Evolution

[dsvochak]

"I acknowledge that sometimes the courts use dicta, but I have always gotten the impression that this practice is highly discouraged."

In general it is not normal practice to cite dicta as it is merely an observation or remark, by way of illustration, but not necessarily involved in the case or essential to it's determination. "Anyone who presented this at oral argument would be laughed out of the court." may be a little extreme, but is true. In order to convince a judge, you need more than dicta. You need the law.

"I don't know if the writers of answersingenesis.org themselves subscribe to notions of judicial restraint, but if they do, it would be extremely hypocritical of them to cite a footnote as good law when it is dicta."

There are about 13,400 results for "Torcaso v Watkins" on Google. And it's astounding how many of them are things like this, making the same assertion as that cited by DaveO:

http://www.contenderministries.org/huma ... ligion.php

(The citation is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of the views espoused by Contender Ministries. It is merely an example of Goggle references to Torcaso)

Attorneys, in theory, should understand basic principles of law, like the difference between dicta and the holding of a case. No such restriction applies to Contender Ministries or Answers in Genesis.

Answers in Genesis, and others of their philosophical/religious beliefs, can say anything they want. There is no legal requirement that their argument be logical, factual, consistent, or otherwise conform to my idea of appropriate. They are free to say, and believe, what they wish. Which is okay.

What is not okay is when, as a justification for "us[ing] the courts "to change the culture", arguments like this are used, while ignoring the fact that the only reason Answers in Genesis and others are free to make the arguments are the principles enunciated by Justice Black in the quotes from Torcaso in my previous post.

[GomJabbar]

For those of you interested..........

Little-known text plays key role in intelligent design trial

The Dover school board decided in November 2004 to require biology teachers to read a statement on intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, and referred students to ''Of Pandas and People" for more information on the topic -- a first for a public school district.

Court battle over teaching of evolution / Intelligent design theory at center of Pennsylvania trial

At issue was a four-paragraph statement adopted by the Dover school board, which was read to ninth-grade biology students as they begin to study the theory of evolution and which says:

www.dover.k12.pa.us/doversd/site/default.asp

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is not evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

[dsvochak]

From the San Francisco Chronicle article cited by GomJabbar:

"This week, [former school board president] Bonsell acknowledged that he had earlier testified untruthfully when he claimed not to know where money was raised to donate 60 copies of "Of Pandas and People" to the school library. The money had been raised in Buckingham's church and funneled through Bonsell's father, so the books could be donated anonymously. Hearing that, the usually affable Judge Jones lost patience.

Red-faced and visibly angry, he took over examining Bonsell himself, peppering him with questions for 10 minutes. "You tell me why you didn't say Mr. Buckingham was involved," he demanded. Then, later in the week, he snapped at one of the board's lawyers: "Don't insult my intelligence.""

Not good for the school board side. Admitting that you perjured yourself is not something that generally bolsters your case.

Regarding the Board's 4 paragraph statement, it appears that they may have a problem under the 3 part Lemon test (particularly when put together with the apparent perjury).

The article also mentions Edwards v Aguillard, a 1987 case which held that Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" which forbade the teaching of evolution unless accompanied by instruction in "creation science" did not meet the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) and was therefore unconstitutional.

And now, after reading Edwards v Aguillard, I think I'm clear about what's going on.

From Justice Scalia's dissent in that case:

"In this case, however, it seems to me the Court's position is the repressive one. The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific evidence there was for it. Perhaps what the Louisiana Legislature has done is unconstitutional because there is no such evidence, and the scheme they have established will amount to no more than a presentation of the Book of Genesis. But we cannot say that upon the teaching of evolution must be a manifestation of Christian fundamentalist repression. In this case, however, it seems to me the Court's position is the repressive one. The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific evidence there was for it. Perhaps what the Louisiana Legislature has done is unconstitutional because there is no such evidence, and the scheme they have established will amount to no more than a presentation of the Book of Genesis. But we cannot say that on the evidence before us in this summary judgment context."

Justice Scalia later in the dissent indicates the Lemon rule should be abandoned.

