Re: [asa] Brownback on evolution

On 6/3/07, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
> >much like 'teach the controversy' approach chosen by ID
>
> A cardboard cutout type of thinking. No, that didnt come from the ID
> movement. It came from a Supreme Court Justice in either a holding or a
> majority opinion. Discovery Institute merely echoed it as a compliant
> principle.

Actually the SC stated that

<quote>"teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of
humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear
secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science
instruction."</quote>

teach the controversy has a different though convergent history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

But the Discovery Institute is not even interested in teaching a
variety of scientific theories, certainly it seems reluctant to
introduce ID as a scientific alternative, even though such promises
were made, the inevitable fate of ID as a scientifically vacuous
concept has played itself out.

> But I don't for a microsecond believe PvM really cares about what the Court
> said, or what the constitution says. I myself really would prefer to quote

How do you know what I believe? Now that is a nice ad hominem approach indeed.

> all the language in a decision. Some random guys perceptions of what the
> decisions said are worse than mere hearsay. They don't mean anything. They
> aren't even an argument. But, one can't do justice to the subject in email.
> Its hard to believe this is one of asa's primary inter-member communication
> mechanisms.

Email is a far better forum than for instance a web page.

> If I put the entire case on the web and highlight the background of the
> language of the decision showing the requirement that controversy must be
> required to be taught, would that help? On what site would it go?

Wikipedia?

> There's nobody on either side who seems interested in that type of analysis
> anyway.
> As far as I can tell.

Self bias

> If one were to engage in that type of reasoned analysis, then probably a
> radical would come along and say "oh, someone wrote in 2005 that you said
> this and that...you must be a creationist with an agenda". I expected a
> more sedate approach from the asa people.

That broad brush again...
I'd suggest you present your argument to the best of your capabilities
and understanding to the reflector and we can determine how it matches
up with the facts of the case and other related and relevant issues.

Talkorigins has a good site on this issue

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 3 15:20:15 2007