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

Bernie said: but instead the "Exploring Evolution" book which only covers
> evolution criticism along with basic evolution.

I respond: Well, I haven't read the book -- but it has a chapter
titled "A New Challenge" with the subtitle "Molecular Machines." I'm
pretty confident that's an ID chapter.

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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...
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.