Edwards had 7 justices on one side and 2 on the other. Only Stevens, O'Connor and Scalia remain from the 9 voting on Edwards, so effectively, we start out at 1 to 1.

The basic strategy is simple: replace "creation" with "intelligent design", retry the issues with a new supreme court, and see what happens. Sometime's it works, and dicta like the Scalia quote above becomes law.

Or maybe tomorrow the citizens of Dover vote to replace the school board members. The newly elected board rescinds the policy and the case gets dismissed. A replay of what has apparently already happened in Kansas.

[dsvochak]

Election update:

From USA Today: Pa. voters oust school board that backed intelligent design
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... tion_x.htm

I wonder what they're thinking at the Thomas More Center this morning.

[GomJabbar]

From USA Today: Pa. voters oust school board that backed intelligent design

I'm curious. I wonder if the PA voters (or populace in general) are afraid of the fundamentalists (or religious right) and that is why they voted the way they did? Afraid if they give them an inch, the fundamentalists might try for the mile. Certain other things that the 'conservative base' has promoted, such as the Patriot Act and abortion issues may be causing alarm among the moderates. In other words, "give the enemy no quarter".

Of course my speculation above may be off-base, and their voting just reflects what the populace feels should be taught in science class. I guess it would take a poll to find out.

[a31pguy]

Given the previous news reports the Terry Schiavo case in Florida ... I suspect it doesn't bode well for that poll.

Which seems to me, unfair for the large portion of Christians who are moderate instead of Fundamentalist.

Perhaps if the more moderate portion were to stand up against "hardliners", which seem to be in most of the news of recent - the might be an abatement of the current perception of "fundamentalist christians".


Note - Sorry to have been absent for some of the recent discussion. Just started a new position and the realities of work have interferred.

[DaveO]

....the Kansas State Board of Education approved (by a 6–4 vote) a new set of science standards
...that will allow students to learn about the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution


no need to worry if theres nothing to hide......

[AlphaKilo470]

Good to see that the topic is voted on in some states. As I had stated earlier, this topic really is best off when kept at a more local level. The federal level is too high and covers too many people for a practical solution that satisfies a significant majority to develop.

In my personal viewpoints, I beleive that evolutionism, whether fact or fiction, should at least be discussed in science classes as a theory as it is the basis for a ton of reserch. It's only apporpriate for a science class.

Creationism would be a topic best discussed in a theology class or in some history and literature classes where Biblical influence can be an appropriate topic.

I believe that if this debate could be turned into teaching the appropriate topics in the apporpriate classes and in the apporpriate manner, that we could eliminate personal beliefs and agendas as a significant edge in the debate, thus making it run much smoother.

[dsvochak]

"Of course my speculation above may be off-base, and their voting just reflects what the populace feels should be taught in science class. I guess it would take a poll to find out."

I think if we did take a poll, and offered "I don't care" as a choice, the overwhelming majority would check that box. And if there was an additional option along the lines of "Teach my kids what they've got to know to get into college (or at least get a decent job)" that would likely be an almost unanimous choice.

I think the only thing the Dover election result may reflect is a lot of people don't like it when outsiders (eg Mr. Thompson & The Thomas More Center) come into town and convince some locals to do something that makes their nice quiet little town a center of media attention. A natural reaction is "Throw the bums out and we can go back to being a nice quiet little town".

Another thing I'm wondering about (given that we had local elections here) is whether election results are evidence of either "intelligent design" or the lack thereof.

It's nice to see we didn't scare off DaveO with all the comments about Torcaso v Watkins. Now I guess we'll see what happens with the copyright issues we got into some time ago.

[GomJabbar]

I think the only thing the Dover election result may reflect is a lot of people don't like it when outsiders (eg Mr. Thompson & The Thomas More Center) come into town and convince some locals to do something that makes their nice quiet little town a center of media attention. A natural reaction is "Throw the bums out and we can go back to being a nice quiet little town".

Looks like your view is likely correct.

Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals

"I think voters were tired of the trial, they were tired of intelligent design, they were tired of everything that this school board brought about," said Bernadette Reinking, who was among the winners.

