It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PBS/NOVA online - Intelligent Design on trial

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by cre8id
If he was biased against ID, yes.


It sounded to me as if the ID proponents were given equal time and consideration in promoting their "theory". The fact that they couldn't separate it from religion is what led to the finding against them. It's not activism, it's a judge calling it out he sees it. That's what judges are supposed to do.



Again, yes, it is an issue if the judge is predjudiced in the case to start with. The main issue that DI makes is one of bias... the copying of such a vast majority of the ACLU paper does make one pause.

DI does NOT say it is 90.9% of the whole ruling. Even your link which disputes the 90.9% figure gives at least a 66% match FOR THE PORTION in question. Here is what DI said:


I'm cutting the quote for brevity. But, what I'd say is the following:

1) Is it unusual for a judge to include text in this manner? I don't know.

2) Is it unusual that, after all the proceedings have taken place, the plaintiff's proved their case to the point that the judge agrees with them enough to use large portions of their text?

3) If you agree with one side after the fact (which you obviously would if you found in their favor), how does that make you biased against the opposing side?




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
As a teacher, I just want to know what the objection is against teaching secular 'Design' arguments, ID, and Darwinism side by side and then allowing the students to make up their own minds. They can be the best judges of what they want to believe. In my experience, students are very able at distinguishing the plausible from the implausible and the realistic from the unrealistic. Blocking any Design argument is, to my mind, as dangerous as blocking Darwinian/neo Darwinian/neo-Lamarckian ideas.

People are not fools.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
It isn't blocked in the UK.

You can teach ID where it best suited - in RE classes. If we had philosophy classes in schools, it could also fit there.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by shoran
I never said they placed it on Google Video.

I think the "Google video" was an assumption made by Luskin... he did not have all the details at that point and neither did I. I understand they are looking into it and should post something on their EvolutioNews page within a few days about it.

However, I know if it was likely that I was going to be sued by the most prestigious law school in the United States, I'd deny everything as well. I've not been able to find much additional evidence regarding their alleged transgressions. So, I guess we'll have to see how it pans out and whether or not the claims have merit.

Yes, I guess we'll have to see how it pans out .



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by shoran
It sounded to me as if the ID proponents were given equal time and consideration in promoting their "theory". The fact that they couldn't separate it from religion is what led to the finding against them. It's not activism, it's a judge calling it out he sees it. That's what judges are supposed to do.


ID is not inherently religious, regardless of what you or the judge ruled (or previous judges for that matter). The fact that there are religious metaphysical implications to the arguments is really not the issue... there are metaphysical implications to naturalism as well.

Also, as I pointed out, the beliefs of the school board members should not have been an issue either for the resons I cited earlier.

The thought police are definitly getting stronger... just look at the way "hate crimes" are beginning to shape up.... Hitler would have been proud.

It would seem that 'freethought' members are really anything but.




Originally posted by shoran
I'm cutting the quote for brevity. But, what I'd say is the following:

1) Is it unusual for a judge to include text in this manner? I don't know.

2) Is it unusual that, after all the proceedings have taken place, the plaintiff's proved their case to the point that the judge agrees with them enough to use large portions of their text?

3) If you agree with one side after the fact (which you obviously would if you found in their favor), how does that make you biased against the opposing side?


Is it unusual for a judge to even include the same mistakes the ACLU made? Reread that part again... and you want to tell me he made his decision on the true arguments of the case? Have you bought any ocean front property in Arizona lately?

[edit on 27-11-2007 by cre8id]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


If you don't mind me saying so, that is rather closed minded of you old chap. Why should we consign intelligent comment on the evolutionary process or on the scientific method to the realms of Religious Education or philosophy? Darwinism and Design-ism are both philosophies. One uses a methodology and makes hypotheses about Natural Selection; the other uses the same data and hypothesises a Designer. Why should you have a problem with this form of metacognition? The Designer need not use magic, He just needs to put some Laws in place and allow all the possible permutations to occur.

For example, with more oxygen in the atmosphere, organism growth would be faster etc... Why? For the same reason that you can recognise the genius of an artist from his discarded works as much as those that succeeded in aesthetic excellence and 'completeness'. You don't need perfection, just functionality and a creation that is conscious enough to appreciate it.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
All Harvard have done is ask for a 'cease and desist'.

It won't be seen in any more DI fellow's presentations. Dembski has made a notpology already.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
He just needs to put some Laws in place and allow all the possible permutations to occur.


Intelligent design is not science. That is all. As the telling capitalised 'H' shows, it is a religously motivated philosophy.

Science is for science. You can do your religious teaching in RE classes.

