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

Casey Luskin says the Discovery Institute suggested to the Dover Board
that ID not be taught- just the criticism of evolution be taught. I
asked Casey for a textbook, talking about Panda's, and he persuaded me
not to get Panda's, but instead the "Exploring Evolution" book which
only covers evolution criticism along with basic evolution.

The Discovery Institute doesn't suggest ID be taught in schools- from
their web:

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

(Notice they are not pushing ID at all for schools- since they don't
have a textbook for ID that they are proud of)

3. Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?

No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute
recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students
more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the
theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science
journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific
theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that
can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that
will benefit students, teachers, and parents.

This is what the DI is selling:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/videoAndCurriculum/

...Bernie

________________________________

From: Rich Blinne [mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 3:16 PM
To: David Opderbeck
Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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 18:39:18 2008