[GomJabbar]

Another perspective on the meshing of science and religion from the Dalai Lama - Tenzin Gyatso.

Our Faith in Science - From: The New York Times, Published: November 12, 2005.

[doppelfish]

[...] Our Faith in Science [...].

This is where Bugmenot comes in handy.

cheers,
-- fish

[dsvochak]

Hello, Dalai. It certainly would be a nicer world if everyone took his approach.

[BillMorrow]

at last, a man of "faith" who is not locked up in dogma..

[GomJabbar]

I'm sorry to bring up old news, but I fell behind in my reading schedule. As a follow up to what I last posted regarding the Dalai Lama's thoughts, here is another article on the same. Dalai Lama Gives Talk On Science

In an unusual marrying of science and spirituality, the Dalai Lama addressed thousands of the world's top neuroscientists yesterday, telling them that society is falling behind in its efforts to make sense of their groundbreaking research.

Speaking sometimes in Tibetan and sometimes in halting English to a receptive audience at the 35th annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, the Tibetan spiritual and political leader said scientists and moral leaders need each other.
--------------------------
He pointed out in his prepared text, for instance, that although the atom bomb was great science, it created great moral problems.

"It is no longer adequate to adopt the view that our responsibility as a society is to simply further scientific knowledge and enhance technological power and that the choice of what to do with this knowledge and power should be left in the hands of the individual," he said.
--------------------------
The single protester outside his follow-up news conference at the convention center was Pei Wang, a neuroscience graduate student at the State University of New York at Buffalo. "This is supposed to be a scientific talk," she said. "If he is not presenting data, he should not speak. This should be about research, not about some politician giving a speech."

The protester's opinion is reminiscent of the opinions expressed by the teachers in the Evolution/I.D. debate.

[GomJabbar]

And the beat goes on.....................
In this article (Enough to Make an Iguana Turn Green: Darwin's Ideas) describing a museum exhibit about Darwin and his ideas, I noticed the following:

The theory is also made to seem too invulnerable, particularly toward the exhibition's end, where recent views about evolution are surveyed and recent evidence for the theory presented.

Perhaps in reaction to the various attempts to get notions of "intelligent design" taken seriously in science classrooms the exhibition ends up minimizing scientific questions about the theory as well. "For 150 years," the wall text states, "the theory of evolution by natural selection has not been seriously challenged by any other scientific explanation."

But the point would have been even stronger had the museum acknowledged that Darwin's theory has indeed been subject to scientific modification, and still is. The exhibition does not draw attention to these issues, though Mr. Eldredge's own biography on the museum's Web site points out that he was one of the scientists (including Stephen Jay Gould) "challenging Darwin's premise that evolution occurs gradually," asserting instead that it occurs in spurts with long periods of stasis. Doesn't this modify the idea of the "survival of the fittest" in an important way? It would have been worth pointing out, too, why this modification was proposed: the fossil record doesn't provide the plentiful examples of continuous evolution that Darwin's theory predicts.

I particularly find the end of last sentence above interesting: "the fossil record doesn't provide the plentiful examples of continuous evolution that Darwin's theory predicts." The revised theory: "asserting instead that it occurs in spurts with long periods of stasis." as an explaination seems rather weak to me. How is it explained? It seems more an observance than a theory.

[egibbs]

I particularly find the end of last sentence above interesting: "the fossil record doesn't provide the plentiful examples of continuous evolution that Darwin's theory predicts." The revised theory: "asserting instead that it occurs in spurts with long periods of stasis." as an explaination seems rather weak to me. How is it explained? It seems more an observance than a theory.

It's all part of of the scientific method - collect data (observations), form a hypothesis, test your hypothesis, modify or discard it if necessary, collect more data, rinse and repeat. Theories get modified and changed ALL the time as more information becomes available - that's what science is about.

Seems even some of the ID proponents are beginning to notice that the Kool-Aid tastes kind of funny. Also from the NY Times
Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

For instance...

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

Ed Gibbs (back, sort of)

[GomJabbar]

From: The Washington Post, Sunday, December 11, 2005 Link:Warning Label on Darwin Sows Division in Suburbia

From above article:

Wes McCoy, a teacher at North Cobb High School who has surveyed classes for a doctoral dissertation on teaching evolution, estimates that a third of students there are uncomfortable with the subject.

