RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Waterloo In Dover, Take 2< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4505
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,06:41   

Quote

Comment #50478

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on October 1, 2005 10:53 AM (e) (s)

Norman,

It must have been tough finding those resources, since you’d have had to read the “Program” sidebar to get them here. In other words, this page has linked to “the other side” all week long.


Quote

Comment #50483

Posted by Esteban Escalera on October 1, 2005 12:25 PM (e) (s)

Link: Darwinism

   wrote:

   This article is about Darwinism as a philosophical concept; see evolution for the page on biological evolution; modern evolutionary synthesis for neo-Darwinism; and also evolution (disambiguation).

It seems that darwinism and evolution aren’t synonymous. IDs are attacking darwinism or evolution theory?


Quote

Comment #50527

Posted by louis homer on October 1, 2005 08:10 PM (e) (s)

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the citizens of the Dover school district will be electing a new school board this November. If they elect a majority opposed to introducing ID in the schools, and that board reverses the present policy, where does that leave the court case? The plaintiffs are presumably satisfied. Does the case end there? Does the judge even have to issue a ruling? If the case is moot would higher courts even consider an appeal evem if the judge has issued a ruling?


Quote

Comment #50545

Posted by Harry Eaton on October 1, 2005 10:34 PM (e) (s)

There’s a good column on sfgate.com worth a read.


Quote

Comment #50558

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on October 2, 2005 12:53 AM (e) (s)

Whatever happens in the November election, the new board will not be seated until January, and if the trial ends around Nov. 1, presumably the judge will be able to write and issue his opinion in November or December.

However, I believe that as a matter of law, once a case is filed, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict even if the defendant reverses the policy. Otherwise you could have an infinite game of catch-and-mouse, where a case is filed, the policy is rescinded, the case goes away, the policy is put back up, etc…

The exception is if the two sides reach an agreement and sign what I think is called consent decree, e.g. “We’ll drop the policy permanently, if you drop the lawsuit.” This is fairly common in civil liberties suits, but it usually happens at the beginning of a case. In the case of Dover, however, it was clear since before the policy was passed that Buckingham, the other board members, and the Thomas More Law Center wanted to take the ID issue to court.

But remember, I Am Not a Lawyer…


Quote

Comment #50569

Posted by Norman Doering on October 2, 2005 03:43 AM (e) (s)

Wesley R. Elsberry “… you’d have had to read the “Program” sidebar to get them here. In other words, this page has linked to “the other side” all week long.”

Whoops — I tend not to read side bars. You can erase it if you want. And this.


Quote

Comment #50599

Posted by louis homer on October 2, 2005 11:26 AM (e) (s)



Quote

Comment #50558

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on October 2, 2005 12:53 AM (e) (s)

Whatever happens in the November election, the new board will not be seated until January, and if the trial ends around Nov. 1, presumably the judge will be able to write and issue his opinion in November or December.

However, I believe that as a matter of law, once a case is filed, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict even if the defendant reverses the policy. Otherwise you could have an infinite game of catch-and-mouse, where a case is filed, the policy is rescinded, the case goes away, the policy is put back up, etc…

The exception is if the two sides reach an agreement and sign what I think is called consent decree, e.g. “We’ll drop the policy permanently, if you drop the lawsuit.” This is fairly common in civil liberties suits, but it usually happens at the beginning of a case. In the case of Dover, however, it was clear since before the policy was passed that Buckingham, the other board members, and the Thomas More Law Center wanted to take the ID issue to court.

But remember, I Am Not a Lawyer…

So who would get to approve a consent decree? The new board, or the members of the old board?


Quote

Comment #50605

Posted by JS Narins on October 2, 2005 12:09 PM (e) (s)

NOTE ABOUT THE PRESS RELEASE:

Check out this witty verbiage:

“Design scientists have noted that any time we know the cause behind something full of information, intelligent design played a causal role.

