Re: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Francis Beckwith wrote: An explanation doesn't have to be a theory. For example, if I were to claim that "undefined designer operating at some point in the past had to intervene in order for event X to occur since the event X exhibits the characteristics of a designed entity," I am offering an explanation. Suppose Behe's argument for irreducible complexity works, that is, certain biological entities cannot be accounted for by non-rational mechanisms since they exhibit the characteristics of entities designed by agents. Now, the "theory" is Behe's set of conditions that must occur in order one to be warranted in inferring a designer. Darwin, of course, provided an account that a vast majority of scientists believe is a defeater to Behe's view. But that means that Behe's view is a view that may count as an explanation, though many people believe he's wrong. But they believe he's wrong because his account has less explanatory power than the Darwinian account. We reject his account because it fails as an explanation, not because it can't pass a metaphysical litmus test. I think you're using theory in a somewhat anachronistic way here, but I agree in principle with the notion that it should be rejected because it fails, not merely as a matter of definition. There are of course multiple problems with Behe's thesis both on the theory level and the factual level. On the factual level, we have the problem that his definition of irreducible complexity (IC) doesn't really accord with the real world. For example, the blood clotting cascade was trumpeted by him as one of the primary examples of an IC system, and he defined IC as a system in which you could not remove a single component from the system and still have it function correctly (using the mouse trap analogy, of course, take any one of the components away and it doesn't catch mice anymore). But lo and behold, that turned out not to be true. Dolphins, for example, lack one of the primary components that Behe named as critical to the blood clotting cascade, a protein called Hagemann factor, or factor 12. Behe's definition of an IC system was that any precursor to the system that was missing a single component would be non-functional, yet dolphins have a perfectly functioning blood clotting system with one primary component removed. The other major difficulty is that his definition of IC rules out precursors that serve a different function and are later coopted to a new function, which usually happens as a result of gene duplication. On a theoretical level, or perhaps even meta-theoretical level, the problem is that even if he was able to show that we have no way (currently) of explaining how a particular system evolved step by step, it doesn't logically follow that it therefore must have been created that way by some unknown designer. This is especially true in Behe's case because he accepts common descent and admits that there are lots of very complex biochemical systems that DID evolve, and it would be easy to go back only a short amount of time to a point where our current state of knowledge would have said the same thing of those systems: "we don't know how they could have evolved at this point". That's the problem with God of the Gaps arguments - the same argument has been used a thousand times in similar situations and the gaps keep getting filled in by our advancing knowledge and understanding of the biochemical processes. So even if his examples of IC were accurate, all it logically shows is a current gap in our understanding. But such gaps are filled in by continuing research, not by declaring it unsolvable. If the conventional framework for explanation (methodological naturalism) is applied, new avenues of research will provide more and more detailed explanations; if the ID framework is applied, research stops. One can easily envision ways to expand our understanding of, say, the bacterial flagellum and how it evolved, through testing and research at the genomic level. Indeed, scientists work on this question every day because the conventional scientific explanation opens up robust opportunities for research. But under the ID explanation - evolution didn't do it, God did it - there is no research imaginable that could confirm this or tell us anything more about it. That's why I said that ID is the "conversation stopper", at least in terms of ongoing research. If I discover a piece of rock that resembles Socrates in my office tomorrow morning, am I not justified in claiming that someone designed even if I don't know the designer's name or how he did it (suppose I am completely ignorant of sculpture) and when? It seems to me that the "name/how/when" objection doesn't do the trick. I don't think this is an accurate analogy. There is a far bigger distinction between a rock and a rock that looks like Socrates than there is between a biochemical system that even Behe would admit evolved without the need for outside intervention
Re: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Sandy, I agree that there is value in multiplicity in the three examples you mention, including critiques of evolution. But there is a difference between evolution (an established fact) and disagreements about the mechanism by which it works. Requiring teaching that evolution is false is not an acceptable alternative. But allowing or even requiring critiques makes a great deal of sense. Even if it is creationism light. Knowledge is not all a matter of social power. But what constitutes truth at any given time certainly is affected by social power. Steve On Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 05:16 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote: I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives to Darwinism. That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a multiplicity of points of view. Is there a principled way of deciding when that is a desiderata? Consider, e.g., the failure of American