"I'm sure they're told by their parents, 'Go ahead and listen to the lessons, but you don't have to believe them,' " said McCoy, who holds workshops for teachers on how to present evolution. "Some teachers aren't comfortable with it themselves."

When Cobb County turned to selecting new biology textbooks in late 2001, that widespread unease developed into parent anger that spurred the school board to action.

Sparked by her son's interest in dinosaurs, Rogers read several books casting doubt on evolution science, including "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells and "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson. Once she saw the textbooks under consideration, she was appalled.

"Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species," she read from one during an interview.

"That offends me," she said. "That has no business being in a science textbook. That's religion."

She points to another passage, in "Biology: Concepts & Connections," that she says is irreverent. The passage suggests that had human knees and spines been "designed" for our bipedal posture, rather than borrowed from four-legged ancestors, they probably would "be less subject to sprains, spasms and other common injuries."

Finding fault with the design of humans exasperates her.

"That's slamming God," she said.

Her disappointment with the texts led her to launch a petition drive among friends and church groups that netted 2,300 signatures. After a contentious meeting, the school board voted to affix the stickers to several textbooks, warning: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Board members described it as a way of accommodating the divergent views in the community -- to "safeguard" the feelings of the students -- while continuing to teach evolution.

But after hearing Selman's case, presented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper in January ordered the stickers removed.

An "informed, reasonable observer would interpret the Sticker to convey a message of endorsement of religion," he wrote. The sticker "sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders."

The school board has appealed, and arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit are scheduled for Thursday.

[egibbs]

From: The Washington Post, Sunday, December 11, 2005 Link:Warning Label on Darwin Sows Division in Suburbia

From above article:
[quote="

sinp...
She points to another passage, in "Biology: Concepts & Connections," that she says is irreverent. The passage suggests that had human knees and spines been "designed" for our bipedal posture, rather than borrowed from four-legged ancestors, they probably would "be less subject to sprains, spasms and other common injuries."

Finding fault with the design of humans exasperates her.

"That's slamming God," she said.

So then I suppose she also gets exasperated by those who work to undermine the "God Given Features" of the human body? Birth Defects? Nope - God has his purpose, and it's not for us to question it. MS? Cerebral Palsy? Autism? Leukemia? Diabetes? Mitral Valve Defects? Of course not - they are just God's way of loving us.

I wonder if her kids get immunized...?

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

While I do not share this woman's viewpoint, I do want to address your comments Mr. Gibbs, when I have more time.

In the meantime, I ran across this article today.
Link: Judges ask tough questions in evolution sticker case

ATLANTA – A federal appeals panel Thursday questioned the accuracy of a judge's ruling that a disclaimer in school textbooks describing evolution as "a theory, not a fact" represents an endorsement of religion.

"I don't think you all can contest any of the sentences" on the disclaimer sticker, Judge Ed Carnes of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told an attorney arguing for parents who sued.

"It is a theory, not a fact; the book supports that," Carnes said.

The lower court in January ordered a suburban Atlanta school district to remove the stickers. The judge, Clarence Cooper, wrote the disclaimer "conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders."

Cobb County schools attorney Linwood Gunn argued Thursday that Cooper misconstrued the school board's intention, which he said was to allay community concerns while teaching good science.

"There's nothing religious in the case except constituents' beliefs or presumed beliefs," Gunn said.

[GomJabbar]

So then I suppose she also gets exasperated by those who work to undermine the "God Given Features" of the human body? Birth Defects? Nope - God has his purpose, and it's not for us to question it. MS? Cerebral Palsy? Autism? Leukemia? Diabetes? Mitral Valve Defects? Of course not - they are just God's way of loving us.

I wonder if her kids get immunized...?

These statements are erroneous because they do not reflect an understanding of God, Jesus, and the Bible. It is helpful to go through some history here.