“Intelligent design offers a good deal of positive evidence,” said Luskin. “Design scientists make standard experience-based arguments, appealing to what we know about information rich systems like books and software programs.” Luskin noted that every time we know the cause behind information rich systems, intelligent design played a causal role.”


Quote

Comment #50620

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on October 2, 2005 01:32 PM (e) (s)

   “Design scientists have noted that any time we know the cause behind something full of information, intelligent design played a causal role.

The ID folks are really pushing this line of “reasoning”, as it were. They’ve never responded to my dissection of their “uniform experience” or “marker of intelligent agency” argument. And the facts go opposite their desired conclusion: whenever people have attributed some biological feature to non-natural causation in the past, and we’ve learned more about that feature, a natural cause has become the accepted explanation for that feature. In other words, our “uniform experience” is that in every case where the DI’s “logic” has been used in the way they suggest, it has been wrong. One would think that would give them pause. But apparently, like the weird kid on the playground, they are too caught up in the fantasy they’ve constructed to note any intrusion of reality into that world.


Quote

Comment #50625

Posted by steve on October 2, 2005 03:13 PM (e) (s)

Where in those links are the uniform experience and marker of intelligent agency dissections?


Quote

Comment #50626

Posted by steve on October 2, 2005 03:14 PM (e) (s)

Or is it in the video?


Quote

Comment #50627

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on October 2, 2005 03:19 PM (e) (s)

I go over the reasons why the “marker of intelligent agency” argument is unsound in the video. My Powerpoint file is linked from this post.


Quote

Comment #50630

Posted by Jim Harrison on October 2, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)

I don’t know why Luskin keeps pushing his line: “Design scientists have noted that any time we know the cause behind something full of information, intelligent design played a causal role.” The premise is false: living things are full of information; and we have mountains of evidence that they weren’t designed.


Quote

Comment #50634

Posted by steve on October 2, 2005 03:46 PM (e) (s)

If Casey Ruxpin was a scientist, instead of a minister, he’d know statements like that are called “hand-waving”.


Quote

Comment #50640

Posted by steve on October 2, 2005 04:23 PM (e) (s)

Boy, don’t you have to feel sorry for the Discovery Institute? They spend like 17 years fitting this nice Intelligent Design sheep’s clothing on their creationism wolf, only to have a guy like Bill Buckingham jump on and ride it into town.

It makes me laugh and feel pity at the same time.


Quote

Comment #50642

Posted by bill on October 2, 2005 04:27 PM (e) (s)

Over at EvolutionNews.org, our Mr. Casey Luskin takes on the definition of Science itself. Picking at Dr. Pinnock’s testamony in Harrisburg last week, Luskin draws this conclusion.

At least, I think it’s a conclusion. Well, sort of. Maybe. I wonder if my State Farm agent qualifies?

   The main point of this section is that fundamental to ID theory is the observation that any agent with intelligence will solve problems in similar ways in all cases when designing physical objects. Be they natural or supernatural, intelligent agents are capable of thinking with the end in mind to select a complex arrangement of parts that conforms to a specific pattern to fulfill some function.

If this is the best the Discovery Institute can do, then I think we are witnessing a meltdown. They are one step short of quoting the Cowardly Lion: “I do believe in ghosts! I do, I do, I do!” Perhaps they’ll save that one for Kansas.


Quote

Comment #50645

Posted by steve on October 2, 2005 04:47 PM (e) (s)

Casey puts his hands in the air, and waves them like he just don’t care.


Quote

Comment #50647

Posted by steve on October 2, 2005 04:49 PM (e) (s)

Casey is at the Dover trial, you know. What I wouldn’t give to ask him, on the stand, the following three questions:

Do you run a club which promotes Intelligent Design Theory? (yes)
Can I join your club? (are you a christian?)
What’s being christian have to do with supporting Intelligent Design? (uh..well…uh…)


Quote

Comment #50649

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on October 2, 2005 05:53 PM (e) (s)

   Can I join your club? (are you a christian?)

You can join the IDEA Club, all right. You just can’t serve as an officer without flashing the True Christian ID card and giving the secret handshake.


