Re: Judge Jones / new icon of science!


Lee Bowman wrote:
Phillip E. Johnson had been attacked for the views put forth in
"Darwin on Trial". In a commentary by Brian Spitzer, (contributed
7/15/2002 to talkdesign.org) stated that, "Phillip E. Johnson is a
very good lawyer, but science doesn't need lawyers." Frankly, I'm not
sure they need judges, either. I reread Jude Jones' decision and have
a few issues with it.

Similar to the Cobb County decision ( CIVIL ACTION NO 1:02-CV-2325-CC)
of 1/13/05, there will be "no stickers allowed" in the books. One
difference I noted was that in the Cobbs ruling, the judge stated
that:

"...this case does not resolve the ongoing debate regarding whether
evolution is a fact or theory or whether evolution should be taught as
fact or theory."

Judge Jones, however, was a little more bold and assertive. While most
scientists state that the theory of evolution is in fact a theory, but
now we have a ruling from the bench that evolution is in fact 'fact'.
An excerpt from his decision (emphasis mine):

"Moreover, the objective student is presumed to know that encouraging
the teaching of evolution as a *theory* rather than as a *fact* is one
of the latest strategies to dilute evolution instruction employed by
anti-evolutionists with religious motivations." He goes on to say:

"In summary, the disclaimer (sticker) singles out the theory of
evolution for special treatment, *misrepresents its status in the
scientific community*, causes students to doubt its validity without
scientific justification ... "

Thanks to Judge Jones' ruling, we can now change the wording of
"Theory of Evolution" to "Fact of Evolution", or simply admit that the
theory (we're talking single cell to an elephant through natural
processes), is now a proven fact.

You seem confused.
It is a fact that evolution happens.
Evolutionary theory explain how it happens.



A defense expert, Steven William Fuller made assertions that [it was]
"ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the
supernatural", and also admitting that "ID is a form of creationism".

IMHO, a more accurate depiction would be that 'Creationism is a subset
of Intelligent Design Theory, meaning that divine creation, as in the
Genesis account, or by any entity in any manner, is one of the
possible modalities of ID.'

Regarding the First Amendment 'Establishment Clause', the question
arose as to whether or not the clause would "harm the child (and
science)", by giving him the impression that the state was endorsing
religion, per se, rather than merely showing him an alternative theory
of origins. Well, what do you think? This is what Judge Jones
concluded:

"After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a
strong official endorsement of religion."

He goes on to attack the language of the first (3) paragraphs of the
disclaimer as "undermining science", by stating that there are "gaps"
in evolutionary theory (well duh), and making mention of the fact that
it was *required* study material to pass the course (introducing a
negative aspect). He then used a 'colloquial' set of definitions of
'theory' to further emphasize its negative implications, by suggesting
that a "reasonable observer" would see evolution as a "highly
questionable 'opinion' or a 'hunch." Interesting, since here's a
definition of 'theory' I found on the first hit:

the·o·ry n., pl. the·o·ries. 1.a. "Systematically organized
knowledge, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles,
and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise
explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena."

He also pointed out that the students were directed to read, "Of
Pandas and People", which admittedly does have religious overtones
(agreed) , and that there was a statement telling the kids that "there
will be no other discussion of the issue, and your teachers will not
answer questions on the issue." The judge (and a plaintiff witness,
Dr Alter) said that "that introduced negative con nations" and that "a
reasonable student observer would conclude that ID is a kind of
'secret science' that students apparently can't discuss with their
science teacher", which he indicated is "pedagogically about as bad as
I could possibly think of." Why not simply state that to further
discuss that subject would be purely hypothetical, and could violate
the 'establishment clause'. In other words, wording of a disclaimer,
IMO, might simply state that Evolution is a theory about how we got
here, Intelligent Design another, and Creationism, i.e. the religious
view that we were created still another.

However, in science classes the only one which can be taught is
evolution, because the others are not science.


Macroevolution via Common Descent are concepts long held by science.
The belief that microevolution (adaptive responses to environmental
factors) is the same as macroevolution, but on a smaller scale, is
also held to be true.

Not universally, though my personal view is that they are.

(disagree).

If you have any scientific argument (i.e. one based on the evidence,
not mere assertion) that they are different, please present it. I
should add that I have come across no such argument from anyone in the
creationist fold.

If the disclaimer had been worded
differently, if the board members hadn't shown strong religious
leanings, if 'expert' witnesses from science were less brainwashed,

As a matter of curiosity, who did this "brainwashing"? As used during
the cold war, brainwashing involved pretty drastic intervention -
sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, violence, drugs and so on. Who
did this to the expert witnesses?

Incidentally, your use of quotation marks around the word "expert"
suggests that they are not actually experts in their field. Why do you
think that this is the case?

and if the judicial system wasn't bought and paid for by corporations
and money interests (universities), the outcome might have been
different.