When man and woman were created, they were without defect. God gave them one command that they were not to eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden. For in the day they eat from it, they will surely die. The word 'day' here does not mean a 24-hour period, but rather an undefined span of time. Eve was seduced by Satan to eat from this tree. She was deceived into believing she could become like God, knowing the difference between good and evil. Later she gave some of the fruit to Adam, who also ate of it. As a result of their sin, Adam and Eve lost their perfect state and began to die. Their bodies began aging until later they succumbed to death. Their first two children were Cain and Abel. Cain ended up murdering his brother Abel out of Jealousy. Mankind began falling into greater and greater sin, and as a result, even more imperfection was passed down. For instance, if one of us has a gene that mutates harmfully, that mutation will be passed down to our offspring. As a result, over time mankind inherited greater imperfection. Their lifespan was shortened, genetic defects appeared, man became susceptible to disease. The spiral was downhill from mankind's beginning on.

What happened above is that man decided that he did not need ruleship by his Creator. He could make his own decisions. God did not demand alot from man, but he did demand obedience to his commandment. He gave man 'free will' to choose how he would lead his life. When mankind sinned and began to die, they became estranged from God. God in his mercy gave man a way to be reconciled to him. He stated in his first recorded prophecy regarding his judgement of Satan and man (Genesis 3:15): "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Here God was speaking to the serpent (who is Satan in disguise) when he said: "thou shalt bruise his heel" He was referring to the Messiah, Jesus, when he said: "it shall bruise thy head". So in other words, Satan would bruise Jesus, but Jesus would deal fatally with Satan. The entire account is recorded in Genesis chapter 3.

Later Satan claimed that man only served God for what mankind could get from him. He inferred that man served God out of selfish motives. That mankind did not love or serve God because of his (God's) righteous qualities and for who he is. This is well documented in the book of Job. Here Satan told God (Job 1: 8-11): "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face." And later Satan said (Job 2: 4,5): "And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face." So an issue was raised in both Heaven and Earth. Will any of mankind serve God out of love and devotion, or do they serve God only out of fear or for selfish reasons? Is it righteous for the Creator of man to rule mankind? Is God's rule righteous? Can mankind rule himself effectively without God's help? The prophet Jeremiah wrote (Jeremiah 7:32): "O LORD, I know that the way of man [is] not in himself: [it is] not in man that walketh to direct his steps." and Solomon wrote (Ecclesiastes 8:9): "All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: [there is] a time wherein one man ruleth over another to his own hurt."

So mankind has been left on his own to see if he can take care of his own affairs without God. After God let himself be known through Abraham's lineage (the Israelites, Jews, and Jesus), generally God has not been interfering in mankinds affairs for better or worse. We are left to solve our own problems. We have disease, death, and suffering because we as a whole have chosen to alienate ourselves from God the Creator. Eventually, after we have tried every form of self-rulership under the sun, many will come to the general consensus that we need God's rulership over us. No one will be able to say we would be better off by ourselves because we will have had ample opportunity to prove otherwise. One of the overlying themes of the Bible has been the creation and setting up of a government by God. This will be a theocracy, not democracy, communism, or other form of government. Daniel 2:44 - "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." The resurrected Jesus will be the Head or King, with a 144,000 kings and priests ruling with him over mankind. Revelation 14: 1-4 - "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty [and] four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, [being] the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God." And Revelation 20:6 - "Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

God does not want mankind to suffer, but man must approach God and ask for his rule. He is not forcing his rule upon us, because some (the angels in Heaven and man on this Earth) would consider that an Autocracy. God is in the process of proving that this is not the case. He is dispelling all doubt for need of his rulership. If we accept his rulership willingly, all will be happier.

Ezekial 18:23 - "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live?" And Ezekial 18:32 - "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn [yourselves], and live ye."

Revelation 21: 1-4 - "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

I quote from the King James Version of the Bible because most who will put faith in the Bible, trust this version. Personally I prefer a more modern english translation. I hope my explaination is helpful to some that might read this. But as my wife says: "You can't convince the convinced one". So I realize that many are persuaded in their beliefs and nothing said will sway them otherwise.

