It's a religious thing!
Posted on 09/22/2005 6:53:07 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based nonprofit that describes itself as a "nonpartisan policy and research organization," recently issued a policy position against Dover in its upcoming court case.
John West, associate director of Discovery's Center for Science & Culture, calls the Dover policy "misguided" and "likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design."
Eleven parents filed a federal suit last December, about two months after the school board voted to include a statement about intelligent design in its ninth-grade biology classes.
Intelligent design says living things are so complicated they had to have been created by a higher being, that life is too complex to have developed through evolution as described by biologist Charles Darwin.
The parents, along with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union, said the board had religious motives for putting the policy in place.
The non-jury trial is expected to start in Harrisburg Sept. 26.
No surprise: The school board's attorney, Richard Thompson, said he isn't surprised the Discovery Institute has distanced itself from the school board's stance.
"I think it's a tactical decision they make on their own," said Thompson, top attorney with Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, a law firm that specializes in cases related to the religious freedom of Christians.
Though the Discovery Institute promotes the teaching of intelligent design, it has been critical of school boards that have implemented intelligent design policies, Thompson said.
Discovery Institute's Web site offers school board members a link to a video titled "How to Teach the Controversy Legally," referring to the organization's opinion that there is a controversy over the validity of the theory of evolution.
The video doesn't specifically mention teaching intelligent design.
But Discovery Institute is the leading organization touting intelligent design research and supporting the scientists and scholars who want to investigate it.
Dover is the only school district that Discovery has publicly spoken out against. West said that's because they mandated the policy. Discovery Institute supports teaching intelligent design, but not requiring it through a school board policy.
He said there are few proponents of intelligent design who support the stand Dover's board has taken because the district has required the reading of a statement that mentions intelligent design and directs students to an intelligent design textbook.
"They really did it on their own and that's unfortunate," West said.
The "bad policy" has given the ACLU a reason to try to "put a gag order" on intelligent design in its entirety, he said.
Discovery also spoke out against Pennsylvania legislators who wanted to give school boards the option of mandating the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution.
Avoiding politics: Teaching intelligent design is not unconstitutional, but the institute doesn't support the Dover school board's stand because it doesn't want intelligent design to become a political issue, said Casey Luskin, program officer in the Public Policy and Legal Affairs department at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
He said the Discovery Institute is "not trying to hinder their case in court," but the organization wants intelligent design to be debated by the scientific community, not school boards.
Lawyer: Won't hinder case: Thompson said the Discovery Institute's noninvolvement in the trial won't hinder Dover's case because "the judge is going to look at the policy ... not who is in favor of it on the outside."
But the institute has been a hindrance to the school district's attempts to find "scientific" witnesses to testify about intelligent design, Thompson said.
Though Discovery representatives said they have never been in support of Dover's policy, Thompson said the organization's unwillingness to get involved in the trial became evident after it insisted that some of its fellows -- who were lined up to testify -- have their own legal representation, instead of the Thomas More Center, which bills itself as "The Sword and Shield for People of Faith."
Some of the Discovery Institute's intelligent design supporters backed out of testifying, even after Thompson told them they could have their own legal representation if they wanted, Thompson said.
"It was very disappointing" that the institute would prevent its members from testifying, Thompson said.
But he still found some willing Discovery fellows to testify that intelligent design is not a religious movement: Michael Behe from Lehigh University and Scott Minnich from the University of Idaho.
West said Discovery fellow Charles Thaxton is also slated to testify.
Wow, an entire article based on a false anthropomorphic view of genes squeezed from a metaphor, something that Dawkins was afraid (and apparently knew)would happen. Dawkins in 'The Selfish Gene' was very clear to state that it was just a metaphor.
I think they should put it back into the Beta test phase, there are still far too many bugs in it.
Not quite, although it depends on what you mean by "original" - none of the known written versions are old enough to have been written by any actual eyewitnesses, but were written long after the fact. There is a papyrus fragment from the Gospel of John that dates pretty reliably to AD 125. Thomas dates to about 140, and interestingly, the remainder of the gospels date to around AD 200 or later. These are the oldest known written versions, of course - earlier written versions of all of them may yet be discovered, or may have been destroyed. The net result is that, for the moment, the provenance of Thomas is at least as good as the provenances of the rest.
If longshadow and PH keep fighting rather than worshiping, I'm sure there will be an opening for you any time now.
"In spite of the concept of irreducible complexity, the ID argument does not withstand rational criticism. The evolutionist may simply respond that an irreducibly complex organ could evolve through many non-functioning incarnations before arriving at a functioning one.
[emphasis mine]
It is a good article but I wish they would have used a different explanation for the development of what Behe considers irreducible. Nonfunctional features really aren't an explanation for how complex features could evolve and there will be creationists who jump on it. What they should have said is that as the feature changed its function(s) may have been reduced, modified or even completely different.
I wasn't really thinking of the first draft in the author's hand. I was merely thinking of an original as a complete document from a time prior to the official creation of the Bible (New Testament). From what you have shown me, Thomas is just about the only such document.
That's the general description of what happens. Functional bits combine serendipitously to acquire new functions.
Well, if you assume that the Coptic version of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi is, in fact, "complete", then it predates any other version by far - the oldest complete versions of the rest date to about the mid-300s, except for Luke which dates to the 5'th century or so, although much older fragments of all four are known.
Thanks. I'm glad my knowledge of evolution is not just all hot air. ;->
Mostly complete.
Define "mostly" ;)
Assuming this is a serious discussion, I would say that a document of at least several complete pages is more valuable than a fragment of one page.
My only point is that, aside from the Dead Sea Scrolls, most of the Bible texts are copies dating back only to the 8th century or so.
It's just interesting finding old documents that were excluded from the Bible. You have to wonder why.
It's just interesting finding old documents that were excluded from the Bible. You have to wonder why.
Politics, mostly. Many of the Apocrypha are gnostic in nature, and gnosticism has pretty much been considered heresy from the get-go.
Sort of like the rift between fresh and dried.
Damn! I killed it!
Prime coming up ...
Oh well ... why not?
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.