That's a pretty damning view of the US legal system. Do you honestly
think that Universities are using their budgets to bribe lawyers into
giving the judgement they want?

But due in large part to the 'establishment clause', and
humanists' push to liberally apply it, courts have historically kept
the mere mention of Intelligent Design far from students' ears. I'm
not talking teaching it. Just mentioning it could be cause for
termination.

And you have evidence to support this assertion, I guess. As far as I
am aware, there is no barrier to it being mentioned in classes on
comparitive religion, philosophy or even science, so long as it is made
clear that it is not a scientific theory.


Plaintiffs in this trial asserted, and the court agreed, that:

" ...courts have recognized that because students are more
impressionable than adults, they may be systematically less effective
than adults at recognizing when religious conduct is unofficial and
therefore permissible."

"To an impressionable student, even the mere appearance of secular
involvement in religious activities might indicate that the state has
placed its imprimatur (official stamp of approval) on a particular
religious creed."

"Accordingly, the objective student standard is a means to ensure that
courts exercise the particular vigilance that the Supreme Court has
mandated for protecting impressionable children from religious
messages that appear to carry official imprimatur; it is not a tool
for excluding or ignoring material evidence."

Oh my goodness, we must protect our impressionable children!

The parents, and the ministers of their churches can teach the kids
anything they want outside school hours, of which there are rather more
than the few hours per week at most spent on teaching science. If they
can't persuade (and far be it from me to use the word "brainwash")
their kids that creationism is the truth, why do you think that
preventing ID being taught as science (which by the admision of Michael
Behe it isn't) should have such a profound influence?

And
finally, the most absurd conclusion of all:

"After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a
strong official endorsement of religion."


Why is this absurd? It's no more than the truth. ID has no scientific
support, and as Barbara Forrest demonstrated so clearly during the
trial, their "textbook", "Pandas and People" is no more than a
creationist tract with the names changed.

You know the outcome. Science was saved!

Far from it. Science is still under attack from organisations whose aim
is to subvert the nature of science. This was just a minor victory.


My view is that the debate isn't over. In fact, it's heating up. I
see renewed discourse and impassioned discussion on origin forums and
newsgroups, while scientists continue their research. I feel that
computer modeling could prove evolution but simulating the process
over hours, rather than eons.


Yet none of the scientists who are doing that research are testing any
hypothesis of intelligent design, not even those from the Discovery
Institute.

I wonder if you can explain why that is the case?

Failure to achieve that would point in
the other direction.

As such computer simulations have been highly successful, I guess that
you will concede that the mechanisms of evolution are supported by that
as well as the reams of other evidence.


If there is a creator, he/she/it/they has/have elected to stay hidden
from view, probably to require a person to possess faith to believe,
and perhaps to keep from intimidating us by 'his/their/its'
presence. Why stay hidden??

Well, duh ... If you looked up and saw a face in the clouds watching
you how would you feel?

'School Text Disclaimer' or not, the question of our true origins will
not go away, and is perhaps the most compelling question one can ask.
Belief in evolution as 'fact', without empirical evidence (computer
modeling may be the only way),

What's wrong with the evidence for evolution that scientists knew about
before computers were even a twinkle in Percy Flowers' eye? It has
satisfied the scientists who actually do the research. Why do you think
they are wrong?

Perhaps you could review all the evidence for evolution, and suggest a
different testable hypothesis which explains the evidence as thoroughly
and exhaustively as does evolutionary theory.

is in itself, more of a religious view
than a belief in a creator, separate designer and DNA tweaker, of
alien designers, or other causes.



Could you explain to us how a theory grounded on evidence, developed
from the evidence, which can be falsified by the evidence and which is
accepted by people of many different religious persuasions as a
scientific theory can be called a religion?

And perhaps you could explain how the assertion that if we don't know
all the answers "God I mean an intelligent designer did it" is an
acceptable scientific answer rather than a statement of religious
conviction?

RF


I will leave you with that. Now come get me!

Lee


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Commentary: Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.
    ... never gone easy on religion. ... further mixing his defense of evolution with his attack on ... It's here that scientists and their allies are stumbling in our ... And the Dawkins-inspired "science vs. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... complain about is people publishing on evolution even though they have ... about that list of 18th century scientists. ... irrational paranoia, dishonesty, and misrepresentation of science ... any evidentiary contribution of religion to science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... complain about is people publishing on evolution even though they have ... about that list of 18th century scientists. ... irrational paranoia, dishonesty, and misrepresentation of science ... I'm very skeptical that religion has anything to contribute to science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... complain about is people publishing on evolution even though they have ... about that list of 18th century scientists. ... irrational paranoia, dishonesty, and misrepresentation of science ... I'm very skeptical that religion has anything to contribute to science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Great Evolutionists Name-calling machine
    ... and who are not hostile to science. ... Your religion lacks its own version of Genesis, ... Evolution, on the other hand, is very well understand. ... Despite all the researchers (technicians and scientists) who have told ...
    (talk.origins)