Ted wrote:
>>But Jones was presented with strong evidence that ID was deeply in bed
with
creationists--and that is a fact, pure and simple, a fact I have called to
the attention of my friends in ID for some time, without getting them to
alter their stance in any obvious way--and thus ID got transformed into
virtual creationism in Harrisburg. This is just one more example of my
axiom: In the politics of science, the politics drives the science. And
truth loses.
As I say, it remains to be seen whether or not Jones' decision is
interpreted this way by other courts. I hope it is not. My assumption
would be, that the older precedent will prevail when it comes to applying
Jones' ruling, and that a teacher with a legitimate secular purpose for
discussing ID can still do so. But I really don't have a lot of confidence
in this particular hope.
Ted<<
It sounds like future ID advocates will not only have to convice the courts
not only that they are no longer in bed with the special creationists, but
have broken off the affair, repented and been fully reconciled with their
true spouse, Science. How likely is that?
Louise
__
Louise M. Freeman, PhD
Psychology Dept
Mary Baldwin College
Staunton, VA 24401
540-887-7326
FAX 540-887-7121
Received on Wed Jan 11 09:08:19 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 11 2006 - 09:08:19 EST