Posted on 10/17/2005 5:36:09 PM PDT by gobucks
An international group of scientists have filed a "friend of the court" brief with federal Judge John E. Jones III advising him that "the identification of intelligent causes is a well-established scientific practice" and asking him to allow "the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead."
Jones is presiding over the Dover intelligent design trial.
The 24-page brief — carrying the names of 85 scientists in fields including chemistry, molecular biology, mathematics, neurological surgery and environmental science — states "the definition of science and the boundaries of science should be left to scientists to debate."
"Any (court) ruling that depends upon an outdated or inaccurate definition of science or which attempts to define the boundaries of science could hinder scientific progress," the brief states in asking Jones to find in favor of the Dover Area School Board.
This website seems to be the most comprehensive for getting to original court docs. Here's another.
Based on the cross links above, the fact that wikipedia.org seems a bit biased in favor of the legalists, and the fact that so much raw information is available, this may go down as the first 'virtual' trial, where anyone can obtain anything actually filed w/ the court.
In this case, a scientist who is a fellow at the Discovery Institute was the author of the study. Some of the 85 scientists are clearly from not well known schools.
But I would say most are just typical universities, excepting the scientist from Duke who signed this, and the two from Ohio State University - GoBucks! - who signed it as well.
I like the idea of scientists getting to decide what science means, and I'm betting J. Jones ultimately realizes that to find for the plaintiffs is to buy their arguments about the non-science of I.D.
Good Luck Judge. Hope that Bad Frog Beer experience helps out in this case. You may, just may be able to draw some wisdom from that well you know....
ping
Why is a judge incapable of determining what is science. Judges determine everything else - with the help of experts.
Conspicuous by its absence in the article or your post is the actual name of this "international group of scientists." For those interested, it is called the Discovery Institute.
Well, the 'experts' were consulted about Roe v. Wade ... and look at how legally robust that decision turned out to be.
I'm betting more than a few scientists are secretly hoping that the Judge finds for the defendents.
Imagine how the I.D. movement will be galvanized ... once 'lawyers' tell 'scientists' what 'science' REALLY is...
Dunno. Maybe no training in the scientific method?
(The way legal cases are argued and decided is quite different.)
More intrusion by the international community. Don't they have their own countries to concern themselves about?
"Conspicuous by its absence in the article or your post ..."
Conspicuous by its presence is typical liberal-knee-jerk getting it wrong.
I stand corrected. You did mention the Discovery Institute in your post. Why didn't the article?
Roughly 60 out of the 85 scientists are USA.
Princeton, U. of Penn, MIT, UCLA, U. Michigan ... they are in the list too...
"I stand corrected. You did mention the Discovery Institute in your post. Why didn't the article?"
Thank you. And as for the article either they didn't think that many readers would know what the D. I. was ... or that it didn't matter, b/c of the 85 signatures, none were people who work at D. I.
I find it interesting that a D. I. fellow was able to circulate this document around the world and get this many signatures for this trial. By this time, on campuses at the least, D.I. is code for the worse kind of bigotry, racism, anti-semitism, etc etc ... pick all the vindictive labels you want, the Left University, hates anyone at D.I.
And yet, these scientists, for this trial, signed this document.
I'm betting every one of them have tenure. And until this trial, I couldn't honestly think of a good reason for tenure at the University level. Now I'm rethinking that too... (how anti-Libertarian of me.... bad fingers! Bad FIngers!)
another one for your list....
One reason is that science is not static especially in the area in question involving evolution and cosmology is another area where far too many school books are filled with postulates that are based more on nice story telling than scientific data. Let the kids learn what they need to in order to make accurate assessments for themselves concerning data, that to me is more important than any of the political issues.
Excluding exceptions and questions does not help produce confidence in Science, what it does is that it leaves the distinct impression on the minds of children that Science is only in a small degree different than religion. Some of the greatest Science was produced by devotly religious men, Let the kids learn what they need to in order to make accurate assessments for themselves concerning data that to me is more important than any of the political issues.
Kant I think had a good idea that metaphysics should be left up to metaphysics and that the hard science should be left up to hard science. The key difference is that he would consider Evolutionary Science and Cosmology not on higher planks than religious thought but on equal and separate planks. Also I think Kurt Gödel's incompletness theorem would be a humbling study for all those involved.
Perhaps you're right. I do think the source of the document is relevant.
By this time, on campuses at the least, D.I. is code for the worse kind of bigotry, racism, anti-semitism, etc etc ... pick all the vindictive labels you want, the Left University, hates anyone at D.I.
I don't necessarily agree. Among liberal arts and humanities departments, that sort of disposition is reserved for supporters of U.S. foreign policy or supporters of Israel. I don't believe that among science and engineering departments people 'hate' intelligent design as you suggest. By and large they think it isn't science, or it's bad science.
And until this trial, I couldn't honestly think of a good reason for tenure at the University level. Now I'm rethinking that too...
I still can't. LOL
It just shows that the idea that there is no support in mainstream science for I.D. is not just misleading but an outright lie. I find it amusing that so many defenders of science seem to be on the side of locking down what can or can not be thought on this issue.
Yes, but they're heavily outnumbered by graduates of the University of Ibadan, Malone College, Biola University, and "Geronimo Creek" Observatory. But not one faculty member from any top department of biology or anthropology or zoology or any other related field anywhere in the world. That's pretty pathetic, isn't it?
Why? Most scientists are political. They must chase funds and will succumb to the whims of those bureacrats that dispense the funds that feeds their families.
Any scientist that a priori rules out the possibility of God is engaging in very poor science indeed.
If great scientists like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein believed in God then who is anybody to say that God does not have the power or will to create life, or be involved in our everyday lives.
Not scientists, then.
"I find it amusing that so many defenders of science seem to be on the side of locking down what can or can not be thought on this issue."
It is quite revealing I agree ... for they know what is at stake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.