public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe, but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us, obviously). I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with regard to my examples. But, conversely, I presume that persons who agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even a possibility. Is Foucault right, that what counts as knowledge (or disputable theory) is all a matter of social power? (This is not a rhetorical question.) -- 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/ It is by education I learn to do by choice, what other men do by the constraint of fear. Aristotle ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Evolution appears to violate the law of entropy. That is things tend to disorder. (examples: a deck of cards, any teenagers bedroom.) Evolution assumes that things become more ordered. Physicists in industry are not going to spend the time on it because it will not help produce a product. Physicists in colleges are not looking at it because there is no grant money in it. Also would a published article on the subject help them get tenure? Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On Dec 14, 2004, at 4:56 PM, Michael MASINTER wrote: How does evolution appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics? And if it does, why haven't physicists figured it out? Michael R. Masinter Visiting Professor of Law On Leave From University of Miami Law School Nova Southeastern University(305) 284-3870 (voice) Shepard Broad Law Center(305) 284-6619 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote: My training in physics was that a theory is an explanation that fits the facts. For example, the theoretical physicist comes up with a theory. The experimentalist runs the experiment and gives the results to the theoretical physicist who then modifies the theory. There are many holes in the theory of evolution. Evolution appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics. There are also many things that have been presented as evidence of evolution that have been proven false. The problems with evolution and the major schools of thought within evolution should be taught to the students. If DI has a different theory that fits the facts, it should also be taught. I tend toward the 6 days of creation with the clock counting the time being at the center of the big bang. The gravitational effect slowing down the clock so that we may still be in the seventh day. Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On Dec 14, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Steven Jamar wrote: Sandy, I agree that there is value in multiplicity in the three examples you mention, including critiques of evolution. But there is a difference between evolution (an established fact) and disagreements about the mechanism by which it works. Requiring teaching that evolution is false is not an acceptable alternative. But allowing or even requiring critiques makes a great deal of sense. Even if it is creationism light. Knowledge is not all a matter of social power. But what constitutes truth at any given time certainly is affected by social power. Steve On Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 05:16 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote: I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives to Darwinism. That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a multiplicity of points of view. Is there a principled way of deciding when that is a desiderata? Consider, e.g., the failure of American public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe, but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us, obviously). I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with regard to my examples. But, conversely, I presume that persons who agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even a possibility. Is Foucault right, that what counts as knowledge (or disputable theory) is all a matter of social power? (This is not a rhetorical question.) sandy -- 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/ It is by education I learn to do by choice, what other men do by the constraint of fear. Aristotle ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
That things tend toward disorder does not mean that order cannot and does not arise. Order arises in all physical systems without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The laws relating to chemistry and biology also matter as do such laws of physics like quantum dynamics. The specious entropy argument has been thoroughly debunked in published material. Evolution does not really assume anything about order or about directionality of change, except insofar as under the principles of natural selection the more fit will survive. Steve On Wednesday, December 15, 2004, at 11:10 AM, Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote: Evolution appears to violate the law of entropy. That is things tend to disorder. (examples: a deck of cards, any teenagers bedroom.) Evolution assumes that things become more ordered. Physicists in industry are not going to spend the time on it because it will not help produce a product. Physicists in colleges are not looking at it because there is no grant money in it. Also would a published article on the subject help them get tenure? Alan -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Hi Frank, good to "see" you again. I'll be curious to see how the DI handles this if it goes to trial. They are certainly right that the actual policy adopted is incoherent, as I argued in great detail on the Panda's Thumb a couple weeks ago. But if it goes to trial and they are asked to testify as expert witnesses on the validity of ID as a theory or model, would they refuse to do so? In the McLean case in 1981, there were some experts on the state's side who also said that they thought the law went about things the wrong way, but that they supported the idea and they testified on behalf of creation science anyway. Clearly, though, this is not the test case that the DI