Doubt it - they'll get them from the taxpayers, which will encourage taxpayers across the country to pay more attention to who they are voting onto their school boards.dsvochak wrote:Let's at least hope that the school district can recoup the assessed legal fees from the Thomas More Center.
Being a political (R) appointee, I guess he wanted to do his part to help reduce the government deficit. After all, those tax cuts have to be paid for some way.Let's at least hope that the school district can recoup the assessed legal fees from the Thomas More Center.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.
The part bolded above is what I take issue with. I see Creationism and ID to be wide apart in their stance. Creationism is the belief in Genesis as a literal text (six 24-hour creative days, 6,000 year-old earth, etc.). ID makes no claim to the previous. Yes, both ID and Creationism are religious views, but a person can believe in ID without being a Creationist. One major problem was, that it was Creationists that promoted ID vs. macro-evolution. However, while I don't believe in many of the major teachings of the Creationists, I will never say that everything they have to say is false or misleading, just as I will never say that everything Judge Jones has to say is false or misleading. This is a case of the baby being thrown out with the bath water.Once Judge Jones determined that "the overwhelming evidence is that Intelligent Design is a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism and not a scientific theory" he had no choice but to rule in conformity with the holdings in Edwards v Aguillard and Lemon v Kurtzman.
When witnesses for the School Board testify that ID is a form of creationism, it's reasonable to conclude that "the overwhelming evidence is Intelligent Design is a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism..."."Moreover and as previously stated, there is hardly better evidence of ID's relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism. (Fuller Dep. at 67, June 21, 2005) (indicated that ID is a modern view of creationism).
Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term "creationism" applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism, including the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee, as will be described below. (P-149 at 2; 10:129-32 (Forrest); P-555 at 22-24)."
Apparently, there are at least five schools of thought on the issue, four of which seem to be religious views."Also at the meeting Baksa provided those in attendance with several documents including a survey of biology books used in private religious schools in York County, a product profile of a biology textbook used at Bob Jones University, and a document entitled "Beyond the Evolution vs. Creation Debate." The second page of the "Beyond the Evolution vs. Creation Debate" document reads "Views on the Origin of the Universe and Life" and it explains the difference between "Young Earth Creationism (Creation Science)," "Progressive Creationism (Old Earth Creation)," "Evolutionary Creation (Theistic Creation)," "Deistic Evolution (Theistic Evolution)," and "Dysteleological Evolution (Atheistic Evolution)." Interestingly and notably, the example provided under the Progressive Creation (Old Earth Creation) is that of the "Intelligent Design Movement, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe." (P-149)."
I believe there is such a thing as the 'ultimate truth', regarding historical events. We (all of us) only have a partial knowledge of what this truth is. When I said: "What we really should be concerned with is the truth."; what I perhaps should have said instead was: "What we really should be concerned with is: arriving at the truth; coming to an accurate understanding of how we really came to be."Regarding the comment that "What we really should be concerned with is the truth...", I have to ask: whose truth? To use the groups found in the "Beyond the Evolution vs. Creation Debate" document, is it the truth of the "Young Earth Creationists", the "Progressive Creationists", the "Evolutionary Creationists", the "Deistic Evolutionists", or the "Dysteleological Evolutionists"? Are there other groups whose "truth" should be considered?
The Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture referred to in the quote from the opinion is now known as the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. As previously noted, Mr. West is the "associate director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture".Phillip Johnson, considered to be the father of the IDM, developer of ID's "Wedge Strategy," which will be discussed below, and author of the 1991 book entitled Darwin on Trial, has written that "theistic realism" or "mere creation" are defining concepts of the IDM. This means "that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence . . ." (Trial Tr. vol. 10, Forrest Test., 80-81, Oct. 5, 2005; P-328). In addition, Phillip Johnson states that the "Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose." (11:16-17 (Forrest); P-524 at 1). ID proponents Johnson, William Dembski, and Charles Thaxton, one of the editors of Pandas, situate ID in the Book of John in the New Testament of the Bible, which begins, "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God." (11:18-20, 54-55 (Forrest); P-524; P-355; P-357). Dembski has written that ID is a "ground clearing operation" to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and "Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion." (11:50-53 (Forrest); P-386; P-390). Moreover, in turning to Defendants' lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.
Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific
materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity."
Actually, not basically accurate.I see the Evolutionists saying in effect: "There is no way that a God or Creater could have taken a part in the creation of the species of life found on this earth. As such, we just won't take that possibility into consideration. Only Natural Selection, and chance events resulted in life on this earth. Period." [some hyperbole here to make my point, but basically accurate]
Under the heading of "Whether ID is science", beginning at page 64 (through page 89) of Kitzmiller, Judge Jones has an extensive discussion of principles of "science" and how they apply to ID. The discussion ends with "To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." I second in commending the analysis to anyone interested in facts and evidence as opposed to mere assertions.Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."
Hmmmm.........My level of annoyance on this has risen to intolerable levels.
While I am not trying to bring a particular religion into the discussion, the point is that a Creater was necessary for life to be as we know it. Leaving the Creator out of the picture is just wrong. It's like examining a beautiful painting; testing to find out the type canvas that was used, what pigments and chemicals comprised the paints, what type of bristle was used in the brush, etc., with no discussion of the painter himself! The painter is the most important part. While it is informative to know the details involved in the making of the painting, we would be better served trying to understand the painter and his motive for creating the painting.It's one thing for Gom Jabbar to take the position that intelligent design is not a religious-based idea. As he views it, it may not be.
I disagree here. While it is true that evolutionary theory (of the macro kind) is not "antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and religion in general." Evolutionary theory (of the macro kind) is antithetical to the belief of the maker of life on this earth. No amount of postulating will convince me that life on this earth came about strictly through Natural Selection and random events. It takes more than that. I don't deny that Natural Selection and random events play a part, but they leave out an essential part - an Intelligent Designer.Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."
That can be a problem, trying to separate things that intermingle. If the law was not involved, science and theology could be taught side by side.The law is the law, science is science, and theology is theology.
Something appears to be amiss.The Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, an association of more than 100 U.S. schools, said its members have a wide range of approaches to the issue. In fact, most conservative Christian colleges are far from embracing intelligent design.
The John Templeton Foundation, a major funder of projects that aim to reconcile religion and science, has given none of its $36 million in annual science-related grants to intelligent design research, said foundation spokeswoman Pamela Thompson. "We do not consider it a hard science," she said. "We feel that it is not something that's important to universities."
Dembski, of the Discovery Institute, formerly taught at Baylor University, a Baptist school in Texas, but left following opposition on the issue from other faculty members. He now leads the Center for Science and Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
The Rev. Albert Mohler, the seminary president, criticized Christian schools for rejecting intelligent design, saying they are intimidated by the "secular establishment."
However, Uko Zylstra, a biologist and dean for natural sciences at Calvin College, a Christian school in Grand Rapids, Mich., said intelligent design is not catching on at his college and others because it is based on philosophy, not science.
"We don't think this is how the problem should be articulated," Zylstra said. "The strength of intelligent design is as an apologetic - that God is the creator, but not a scientific explanation."
Valid points. Like I said, I am not familiar with Mr. West, so you probably are correct in your analysis. Also, I'm not especially fond of Pat Roberson's ideology either.P.S. When I wrote the level of annoyance has risen to intolerable levels, it was after too many articles and editorial comments from people like Mr. West simply misstating their own organization's official positions and comments like that made by Pat Robertson.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01 ... esus.reut/ROME, Italy (Reuters) -- Forget the U.S. debate over intelligent design versus evolution.
An Italian court is tackling Jesus -- and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
Homepage
Forum
Drivers
HMM
MTM
Feed
