the right Catholic and the right evangelical Christian groups.  That political unity appears to have yielded another issue where they are in synch.  The ID offensive is a fairly coordinated social movement to push science aside for the purpose of furthering religion through the public schools.   (Even more interesting, I suppose, is that Catholic schools, in the US at least, are not changing their curricula in response to the Catholic statement, even though it was apparently endorsed, or permitted and encouraged, by the Pope.)
 
Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left Behind as a base of power to force public schools to teach ID?  Could the Bush Administration put in place regulations under NCLB that would do as much?
 
It's also very interesting that this issue comes to the fore in the midst of the Roberts nomination.  Having chosen the business interests' favorite candidate and gotten pilloried by some right Christian groups, Bush may well now be placating those same groups. 
 
Marci___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left
Behind as a base of power to force public schools to teach ID?  Could
the Bush Administration put in place regulations under NCLB that would
do as much?
  

The original language of the NCLB contained something called the
Santorum Amendment, which read:

"It is the sense of the Senate that- (1) good science education should
prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of
science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the
name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the
curriculum should help students to understand why this subject
generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the
students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding
the subject."

That language was stripped out of the bill by the conference committee
that reconciled the House and Senate versions and was not in the final
bill that was signed by the President. But ID advocates have
nonetheless claimed that it is binding and that it establishes a
guideline for public schools to "teach the controversy". 

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:23:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  the primary ID advocates themselves continually say that they
don't want ID to be taught in science classrooms. In fact, when my side
says that they do they throw a fit about how we're misrepresenting
their position.
   
  Where do they want ID to be taught? If not in a course
examining the truth of the origin of the universe/people and so forth,
teaching ID would seem to be harmless even from a separationist
perspective.
  
  

They claim that they only want the "evidence against evolution" taught,
but this is primarily a tactical maneuver. Their stated goal remains
not only equal time, but the replacement of evolution with ID, as their
own documents clearly shows.

Ed


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Hamilton02




There was a story in yesterday's NYT about a group placing "Bible" classes 
in various public schools.  Apparently, the content includes assertions 
about intelligent design.  So it would appear there is a mutli-pronged 
approach.  
 
To me, what is most interesting about the President's statement is that it 
follows on the heels of the Viennese Catholic Archbishop's statement that 
evolution is in doubt.  I think it is a mistake to underestimate the 
political ties between the anti-abortion forces in the right Catholic and the 
right evangelical Christian groups.  That political unity appears to have 
yielded another issue where they are in synch.  The ID offensive is 
a fairly coordinated social movement to push science aside for the 
purpose of furthering religion through the public schools.   (Even 
more interesting, I suppose, is that Catholic schools, in the US at least, are 
not changing their curricula in response to the Catholic statement, even though 
it was apparently endorsed, or permitted and encouraged, by the Pope.)
 
Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left Behind as a 
base of power to force public schools to teach ID?  Could the Bush 
Administration put in place regulations under NCLB that would do as much?
 
It's also very interesting that this issue comes to the fore in the midst 
of the Roberts nomination.  Having chosen the business interests' favorite 
candidate and gotten pilloried by some right Christian groups, Bush may well now 
be placating those same groups. 
 
Marci
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

They don't want ID to be taught.  Following the decision of Judge William Overton in McLean v. Arkansas, anything can be taught as science so long as there is some science behind the stuff -- a body of research and a general consensus that the hypothesis works to some degree.
 
Intelligent design is not ready for prime time, some of the advocates argue.  The advocates are still struggling to formulate any hypothesis that might lend itself to scientific examination, nor is there any general set of settled hypotheses that might lead to a general theory of intelligent design.  
 
Consequently, the big money ID advocates wish to avoid a court decision that points that out.  Since there is no significant body of science there, they fear a decision that says a decision to teach it now is done on the basis of religion.  Judge Overton's finding that creationism is religion has been fatal to plans to teach creationism; that was the basis for the judgment against the Louisiana statute in Edwards v. Aguillard, which the Supreme Court agreed with in 1987.
 
In the current controversies, the proposal is to put intelligent design into biology classes.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:23:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the primary ID advocates themselves continually say that they don't want ID to be taught in science classrooms. In fact, when my side says that they do they throw a fit about how we're misrepresenting their position.
 
Where do they want ID to be taught? If not in a course examining the truth of the origin of the universe/people and so forth, teaching ID would seem to be harmless even from a separationist perspective.
 
Bobby

Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread RJLipkin





In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:23:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the 
  primary ID advocates themselves continually say that they don't want ID to be 
  taught in science classrooms. In fact, when my side says that they do they 
  throw a fit about how we're misrepresenting their position.
 
Where do they want ID to be 
taught? If not in a course examining the truth of the origin of the 
universe/people and so forth, teaching ID would seem to be harmless even from a 
separationist perspective.
 
Bobby

Robert Justin 
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of 
LawDelaware
___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design