Marc
SternSent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 10:24 AMTo: Law
& Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Dover Case
Questions
I think Perry is right
that the schools can, and should teach something along the lines he is
suggesting- though I fit is not part of the high stakes test ,no
sectarian text
Marc Stern
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005
11:12 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Dover Case Questions
Perry Dane writes:
All that
Title: Dover Case Questions
Perry Dane
writes:
All that some of us are arguing, then, is that it
would be constitutional simply to advisestudents that the methodological
naturalism built into scientificinquiry (and which properly excludes the
teaching of "intelligentdesign theory" a
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Christopher C. Lund wrote:Take Dane's disclaimer -- that science "because it is a constrained discourse, it cannot claim, within its own four corners, to give us a full picture of Truth." If this is indeed inappropriate (does Professor Jamar mean unconstitutional?), t
ED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Dover Case Questions
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:31:10 -0500
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Perry Dane wrote:
Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like
Perry Dane wrote:
Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard Dawkins
and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions
of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for belief in
God. Would it be constitutional for this sort of Dawkins/Denne
In a message dated 12/22/2005 9:06:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard
Dawkins and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions
of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for beli
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Perry Dane wrote: Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for belief in God. Would it be constitutional for this
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:46 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Dover Case Questions "In the absence of some external force which is not bound by the laws of science, the evidence that we CAN test tells us that evolution is what happened. If there was a
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005
10:46 AM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Dover Case Questions
"In the absence of some external force which is not
bound by the laws of scien
Perry wrote on 12/21/2005 01:54:14 PM:
> It is therefore consistent with
at least the bare bones of
> ID theory that the designer was evil, or a practical joker, or a
> child-god who designed us as part of the heavenly equivalent of a
> kindergarten art project.
Or that an omniscient
Perry Dane wrote:
That said, though, one needs to be fair here. The claim of
intelligent design theory is not that NO features of the biological
world can be explained by evolution through natural selection. Nor is
it, as I said before, that the biological world is, according to one
: Wednesday, December 21, 2005
2:43 PM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Dover Case Questions
A great teacher would indeed tell about the many experiments Darwin ran, and about the
specific observations of nature around the world he made that pointed him to
disc
Our best wishes, Vance. I'm sure I speak for everybody on this list when I say I hope that science can do its best for you, especially to ease any pain -- and many of us will pray for other assistance for you, too. Of course, I can't offer details on either part of that in a high school clas
As one who over the last few weeks has been made painfully--very painfully--aware of this design, it appears to point to the inescapable reality that there is no necessary correlation between intelligence and benevolence.
VanceOn 12/21/05, Ed Darrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, urethra design is
I'm making the same argument, Perry -- that these facts point to the universe not having been designed by an intelligence. An intelligence would not have designed it this way. I select facts and make an inference. The IDers do the same exact thing. Neither is anything more than a belief that ri
A great teacher would indeed tell about the many experiments Darwin ran, and about the specific observations of nature around the world he made that pointed him to discover evolution theory. In a test-driven curriculum that does not test one's understanding of how science really works, there
No, urethra design is not beside the point at all. Is there an intelligent design explanation for that design? There is an evolutionary explanation (though not wholly satisfactory to many). How could such a thing have happened, according to "intelligent design theory?" The absence of any p
Bobby writes: "I would argue that Steve's inference from the facts of "disease,
war, violence, inequity, inequality, stupidity of some design features (knees,
elbows, eyes)" to the conclusion that no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally
perfect (loving) deity exists is a perfectly legitimate inf
something can be true without being the full truth.2+2 = 4. That is true.But it does a poor job of fully describing nature. Or math.SetveOn Dec 21, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Perry Dane wrote: This doesn't strike me as quite right. It seems to me that real science should also not, in the public sc
I would argue that Steve's
inference from the facts of "disease, war, violence, inequity, inequality,
stupidity of some design features (knees, elbows, eyes)" to the conclusion that
no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect (loving) deity exists is a
perfectly legitimate infere
Who are "they"?If it is the press-created "they", then keep in mind that the press always looks for the polar advocates - young earthers vs. in-your-face athiests.Let's turn it around for a minute.I look at disease, war, violence, inequity, inequality, stupidity of some design features (knees, elbo
Brad M Pardee wrote:
I think Chris reveals something
significant
here. Among the evolution supporters I have heard (and I'm not
presuming
that they speak for all evolutionists everywhere), it does not seem to
be enough to say that intelligent design is outside the realm of
science.
They se
k
University of Texas Law
School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
(phone)
512-471-6988
(fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M
PardeeSent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:36 PMTo: Law
& Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject
I think Chris reveals something significant
here. Among the evolution supporters I have heard (and I'm not presuming
that they speak for all evolutionists everywhere), it does not seem to
be enough to say that intelligent design is outside the realm of science.
They seem to think it's necessary
I think this is beside the point. The key thrusts of ID are, it seems to me, (1) there is a creator, and (2) the teaching of evolution is inconsistent with that. So, to the minds of the IDers, evolution itself is the cancer to be excised and attacked. It is not that evolution might be right, but
Where the class happens to fall in the course catalog, in one sense, does
seem completely irrelevant. But the reason why we have this fight is
because whether ID is taught as science or something else will determine
whether it is taught as true. If it's taught outside of science class, it
will l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. If,
as the Dover
court says, “the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science”,
then wouldn’t the principal version of the now-regnant “big bang”
theory be constitutionally prohibited as well? It’s
now generally accepted that the age of the observable
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The Dover case has me so confused that I can’t see what its implications are beyond its narrow facts. A couple of questions came to mind as I read it. Maybe someone can help me sort them out. 1. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs said la
29 matches
Mail list logo