Quote

Comment #50762

Posted by Jeff Durkin on October 3, 2005 11:45 AM (e) (s)

One of the amusing things about the DI “explanation” of how their “theory” works is that a) “every time we know the cause behind information rich systems, intelligent design played a causal role” and b) “Intelligent design theory does not claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause.”

So, ID has a very low applicable threshold (whenever “information content” reaches some arbitrary level - i.e., apparently whatever an individual IDer thinks is appropriate) but the actual causal mechanism of the observable phenomenon can’t be explained and isn’t even part of the “theory.”

Which, leads one to ask, what is the point of the “theory” even if we were to accept its premise? Admittedly, this would require sucking our brains out through our ears, but, once the slurping noises have stopped, we are left with a “theory” that, by the admission of its proponents, explains nothing.

What exactly is the purpose of saying “yep, that was designed by an intelligent entity” and following this by “but we can’t demonstrate how, we can’t devise experiments to prove or disprove any related hypothesis on the creative mechanism (because, there are no hypothesis to test) and the ultimate causal mechanism, the Creator/Creators/the FSM, isn’t even part of the “theory.” How can proponents of this “theory” find it satisfying without a religious/belief component?

Even on its own terms, ID is less satisfying than traditional Creationism. At least Creationists say that a God with specific characteristics created the universe for certain purposes (my favorite: God made man to give him “Glory”, making God out to be afflicted by a serious self-esteem issue). If the IDers are being honest (which I doubt), then they have essentially taken the attitude “s**t happens” as the basis for their view of the universe.

Seems pretty hollow, doesn’t it?


Quote

Comment #50826

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 3, 2005 07:02 PM (e) (s)

   Which, leads one to ask, what is the point of the “theory” even if we were to accept its premise?

“God exists”.

That is the only point that ID even ATTEMPTS to establish.


Quote

Comment #50836

Posted by Bob Maurus on October 3, 2005 07:24 PM (e) (s)

So, Casey “noted that every time we know the cause behind information rich systems, intelligent design played a causal role.”

That’s true, as far as he went. The precise and therefore more accurate observation is that every time we know the cause behind information rich systems human design played a causal role. Consequently, as Horatio’s Hypothesis proposes, the universe and all biological organisms are the result of human design.
Enough said?


Quote

Comment #50838

Posted by steve on October 3, 2005 07:43 PM (e) (s)

Yeah, i made a mistake of detail. Corrected version:

Casey is at the Dover trial, you know. What I wouldn’t give to ask him, on the stand, the following four questions:

Do you run a club which promotes Intelligent Design Theory? (yes)
Can I join your club? (sure)
Can I be an officer in your club? (are you a christian?)
What’s being christian have to do with leading the Intelligent Design movement? (uh..well…uh…)


Quote

Comment #50909

Posted by Gerard Harbison on October 4, 2005 10:38 AM (e) (s)

The Discovery Institute claims today that 85 ‘scientists’ have signed an amicus brief in the Dover trial in support of the contention “that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge.” Looks like the usual suspects (Skell, Carlson).

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.ph…

Maybe time to get an amicus brief from 500 scientists called Steve?


Quote

Comment #50915

Posted by Ken Willis on October 4, 2005 12:19 PM (e) (s)

Ed Brayton favorably quotes Bruce Gordon on when a new scientific theory is entitled to respectful debate:

   “….the theory has been prematurely drawn into discussions of public science education where it has no business making an appearance without broad recognition from the scientific community that it is making a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the natural world.”

I’m having trouble reconciling this and similar statements with what I think Kuhn said about the structure of scientific revolutions, and also knowing that the hypothesis that peptic ulcers could be treated with antibiotics was initially rejected out of hand by a broad consensus of scientists.

Maybe someone can help, I’m probably missing a qualitative distinction. If I were the judge in Kittsmiller I would want to understand this better.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  11 replies since Oct. 10 2005,06:41 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]