wanted. I wonder if their opposition will move the school board to reconsider, or perhaps move the TMLC not to get involved after all? This is definitely a developing story. Ed Brayton Francis J. Beckwith wrote: Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the pre-biotic soup: For Immediate Release Dec. 14, 2004 Press Contact: Rob Crowther Discovery Institute (206) 292-0401 x.107 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Leading intelligent design think tank calls Dover evolution policy "misguided," calls for it to be withdrawn Seattle, Dec. 14 - The policy on teaching evolution recently adopted by the Dover, PA School Board was called "misguided" today by Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, which advised that the policy should be withdrawn and rewritten. "While the Dover board is to be commended for trying to teach Darwinian theory in a more open-minded manner, this is the wrong way to go about it," said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC). "Dover's current policy has a number of problems, not the least of which is its lack of clarity. At one point, it appears to prohibit Dover schools from teaching anything about 'the origins of life.' At another point, it appears to both mandate as well as prohibit the teaching of the scientific theory of intelligent design. The policy's incoherence raises serious problems from the standpoint of constitutional law. Thus, the policy should be withdrawn and rewritten." Apart from questions about its constitutionality, West expressed reservations about the Dover School Board's directive on public policy grounds. "When we first read about the Dover policy, we publicly criticized it because according to published reports the intent was to mandate the teaching of intelligent design," explained West. "Although we think discussion of intelligent design should not be prohibited, we don't think intelligent design should be required in public schools. "What should be required is full disclosure of the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory," added West, "which is the approach supported by the overwhelming majority of the public." Discovery Institute's Center for Science Culture is the nation's leading think-tank exploring the scientific theory of intelligent design, which proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected cause such as natural selection. In recent years a growing number of scientists have presented the case for intelligent design theory in academic journal articles and books published by major academic presses such as Cambridge University Press and Michigan State University Press. For more information visit the Institute's website at www.discovery.org/csc/. ### -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:53 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Press Conference Announcing Legal Challenge to "Intelligent Design" Curriculum in PA Ah, I was just going to post something about this. The Thomas More Law Center has offered to handle the defense for the Dover school district. I haven't seen any official word that they'll be representing the district, but the district would be foolish not to accept the offer. Well, let me rephrase that. They'd be foolish to fight the lawsuit in the first place, as I think they're going to lose and it's going to cost the taxpayers of that district an enormous amount of money. But if they're going to fight it, they'd be even more foolish not to accept the offer to have the TMLC represent them. TMLC has done some pretty good work. This could very well be the test case that everyone involved in the evolution/creationism battle have been anticipating for a couple of years now, the one that determines whether the precedents set in McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard concerning the teaching of "creation science" also hold true for the teaching of "intelligent design". The ID folks aren't happy about that, as they don't think the Dover school board's policy is very defensible (and they're right, it's riddled with contradictions and false
Re: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
I'm not sure that the following intervention will be productive, but: My sense is that this discussion has reached beyond the limits of list-relevance in its discussions of the substance of ID, evolutionary theory, etc. (I remember enough about physics from college to know that the law of entropy says nothing about the possibilities of an increase in order in any subset of the universe as a whole.) Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote: Evolution appears to violate the law of entropy. That is things tend to disorder. (examples: a deck of cards, any teenagers bedroom.) Evolution assumes that things become more ordered. Physicists in industry are not going to spend the time on it because it will not help produce a product. Physicists in colleges are not looking at it because there is no grant money in it. Also would a published article on the subject help them get tenure? Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On Dec 14, 2004, at 4:56 PM, Michael MASINTER wrote: How does evolution appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics? And if it does, why haven't physicists figured it out? Michael R. MasinterVisiting Professor of Law On Leave FromUniversity of Miami Law School Nova Southeastern University(305) 284-3870 (voice) Shepard Broad Law Center(305) 284-6619 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote: My training in physics was that a theory is an explanation that fits the facts. For example, the theoretical physicist comes up with a theory. The experimentalist runs the experiment and gives the results to the theoretical physicist who then modifies the theory. There are many holes in the theory of evolution. Evolution appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics. There are also many things that have been presented as evidence of evolution that have been proven false. The problems with evolution and the major schools of thought within evolution should be taught to the students. If DI has a different theory that fits the facts, it should also be taught. I tend toward the 6 days of creation with the clock counting the time being at the center of the big bang. The gravitational effect slowing down the clock so that we may still be in the seventh day. Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On Dec 14, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Steven Jamar wrote: Sandy, I agree that there is value in multiplicity in the three examples you mention, including critiques of evolution. But there is a difference between evolution (an established fact) and disagreements about the mechanism by which it works. Requiring teaching that evolution is false is not an acceptable alternative. But allowing or even requiring critiques makes a great deal of sense. Even if it is creationism light. Knowledge is not all a matter of social power. But what constitutes truth at any given time certainly is affected by social power. Steve On Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 05:16 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote: I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives to Darwinism. That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a multiplicity of points of view. Is there a principled way of deciding when that is a desiderata? Consider, e.g., the failure of American public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe, but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us, obviously). I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with regard to my examples. But, conversely, I presume that persons who agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even a possibility. Is Foucault right, that what counts as knowledge (or disputable theory) is all a matter of social power? (This is not a rhetorical question.) sandy -- 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/ It is by education I learn to do by choice, what other men do by the constraint of fear. Aristotle
Re: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote: Evolution appears to violate the law of entropy. That is things tend to disorder. (examples: a deck of cards, any teenagers bedroom.) Evolution assumes that things become more ordered. Oi vey. Alan, seriously, this is utter nonsense. The law of entropy does not say that things tend to disorder, it says that closed or thermodynamically isolated systems eventually return to a state of equilibrium (also sometimes stated as a state of maximum entropy). The key phrases there are isolated systems and eventually. The earth is an open system, receiving inputs of heat and energy (heat being the thermo part of the word and energy being the dynamic part of the word) from the sun as well as other sources. Eventually, the system will reach equilibrium - when the sun burns out and no more heat or energy are exchanged. There's a reason why you will not find a single physicist who accepts this argument, even young earth creationist physicists like John Baumgardner or Danny Faulkner. Because it's not just false, it's glaringly false and based solely on an obvious misrepresentation of what the 2nd law of thermydynamics actually says. I'm sure you're not the one doing the misrepresenting here, but the folks whose claims you read and are repeating probably are. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Perhaps the relationship between government and religion and the relationship between government and science may be different for reasons that extend beyond the idea that science is knowledge and religion is opinion. I don't think we deny government the power to declare religious truth because religion is only opinion. After all, we allow government to promote a lot of opinions and values. But we think there is something distinctive about religion that justifies constraints on the government's power to promote it. And, of course, we protect the exercise of religion from governmental interference, not because we think religious practices are grounded on truth while secular activities are based on opinion, but, rather, again, because we think that there is something special about religion that requires a different relationship between it and government. Or to pick up on Sandy's post, what counts as knowledge may be a matter of social power, but we may decide as a matter of constitutional law that government can not declare or enforce certain kinds of knowledge (religion, for example) and distinguish it from disputable theory, while it may declare and enforce other kinds of knowledge (e.g. science and math) and distinguish it from disputable theory. Perhaps this idea is incorrect and there is no good reason for government to distinguish religion from any other kind of knowledge or understanding with regard to government support or interference. But an analysis of this issue should probably extend beyond the question of whether religion is knowledge or opinion (since that question often deteriorates into the reality that many people consider the foundation of their religion to be knowledge while the foundations of other religions are opinions or false.) Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 05:11 PM 12/14/2004 -0600, you wrote: I think Sandy's right in this regard: the positions that get labeled science are knowledge and religion merely opinion. In one of the ironies of political liberalism (of the Rawlsian sort), these distinctions turn out to be argument-stoppers rather than conversation starters. The labeling becomes the whole deal rather than quality of the arguments offered by the disputants. If I can peg your positon as religious, I have a ready-made exclusionary rule built into the process--the establishment clause--that permits me to reject your positon without wrestling with it. I'm not saying that is necessarily going on in this PA case, which I have not kept up with. Ed could very well be correct that the school board's resolution is incoherent drivel. But we should reject it because it is incoherent drivel and not because it is religion. --- Francis J. Beckwith Associate Professor of Church-State Studies Associate Director, J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies Baylor University http://www.baylor.edu/http://www.baylor.edu ph: 254.710.6464 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://francisbeckwith.