Georgia court to hear evolution disclaimer arguments

The Globe and Mail ^ | 12/14/05 | DOUG GROSS

[Virginia-American]

I'm an IDr myself, and I don't see a problem with the stickers, either. They should've been left in place

I'm not an ID-er, and I agree, on one condition: That the names of *all* the elected public officials responsible for the stickers be printed on them.

[Politicalities]

There are legitimate criticisms, but you don't feel like discussing them?

Yes, because they're beside the point, which is that the stickers which are (once again!) the subject of this post in no way constitute an "establishment of religion." I'm not religious at all and I wholeheartedly agree with the statement on the stickers. In fact, I daresay that to assert that one should not approach evolution (or any other subject) with an open and critical mind is to fall into religious dogmatism.

[Virginia-American]

I'm just surprised to see it in the science section of a Canadian newspaper!

Many Canadians like to mock the USA.

[VadeRetro]

“If it's unconstitutional to tell students to study evolution with an open mind, then what's not unconstitutional?” said John West, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that supports intelligent design, the belief that the universe is so complex it must have been created by a higher power. “The judge is basically trying to make it unconstitutional for anyone to have a divergent view, and we think that has a chilling effect on free speech.”

Anyone who followed the Dover Trial can remember the discussion of what was considered worth a lawsuit up there. West is pretending he never heard any of that.

[donh]

I don't have the time or inclination to get into a large debate over the merits of evolutionary theory at the moment.

So you just thought it would be nice to come an spit some raspberries at those who do on a forum created to encourage debate?

My point, which I trust I made, is that there are legitimate criticisms of evolution, and that it should be examined critically... which is exactly what these stickers call for. And that to claim that the stickers constitute an unconstitutional "establishment of religion" is absurd on its face.

I presume you won't mind, then, if we put the same stickers on every science textbook, since there are legitimate criticisms concerning every natural science. I presume you also won't mind if scientists enter the history classrooms, to place a similar warning sticker about the Bible on any textbook that discusses Western religious history.

[Politicalities]

So you just thought it would be nice to come an spit some raspberries at those who do on a forum created to encourage debate?

Go nuts... in a thread about the merits of evolution. This one is about a court case in which certain people who elevate evolution itself to a religion are attempting to have it declared unconstitutional to question it.

I presume you won't mind, then, if we put the same stickers on every science textbook, since there are legitimate criticisms concerning every natural science.

Whether I would mind it or not has nothing to do with whether I believe it would be unconstitutional to do so... which, as a matter of fact, I do not.

I presume you also won't mind if scientists enter the history classrooms, to place a similar warning sticker about the Bible on any textbook that discusses Western religious history.

Once again you seem to have mistaken me for somebody who believes the Bible is something more than a work of fiction... but once again, no, I do not believe that stickers warning to approach the material in the Bible or any other book with an open mind are unconstitutional.

[donh]

There isn't much room for doubt that homosexuality is genetic. Some of our near-relatives have it, in widely varying degrees, and some don't--so it's not a disease strain that's gradually getting weeded out. It is pretty clear at this point that it has a noticable survival advantage in humans, for much the same reason we have such reproductive non-participants as grandparents and worker ants: Anything that funnels resources or advantages to near-relatives' offspring in a major way can be as good or better than breeding yourself as far as getting your genes into the future goes. Wolves provide a perfect example of how this works. In plush times, all wolves in a pack will mate, in hard times, only the alpha pair will produce offspring, and the rest of the males in the pack will turn homosexual, until good times return. This phenomenon contitutes kind of a major hint as to how individual species can turn into communal species like ants, termites, and mole rats.

[Senator Bedfellow]

They are exactly the point - you claim that these stickers call for an examination of some presumed inadequacies in the theory, and yet when questioned about said inadequacies, suddenly there's the sound of crickets. You'll have to excuse me if I, in turn, presume that these supposed inadequacies are merely a fig leaf to cloud some deeper purpose behind the stickers. Feel free to disabuse me by citing one or two difficulties, however.

[jwalsh07]

You mean you actually believe that local folks should control local schools without intervention by federal and state courts where nobodys rights have been violated?

