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
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.
Fresh off the presses...
*** MEDIA ADVISORY ***
Press Conference Announcing Legal Challenge to Intelligent Design
Curriculum in PA School District
WHEN:
Tuesday, December 14, 1:00 p.m.
WHAT:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Americans United for
Separation of Church
As someone who has taught Descartes and other philosophical attempts to
establish the existence of God, I'm not at all sure why this is a problem. In
every course I taught examining these issues, my students clearly understood,
as did I, that we were jointly trying to examine arguments or
Perhaps I need to make my question sharper. I have no doubt that one
CAN teach Descartes or Aquinas and Augustine for that matter, without
any establishment clause violation. Still, not every high school
teacher who requires Descartes is likely to simply confine the exercise
to analyzing
As I was reading the SG's brief in McCreary, I was struck by the similarity
of the arguments offered in the brief to justify the Ten Commandments
display and the arguments offered by list members to support Williams'
teaching materials. The SG argues that the Ten Commandments display is
Could you explain why liberals are wrong?
-Original Message-
From: Marc Stern
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004
1:12 PM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information
.
Liberals are sometimes
In a message dated 12/15/2004 3:47:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rather than saddling teachers with a burden, perhaps the better course of action is not to try to teach religion in the public schools at all.
Of course, one might try to teach biology without discussing
No, that isnt the rub. There is nothing
like the EC that speaks to either biology or oxygen.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004
3:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
- more factual
Come
on. Are these tits and tats really what this list is for? A little
restraint goes a long way.
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Newsom
MichaelSent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 4:53 PMTo: Law
Religion issues for Law
=3u=/ap/
20041215/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_robe
Ala. Judge Wears Ten Commandments on Robe
Wed Dec 15, 9:51 AM ET
By BOB JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - A judge refused to delay a trial Tuesday when an
attorney objected to his wearing a judicial robe with the Ten
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
In a message dated 12/14/2004 1:53:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If this case goes at all like McLean v. Arkansas, it could end up being quite the show trial, with a couple dozen prominent expert witnesses testifying on either side about the nature of science and the
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
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
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/14/2004 6:14:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the positions that get labeled "science" are "knowledge" and
religion merely "opinion." In one of the ironies of political
liberalism (of the Rawlsian sort),
Jim Henderson's comments on Anthony Flew highlight that, however much
difficulty we have drawing the line between religion and science, the
line between religion and philosophy is tougher.
Consider the following. I take it that there is nothing askance with
asking a public school high school
In a message dated 12/15/2004 1:48:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is
philosophy just about critical thinking or is it about substance
too?
Analytic
philosophy, at least the brands taught during the sixties, seventies, and
eighties in most (though certainly not
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
Hm -- and some people say that the Protestant Empire is dead and gone.
If one can display the Ten Commandments (five gets you ten that the only
version we are likely to see in any of these displays is the evangelical
Protestant version) along with other legal documents, that one can
display the
21 matches
Mail list logo