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 4:16 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives to Darwinism. That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a multiplicity of points of view. Is there a principled way of deciding when that is a desiderata? Consider, e.g., the failure of American public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe, but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us, obviously). I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with regard to my examples. But, conversely, I presume that persons who agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even a possibility. Is Foucault right, that what counts as knowledge (or disputable theory) is all a matter of social power? (This is not a rhetorical question.) sandy ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Title: Message Francis J. Beckwith wrote: I think Sandy's right in this regard: the positions that get labeled "science" are "knowledge" and religion merely "opinion." In one of the ironies of political liberalism (of the Rawlsian sort), these distinctions turn out to be argument-stoppers rather than conversation starters. The labeling becomes the whole deal rather than quality of the arguments offered by the disputants. If I can peg your positon as "religious," I have a ready-made exclusionary rule built into the process--the establishment clause--that permits me to reject your positon without wrestling with it. Frank, applying this argument, do you think that Edwards v. Aguillard was wrongly decided? I think it can rather easily be established that what was called "creation science" in the Louisiana law (and the Arkansas law dealt with in McLean) was a set of claims about science and natural history that were demonstrably false (the evidence is overwhelming that the Earth is not 6000 years old and the geologic record was not deposited by a global flood) and that were advocated only because they were viewed as supporting a particular religious doctrine. Given those facts, is it unreasonable for the court to have said that requiring the teaching of this idea was an endorsement of a specific religious viewpoint? I'm not saying that is necessarily going on in this PA case, which I have not kept up with. Ed could very well be correct that the school board's resolution is incoherent drivel. But we should reject it because it is incoherent drivel andnot because it is "religion." Well, I think it's incoherent on a couple of different levels. The first is one on which the DI seems to agree with me, that it is self-contradictory. In one part of the policy they say that they will not address the issue of origins at all, while in another they explicitly refer to ID as a theory of origins. But part of what makes it incoherent, in my view, is that the ID critique of evolution is itself incoherent. It's incoherent in the sense that it doesn't actually say anything that can be tested. With the traditional young earthers, you have a model purported to explain the natural history of the earth and from that model you can derive hypotheses that can be tested. If all fossil-bearing strata were deposited in a single global flood, this premise leads logically to certain conclusions that can then be tested against the data to ascertain whether it is true or not. With ID, on the other hand, there is no such model and thus no resulting statements or predictions that can be used to test its veracity. They do not tell us who or what the intelligent designer is, or what this intelligent designer did, at what points in the development of life the designer might have intervened or how they did so. They seem to accept common descent to some extent, but insist that at some unspecified time an unknown designer intervened to do *something*, without knowing what. Nor has any advocate of ID ever suggested any research that would help us define any of those undefined aspects of the idea. All of their time and what little actual research they do is done solely to establish that there are areas in which evolution does not have a well-defined and established explanation for a given phenomenon (the bacterial flagellum, in Behe's famous example, or the blood clotting cascade), with the implication being that if evolution hasn't yet explained how it happened, a supernatural intelligence must have donewell, something. It's a classic god of the gaps argument, it seems to me. If they ever actually come up with a positive way to test ID - as opposed to attempts to show evolution is an inadequate explanation - then perhaps this "theory" could be taken seriously as an alternative to evolution. But there is no such test, and no such model from which such a test might be derived. There simply isn't a coherent theory here to teach. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
