Re: Mischaracterization of ID?

In article <1133236757.384186.132140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Grace Haliburton <kaosgrace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Robert Grumbine wrote:
>> In article <1133049935.984194.196720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx <rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >TomS wrote:
>> >> "On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:57:47 -0000, in article
>> >> <11ogtvbkjnqop8c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Grumbine stated..."

[snip]

>> >> > I have a lawyer friend, and am discovering reason to not be so
>> >> >hapy about the slam dunk, even though I (we) agree it likely is.
>> >
>> >They're a bunch of mendacious and dumb crypto-Creationists and they
>> >showed up very badly in court, but have they done anything illegal?
>>
>> Precisely. In the case of the board, not even crypto-. They
>> were openly creationist themselves. But that's not illegal, and
>> their claim is that what they did and required wasn't creationism.
>
>They lied. That's been made abundantly clear. They perjured themselves
>in court, which was aso made quite clear. They tried to establish a
>(specific) flavour of religion through the government institution of
>public schools. And if I'm not mistaken, they also hid or altered
>evidence relevant to the case. If all that isn't illegal, I don't know
>what is.

Of your list, though, only one item is on trial -- trying to
establish religion in a public institution. I think they'll
lose, but the scope of the decision is going to be far less than
I'd like even if they do.

That the DI and its dupes are a pack of liars, at length and
variety, isn't on trial. Now if _that_ were the case, definitely
a slam dunk.

[snip]

>> >Well, are they missing any straightforward legal obligation if they (1)
>> >don't teach science at all, (2) teach science badly, or (3) teach
>> >science wrongly?
>>
>> Probably not. For the first, definitely not. It is the job of
>> the school board to decide which subjects are taught, and which of
>> those are required. They can easily decide that science, biology
>> in particular, is not needed by their students and make it optional
>> or eliminate it entirely.
>
>Optional, yes, but they couldn't eliminate it. They'd be in serious
>trouble if their students' parents realized that their kids were
>completely unable to meet the admissions requirements of any accredited
>four-year college.

The serious trouble -- getting voted out of office -- is one
for the parents to administer, not the courts.

>> The point where they are on shakier ground, and I hope will
>> be ruled against, is that they started writing course content
>> themselves, and the content doesn't meet constitutional muster.
>
>No, not really. Schools do a lot of things that don't really meet
>constitutional muster, on the basis that they're dealing with
>"children" who don't actually merit the same constitutional rights as
>the rest of us.

That's why the plaintiffs are the parents, not the children.
The children's rights haven't been violated. The board arguably,
namely the case at hand, violated the rights of the parents.

[snip]
>No, where they went wrong in Dover was when they decided to step on the
>toes of *parents* who either a: want their kids properly educated or b:
>reserve their inalienable right to brainwash their kids into the
>beliefs of their choosing.

Court will decide if they actually 'went wrong'. The voters,
for this election, already have.

>> >"Teach the controversy" only applies if there's a controversy, and
>> >amongst real specialists there's relatively little.
>>
>> As I mentioned below -- what specialists think is _not_ automatically
>> relevant to course content. If it were, curricula would be determined
>> by the National Academy of Sciences and the like, rather than by
>> school boards. School boards decide on curricula based on (to be
>> generous) the needs and desires of the community. If communities
>> decide that expert opinion is irrelevant, then -- as long as
>> unconstitutional material doesn't get put in place -- it is indeed
>> irrelevant. Van Daniken, _The Bermuda Triangle_, ... could easily
>> be required texts for a science course. They wouldn't be unconstitutional.
>
>No, the states have something to say about it too. So do teachers'
>unions.

Teachers' unions have very little say in curricular standards.

Certainly state requirements apply -- but seen Kansas for how happy
we should necessarily be about that. Take a look at the actual
standards for a state (pick one, I've seen Illinois') and decide
for yourself how useful they'll be either for getting evolution
into a classroom or keeping crap out.

[snip]
>> >> All that being said, I quite agree with you. Particularly
>> >> with the following:
>> >>
>> >> > The thing is, while the situation is one of having courts
>> >> >decide school curriculum, we will _never_ get a good curriculum.
>> >> >Judges can't require good, merely not actively illegal.
>> >> >
>> >> > What we need is a cultural commitment (which has happened
>> >> >before) to teaching students the _best_ that we know. What we
>> >> >science-minded folks have been doing instead is continuing
>> >> >the lost battle we've been stupid enough to fight of arguing for
>> >> >avoiding the worst of the idiocies. Every year we do that, the
>> >> >worst gets worse, and the support for the best disappears
>> >> >because nobody knows what it looks like any more.
>> >
>> >Ah, well. As I've said, I live some distance away from America and I
>> >won't particularly regret the collapse of its civilisation.
>>
>> What is the reach of our ICBMs? With the collapse to theocracy,
>> the particular flavor of theocracy we'd have is one which actively
>> looks forward to Armageddon. Are you sure you don't care?
>>
>> To look backwards ... who cared about the social collapse of Germany
>> in the 20's and 30's? Were they happy with the results of that?
>>
>I think you're being a teensy bit alarmist. I'm expecting something
>more along the lines of the isolationist totalitarian regime in
>Heinlein's _Revolt in 2100_. He may have even gotten the date about
>right. Remind me to move back to Canada when they elect
>Buchanan/Robertson/Falwell et al.

Just a reminder to someone thinking in the 21st century that he
can sit on the sidelines and spectate as, in his terms, the US
(world's largest economy and largest military power) collapses.
If we go in the next decade or two, so does a lot of the rest
of the world.

For a different take than Heinlein, see Sinclair Lewis _It Can't
Happen Here_.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ron O opines that a Civil US Court has authority over the Truth
    ... court as a determining authority over whether or not IC and ID were ... It isn't the science side that is forcing these issues into the court ... serious scientists can address it. ... running the bait and switch scam on rubes like himself years before ID ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ron O opines that a Civil US Court has authority over the Truth
    ... Dover court neither proved nor established much of anything. ... It isn't the science side that is forcing these issues into the court ... serious scientists can address it. ... running the bait and switch scam on rubes like himself years before ID ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... Depends on what the criteria for candidates are. ... How about we just teach science in science class? ... As long as the policy is entirely secular (and biology ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Uncommon Conceit
    ... Why was it obviously a kangaroo court? ... taught in a science class. ... what is the distinguishing feature that separates ID from creationism? ... If ID is a working hypothesis, it has to follow the scientific method. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... as a statement of empirical fact. ... separate from the methodology of science. ... they do not come to these beliefs by way of science, ...
    (talk.origins)