Re: [asa] ID is not "scinece" because...

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is just a bad test. Philosophy is not science but there are plenty of
> philosophy texts. Law is not science but there are plenty of legal texts.
> Not having a text only proves you are not academic but there are plenty of
> academic disciplines that are not science. David's observation that even
> with their own friendly journal they publish nothing is much, much, more
> definitive. Please don't use this argument, use his.
>

One more thing. Cutting-edge science should not be in science texts because
it could be falsified. Again, if they were publishing in journals only and
not in texts that would qualify as science even if not quite yet ready to be
in a high-school-level text. In fact, not publishing in a text before
journals shows wisdom and proper circumspection (and keeping a promise made
by Philip Johnson). That they chose not to just shows how egregious ID
really is.

Bernie said:

"Exploring Evolution" doesn't teach ID, as far as I remember- I have a
> copy. As for "Pandas", I thought the Discovery Institute doesn't
> recommend that as a textbook? Casey Luskin told me that (he's with the
> Discovery Institute).

Then Casey lied to you. From Wikipedia on Pandas.

The FTE [http://www.fteonline.com/about.html] became involved in the Dover
> controversy when it became clear that Of Pandas and People would be a major
> focus of litigation. The foundation filed a motion to join the defending
> side in June 2005, arguing that a finding that intelligent design was
> religious would destroy FTE's ability to market its textbooks within the
> district, and affect its ability to market the textbooks to any public
> school in the United States.[41] Had the motion been granted, the FTE would
> have become a co-defendant with the Dover Area School Board, and able to
> bring its own lawyers and expert witnesses to the case. However, William A.
> Dembski, co-author of the new Pandas edition, and the Discovery Institute
> withdrew from the case. The Judge told the defendants: "To me it looks like
> Mr. Dembski was dropped as an expert because he didn't want to produce, or
> because his employer didn't want to produce the manuscript [on subpoena to
> the court] of The Design of Life." [42]
>
> In his decision on the motion, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that FTE was
> not entitled to intervene in the case because its motion to intervene was
> not timely, describing FTE's excuses for not trying to become involved
> earlier as "both unavailing and disingenuous". Judge Jones also held that
> FTE failed to demonstrate that it has "a significantly protectable interest
> in the litigation warranting intervention as a party" and that its interests
> will not be adequately represented by the defendants.
>
> While FTE did not become a party Jon A. Buell, the director of FTE
> testified on July 14, 2005 at the Dover Trial. Buell denied having known
> about actions of the Thomas More Law Center to which the Judge said it
> "strains credulity".[42]

Don't believe me that Panda's is considered an ID textbook by ID proponents?
Check here: http://www.fteonline.com/publications-video.html

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 6 18:17:18 2008