How does evolution appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics? And if it does, why haven't physicists figured it out? Michael R. Masinter Visiting Professor of Law On Leave From University of Miami Law School Nova Southeastern University(305) 284-3870 (voice) Shepard Broad Law Center(305) 284-6619 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote: My training in physics was that a theory is an explanation that fits the facts. For example, the theoretical physicist comes up with a theory. The experimentalist runs the experiment and gives the results to the theoretical physicist who then modifies the theory. There are many holes in the theory of evolution. Evolution appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics. There are also many things that have been presented as evidence of evolution that have been proven false. The problems with evolution and the major schools of thought within evolution should be taught to the students. If DI has a different theory that fits the facts, it should also be taught. I tend toward the 6 days of creation with the clock counting the time being at the center of the big bang. The gravitational effect slowing down the clock so that we may still be in the seventh day. Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On Dec 14, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Steven Jamar wrote: Sandy, I agree that there is value in multiplicity in the three examples you mention, including critiques of evolution. But there is a difference between evolution (an established fact) and disagreements about the mechanism by which it works. Requiring teaching that evolution is false is not an acceptable alternative. But allowing or even requiring critiques makes a great deal of sense. Even if it is creationism light. Knowledge is not all a matter of social power. But what constitutes truth at any given time certainly is affected by social power. Steve On Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 05:16 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote: I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives to Darwinism. That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a multiplicity of points of view. Is there a principled way of deciding when that is a desiderata? Consider, e.g., the failure of American public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe, but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us, obviously). I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with regard to my examples. But, conversely, I presume that persons who agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even a possibility. Is Foucault right, that what counts as knowledge (or disputable theory) is all a matter of social power? (This is not a rhetorical question.) sandy -- 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/ It is by education I learn to do by choice, what other men do by the constraint of fear. Aristotle ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
On 12/14/04 7:03 PM, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote: There are many holes in the theory of evolution. Evolution appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics. There are also many things that have been presented as evidence of evolution that have been proven false. No, evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics unless one misdefines the laws of thermodynamics. That argument is so thoroughly debunked that even most young earthers cringe when they hear it repeated today. Ed is correct. However, the second law--which is entropy--does some interesting cosmological questions that have been raised by philosophers of religion such as William Lane Craig. Technically, Craig's arguments--like the fine-tuning arguments--do not challenge Darwinism, but rather, naturalism. In my book Law, Darwinism, and Public Education I write about these different ways to approach the problem of naturalism as a necessary condition for science and cite Craig's work along the way. The problems with evolution and the major schools of thought within evolution should be taught to the students. If DI has a different theory that fits the facts, it should also be taught. Some claims can fit any set of facts whatsoever. An undefined designer operating at some point in the past did something is not a theory at all. An explanation doesn't have to be a theory. For example, if I were to claim that undefined designer operating at some point in the past had to intervene in order for event X to occur since the event X exhibits the characteristics of a designed entity, I am offering an explanation. Suppose Behe's argument for irreducible complexity works, that is, certain biological entities cannot be accounted for by non-rational mechanisms since they exhibit the characteristics of entities designed by agents. Now, the theory is Behe's set of conditions that must occur in order one to be warranted in inferring a designer. Darwin, of course, provided an account that a vast majority of scientists believe is a defeater to Behe's view. But that means that Behe's view is a view that may count as an explanation, though many people believe he's wrong. But they believe he's wrong because his account has less explanatory power than the Darwinian account. We reject his account because it fails as an explanation, not because it can't pass a metaphysical litmus test. DI doesn't have a theory that fits the facts, it has a few specific areas in which it claims evolution does not yet have a fully satisfactory explanation. They leap from that assertion to the conclusion that since evolution has not yet explained phenomenon X to their satisfaction, an unknown (wink, wink) designer must have done something at some point in the past to make it happen. But don't ask them what the unnamed designer did, or when he did it, or how. If I discover a piece of rock that resembles Socrates in my office tomorrow morning, am I not justified in claiming that someone designed even if I don't know the designer's name or how he did it (suppose I am completely ignorant of sculpture) and when? It seems to me that the name/how/when objection doesn't do the trick. Now, if you are saying that one should not jump to ID until the naturalistic explanations have been found wanting, then we are into a different sort of problem, one that is part of the standard fare of philosophy of science: how many anomalies does it take to say that theory B is better than theory A in accounting for phenomenon X. I tend toward the 6 days of creation with the clock counting the time being at the center of the big bang. The gravitational effect slowing down the clock so that we may still be in the seventh day. You of course have every right to believe this. What you do not have a right to do, in my view, is to pretend