[dsvochak]

The two most interesting (for me) excerpts from the 12/11 Washington Post article:

The fast-growing suburb of about 650,000 people northwest of Atlanta -- in many ways similar to
Loudoun and Fairfax counties in Virginia -- has long shown a remarkable flair for high-profile social
controversy.
---------------------
Her disappointment with the texts led her to launch a petition drive among friends and church groups
that netted 2,300 signatures. After a contentious meeting, the school board voted to affix the stickers to several textbooks....

2,300 signatures on a petition, divided by 650,000 residents is, rounded, .00354 or 3 tenths of 1 percent of the population. Or, to put it another way, 1 of every 282+ people in the county signed the petition. I'm in favor of upholding the rights of the minority, but the school board taking action on the complaints of a percentage of the population this small strikes me as ludicrous. If this issue was really that important to the residents of Cobb County, why aren't there 230,000 (or more) signatures on the petition?

Regarding Ms. Rogers being "offended" or saying that passages in books are "slamming God", I'm pretty sure that blasphemy is no longer a prosecutable offense. On the other hand, as, in certain ways, this is still the good ol' US of A, Ms. Rogers is free, should she so choose, to believe that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.

On a serious note, the time, money and anguish being spent on this and related issues in the courts, at school boards, in the news and other areas has reached the stage of absurdity. When the House of Representatives spends time on a resolution regarding the so-called "attack on Christmas" we have reached a limit.

How a country which is largely Christian can be anti-Christian is a question I cannot answer.

[egibbs]

There's not a whole lot in there that is worthy of comment, but...

When man and woman were created, they were without defect. .

... So you're saying their knees were better than ours? What did these better knees look like?

I hesitate to mention this because next thing they'll be wanting to slap those stickers on the Physics books too, but modern science has also called the notion of free will into question.

In relativity time is a dimension of space-time. It is different from space-like dimensions, but it is also similar in many ways. The reason this is significant is that, as Kurt Godel proved (much to Albert Einstein's surprise) there are space-times consistent with relativity where travel to the past is possible.

Now if the past is a place along the time dimension that you can actually travel to, then it exists in the same sense that the present exists - in fact, every point along the time-like dimension must exist side by side, just as New Jersey and Madagascar exist simultaneously in different points along the space-like dimensions.

That means that the time-like dimension is fixed and forever unchanging, past, present, amd future existing together in different parts of the timeline. And free will does not exist.

Philosophers are still debating the meaning of Godel's findings, and we don't know yet if we live in a universe whose space-time is constructed such that time travel is possible. But the point is that according to relativity, space-times CAN exist where time travel is real and hence the passage of time is an illusion - and the only thing that distinguishes them from the ones where time travel is impossible is the precise arrangement and motions of the matter in the space-time. It would be a pretty strange thing if free will existed only because the matter in the universe happened to be arranged this way and not that way.

Even more telling - why would an intelligent designer building a universe with free will use rules for it's construction that permitted the existence of universes without free will? What possible purpose would that serve?

In the immortal words of Issac Rabi (when informed about the Muon) :

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

When man and woman were created, they were without defect. .

... So you're saying their knees were better than ours? What did these better knees look like?

I'm saying that if you consider: there are people that live long lives without knee problems. Others 'need' knee replacement surgery. When man and woman were created, they belonged to this first group. I am not ruling out that 'micro'-evolution could play a part in improving the design.

When I said without defect, I do not mean it to mean that no further improvement is possible.

Free will is relative. IMHO, everyone except perhaps a psychopath is influenced by the will of others. As far as Godel's findings, I am not going to touch that.

[dsvochak]

Headline from AP:

"Decision expected Tuesday in 'intelligent design' lawsuit"
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ ... CTION=HOME

I guess we'll find out what the Judge thinks shortly. Merry Christmas, or Happy Holiday of your choice.

[dsvochak]

Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot require the teaching of intelligent design in high school biology classes, a federal judge ruled in a case that may influence other challenges to the theory of evolution.
------------------
In his opinion, [Judge] Jones said the key issue is ``whether Intelligent Design is science,'' and said, ``we have concluded that it is not.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... U&refer=us

Excerpts from the ruling (from Forbes http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/200 ... 04791.html ):

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has not been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

It is not a good idea to lie when testifying. It is a worse idea to get caught. And even worse when the Judge jumps on the opportunity to comment on the "irony" of the lying.