What a novel thought.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Completely offtopic, but you might find this thread interesting if you missed it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1539997/posts

[b_sharp]

"Go nuts... in a thread about the merits of evolution. This one is about a court case in which certain people who elevate evolution itself to a religion are attempting to have it declared unconstitutional to question it.

Placing ID into science class has nothing to do with questioning evolution. No evolutionary scientist I know has a problem with students asking questions about evolution or discussing difficult areas. ID is about getting God into science, starting with the school system.

ID is not a science. It has no theory, it can not predict, it is not falsifiable. Why would any one want to place a non-science in science class, it makes no sense.

If, and this is a pretty big if, ID ever develops into a science, then propose including it in science class.

[PatrickHenry]

West is pretending he never heard any of that.

That's what creationists do best. Around here we call it "prior thread amnesia."

[b_sharp]

"Many Canadians like to mock the USA."

Not really. Some have mocked the US, more have mocked Bush, but the the vast majority do not mock the US. The news you guys get will be on high visibility cases.

Don't take our comedy shows too seriously, Canadian humour has a tendency to be more like European humour than US humour and mocks everyone including US, Britain, France, Germany, Australia and Canada.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that our complaining about the Bush administration is the same as attacking the people of the US.

[jwalsh07]

Don't make the mistake of assuming that our complaining about the Bush administration is the same as attacking the people of the US.

Now why would the people who elected Bush because we favor his policies take umbrage at Canadians complaining about those policies?

We support the troops but hope they lose the war logic?

[Coyoteman]

"prior thread amnesia?

Oh, no! I'll have to post some of the goodies again if folks are developing amnesia!

And here's some of those handsome critters now!

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[donh]

Go nuts... in a thread about the merits of evolution. This one is about a court case in which certain people who elevate evolution itself to a religion are attempting to have it declared unconstitutional to question it.

I see. So you think it fit to discuss the merits of a court case, but inappropriate to discuss the merits of the questions at issue in the court case? That's an interesting notion.

Whether I would mind it or not has nothing to do with whether I believe it would be unconstitutional to do so... which, as a matter of fact, I do not.

Than I must insist on disagreeing with you vehemently, since, in fact, to single out biology, and ignore the more substantial difficulties in the basic assumptions of physics and astronomy, for example, at the behest of non-scientists is a three-monkeys approach to judicial reasoning. There is no profound and obvious reason why biology should get this special treatment, except for the fact that biology, as she is currently writ, appears to creationists to fly in the face of the bible.

Like the people embroiled in these recent court cases, you are trying to make this seem like a reasonable position by ignoring the elephant in the room. If I started burning crosses on black people's lawns, but kept insisting it was an ancient druid rite, and it was just the dern luck of the draw that I chose black people's lawns, I'd be making a similar argument.

ID, whatever its merits, is not remotely science at this time. Should it become science, then it will be because scientists are thinking and experimenting with it. Until then, science textbooks, being as they are about what scientists think, should reflect what scientists think--even on their spines, and no significant number of scientists remotely think that any physics, chemistry or geology theory is better established than evolutionary theory.

Given that one understands that, the thin veil of objectivity is ripped away from the ID judicial movement, (to the point of perjury in the Dover case, and open admission in the case of the Wedge document) and it is revealed for what it is--a stealth attack by christian creationists to make room for teaching their religeous doctrines in the classrooms of public schools. There is vastly insufficient sensible motivation for it otherwise.

[PatrickHenry]

Don't make the mistake of assuming that our complaining about the Bush administration is the same as attacking the people of the US.

Do you think we're fools? We know of your "secret" plans to invade the US and escape the horrors of your tundra-plagued landscape. We'll be more than ready when you make your move.

[Virginia-American]

You mean you actually believe that local folks should control local schools without intervention by federal and state courts where nobodys rights have been violated?

What a novel thought.

I believe that if they lie about evolution, singling it out for the sticker treatment (even though it's got more experimental and observational evidence to support it than either Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitational theory), or if they pretend that ID is a theory, etc, then they should be subject to civil and criminal penalties for fraud, and also subject to impeachment for high crimes. Perhaps even for nonsexual child abuse.

Holding public officials accountable for their actions.

What a novel thought.

[Virginia-American]

My brush was a bit broad.

[jwalsh07]

LOL, a novel constitutional approach to federalism and the notion of local control. But thoroughly consistent with statism.