Cheers.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
As a teacher, I just want to know what the objection is against teaching secular 'Design' arguments, ID, and Darwinism side by side and then allowing the students to make up their own minds. They can be the best judges of what they want to believe. In my experience, students are very able at distinguishing the plausible from the implausible and the realistic from the unrealistic. Blocking any Design argument is, to my mind, as dangerous as blocking Darwinian/neo Darwinian/neo-Lamarckian ideas.

People are not fools.


Because people want to teach "design" in a science class, and there's no scientific basis for it. If you want to teach it in a philosophy class, I have absolutely no problem with it. But ID is not science.

By your logic, we should be teaching astrology, magic, divination, and any other pseudoscience in science classes so students can make up their mind what to "believe". Science classes are for science. Anything else needs to go in a different class or in philosophy, mythology, etc.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by cre8id
ID is not inherently religious, regardless of what you or the judge ruled (or previous judges for that matter). The fact that there are religious metaphysical implications to the arguments is really not the issue... there are metaphysical implications to naturalism as well.

Also, as I pointed out, the beliefs of the school board members should not have been an issue either for the resons I cited earlier.

The thought police are definitly getting stronger... just look at the way "hate crimes" are beginning to shape up.... Hitler would have been proud.

It would seem that 'freethought' members are really anything but.


No, we simply don't approve of science being relegated to religion. You can test science, but you can't test religion. Explain to me, though, how one tests intelligent design?



Is it unusual for a judge to even include the same mistakes the ACLU made? Reread that part again... and you want to tell me he made his decision on the true arguments of the case? Have you bought any ocean front property in Arizona lately?


To which mistakes are we referring? Typographical mistakes? Spelling or grammatical mistakes? Or reasoning that the DI disagrees with?

Oh, I wouldn't buy ocean front property anywhere, especially not in a desert.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
If you don't mind me saying so, that is rather closed minded of you old chap. Why should we consign intelligent comment on the evolutionary process or on the scientific method to the realms of Religious Education or philosophy? Darwinism and Design-ism are both philosophies. One uses a methodology and makes hypotheses about Natural Selection; the other uses the same data and hypothesises a Designer. Why should you have a problem with this form of metacognition? The Designer need not use magic, He just needs to put some Laws in place and allow all the possible permutations to occur.


The theory of evolution isn't philosophy. It's a scientific theory complete with testable evidence. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, since neither testable evidence or a testable theory exist.



For example, with more oxygen in the atmosphere, organism growth would be faster etc... Why? For the same reason that you can recognise the genius of an artist from his discarded works as much as those that succeeded in aesthetic excellence and 'completeness'. You don't need perfection, just functionality and a creation that is conscious enough to appreciate it.


Huh? This doesn't make any sense.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Heronumber0
 


it
ISN'T
science

that's why
science is taught from the front of the class
religion is taught from the pulpit

that's why.
ID is NOT a scientific theory in any sense of the word.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I thought this would be relevant for this thread:


Chris Comer has always been an advocate for science, including the integrity, accuracy, and reliability of science. For her entire employment history at TEA, she was asked almost monthly to write letters to parents complaining about the teaching of evolution in their child's science class. She always referred the parents to the science TEKS which requires evolution (although about half of the biology classes in Texas don't teach it).

....

However, TEA has a new policy, one of neutrality between biological evolution and Intelligent Design Creationism. This new policy was put in place when Dr. Don McLeroy--an outspoken Creationist and activist for Intelligent Design Creationism and its marketing campaign--was appointed the new Chair of the State Board of Education (SBOE). By publicizing a lecture by a Louisiana State University professor of the philosophy of science that supported evolution--as required by the state's science standards--and opposed Intelligent Design Creationism, Chris Comer ran afoul of the new policy and was asked to resign or be fired immediately.

...

The real reason she was forced to resign is because the top TEA administrators and some SBOE members wanted her out of the picture before the state science standards--the science TEKS--were reviewed, revised, and rewritten next year. Plans are underway by some SBOE members and TEA administrators to diminish the requirement to teach about evolutionary biology in the Biology TEKS and to require instead that biology instructors "Teach the Controversy" about the "weaknesses" of evolution, that is, teach the Creationist-inspired and -created bogus controversy about evolution that doesn't exist within legitimate science.

www.texscience.org...

So, cdesignproponentsists are on the move in Texas.

If you're a Texan, and you appreciate science, you have a fight on your hands against the dark-age forces of irrationality. I doubt Chris Comer will make it into the new 'Expelled' movie though.


[edit on 29-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


good find. what a mess,now they are in positions to actually undermine the science departments with no checks and balances to stop them.

even with all of the controversy surrounding creationism Dr. McLeroy still got appointed(where was the no bias rule when that happened lol)


battle is right



[edit on 9-12-2007 by howie0]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join