There was an article in the Detroit News regarding the Thomas More Center ( http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... 9140610839 )

It isn't likely that they will fold up their tents and go home, so this legal journey isn't over.

[K. Eng]

It is not a good idea to lie when testifying. It is a worse idea to get caught. And even worse when the Judge jumps on the opportunity to comment on the "irony" of the lying.

No kidding. Perjury is a pretty serious offense

[GomJabbar]

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board..."

From the quote above, it is obvious that the speaker is from the Court. As such his view of the Court is not unbiased. He claims: "this is manifestly not an activist Court". Whether this Court is activist or not, I cannot say. But I take little stock in this statement made by the Court. It obviously is in it's interest to say such. And whether or not the Court as a whole is activist, is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether this is an activist ruling. Personally I see it as such, seeing how expansive it was.

It is true that errors were made by the defense. Lying was certainly not profitable. I believe that the defense and it's primary backers in the Dover case were from the Creationist camp. The Creationists are a vocal and activist group. There is another group which I believe is much larger than the Creationist group. This group believes in ID, but they do not believe that Genesis should be taken literally. Specifically that the earth and all species of life on it were created in six, literal, 24-hour days. Also that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. This second, larger group, is not as active in promoting it's viewpoint. They would like to see the disclaimer as implemented by the School Board, but they haven't been active to get their view put into a secular classroom. It is unfortunate that the Evolutionists see all ID proponents as Creationists. This battle between Evolutionists and Creationists is not so much different than what we see happening in US politics these days. The far right and far left are the vocal ones; the ones holding the strings of power. The moderates are left hanging out to dry.

From The Washington Post, Wednesday, December 21, 2005 Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed by President Bush, did not confine his opinion to the missteps of a local school board.... "The overwhelming evidence is that Intelligent Design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory," Jones wrote in a 139-page decision. "It is an extension of the Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution."
---------------------------------
John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, a leading intelligent design think tank in Seattle, took a dim view of the judge, saying that he evinced a "grandiosity" and "egregious" judicial activism. But he agreed that the decision comes as a heavy blow.

"There's no doubt that people will trumpet this and that now they can say a federal judge agrees and that doesn't help," West said. "His angry tone was not helpful."
---------------------------------
The board members made little secret of their own views, which hewed not so much to intelligent design as to Young Earth Creationism, the fundamentalist Christian belief that the world is but 6,000 years old and that Noah's flood shaped the earth.
---------------------------------
Eleven parents filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking to block the new policy on the grounds that intelligent design was but biblical creationism in the cloth of science. The Supreme Court had ruled in 1987 that nothing like creationism could be taught in public school science courses.
---------------------------------
Steve Fuller, a philosopher of science at the University of Warwick in England who testified at the trial for the defense, acknowledged that the school board members undercut the case for a new theory.

"Intelligent design has to be de-theologized," Fuller said. "But it will be a shame if a result of this decision is that we can't question Darwinism, which is not just a theory but an entire secular world view that flattens the distinction between humans and other life."
---------------------------------
"We thought we had put a stake through the heart of creation science 25 years ago and it evolved and here we are again," said Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at Florida State University who frequently debates intelligent design advocates.

[a31pguy]

IMHO - the court ruled rightly.

[dsvochak]

GomJabbar wrote:

What is relevant is whether this is an activist ruling. Personally I see it as such, seeing how expansive it was.

Not much time at the moment, more on this later. For now, is this an "activist ruling" using the of "activist ruling" as "one I disagree with" or another definition?

Another quote from a Detroit News article ( http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... 20346/1348 )

Jones made it clear that he found, having reviewed the "factual backdrop," that intelligent design was a not-so-subtle reworking of creationism, and one that lacked the hallmarks of accepted science.

To add sting, he assessed legal fees against the school district, a rare move in American courts, and one that's usually levied as a punitive measure or to dissuade others from following.

Let's at least hope that the school district can recoup the assessed legal fees from the Thomas More Center.