that it is a scientific theory supported by actual evidence and demand that it be given equal time in a public school science classroom. I agree with Ed that ID should not be given equal time in the public school classroom. (I don't even believe it should be required to be taught at all). In fact, I have made that point on numerous occasions. My interest has been on the more modest question of whether it is even in-principle permissible for a teacher to mention in passing that some thinkers have raised questions about the adequacy of naturalism to limit the rationality of non-natural accounts of the order and nature of things. It seems to me that if a biology instructor in a public school classroom were to set aside just 15 minutes out of a 60-hour semester to briefly, and respectfully, mention Behe's argument (noting to the students that it is highly controversial and critiqued by man) that that teacher's academic freedom ought to be protected assuming she has fulfilled all legal duties to her employer and the state. Take care, Frank -- Francis J. Beckwith Associate Professor of
RE: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Title: Message I think Sandy's right in this regard: the positions that get labeled "science" are "knowledge" and religion merely "opinion." In one of the ironies of political liberalism (of the Rawlsian sort), these distinctions turn out to be argument-stoppers rather than conversation starters. The labeling becomes the whole deal rather than quality of the arguments offered by the disputants. If I can peg your positon as "religious," I have a ready-made exclusionary rule built into the process--the establishment clause--that permits me to reject your positon without wrestling with it. I'm not saying that is necessarily going on in this PA case, which I have not kept up with. Ed could very well be correct that the school board's resolution is incoherent drivel. But we should reject it because it is incoherent drivel andnot because it is "religion." ---Francis J. BeckwithAssociate Professor of Church-State StudiesAssociate Director, J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State StudiesBaylor University http://www.baylor.edu ph: 254.710.6464[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://francisbeckwith.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford LevinsonSent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 4:16 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Wait, there's more: "Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy "misguided, " calls for it to be withdrawn" I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives to Darwinism. That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a multiplicity of points of view. Is there a principled way of deciding when that is a desiderata? Consider, e.g., the failure of American public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe, but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us, obviously). I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with regard to my examples. But, conversely, I presume that persons who agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even a possibility. Is Foucault right, that what counts as "knowledge" (or "disputable theory") is all a matter of social power? (This is not a rhetorical question.) sandy ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
My training in physics was that a theory is an explanation that fits the facts. For example, the theoretical physicist comes up with a theory. The experimentalist runs the experiment and gives the results to the theoretical physicist who then modifies the theory. There are many holes in the theory of evolution. Evolution appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics. There are also many things that have been presented as evidence of evolution that have been proven false. The problems with evolution and the major schools of thought within evolution should be taught to the students. If DI has a different theory that fits the facts, it should also be taught. I tend toward the 6 days of creation with the clock counting the time being at the center of the big bang. The gravitational effect slowing down the clock so that we may still be in the seventh day. Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On Dec 14, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Steven Jamar wrote: Sandy, I agree that there is value in multiplicity in the three examples you mention, including critiques of evolution. But there is a difference between evolution (an established fact) and disagreements about the mechanism by which it works. Requiring teaching that evolution is false is not an acceptable alternative. But allowing or even requiring critiques makes a great deal of sense. Even if it is creationism light. Knowledge is not all a matter of social power. But what constitutes truth at any given time certainly is affected by social power. Steve On Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 05:16 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote: I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives to Darwinism. That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a multiplicity of points of view. Is there a principled way of deciding when that is a desiderata? Consider, e.g., the failure of American public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe, but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us, obviously). I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with regard to my examples. But, conversely, I presume that persons who agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even a possibility. Is Foucault right, that what counts as knowledge (or disputable theory) is all a matter of social power? (This is not a rhetorical question.) sandy -- 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/ It is by education I learn to do by choice, what other men do by the constraint of fear. Aristotle ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
