RE: [asa] ID is not "science" because...("The Design of Life")

Well- thanks to Wikipedia I found out about the new edition of Panda's
(renamed, Nov. 2007) and I ordered it thru Amazon so I can be familiar
with it. Still, why doesn't the Discovery Institute recommend the book
for teaching ID? Isn't the silence deaf-ening?

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Donald F Calbreath
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:53 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] ID is not "science" because...("The Design of Life")

I would be very reluctant to use Wikipedia as a source of information.
There is some fairly good evidence to suggest that the material provided
(especially with regard to ID and related fields) is not reliable. When
needed corrections are made, someone seems to take it upon themselves to
delete the corrections and change things back. Similar things have
happened to people who have a different read on global warming according
to the article referenced below. One science writer has tried for years
to get her correct first name changed, but somebody keeps changing it
back. My daughter the librarian (M.S. in Library and Information
Science from the University of Washington) gets very sarcastic when
people cite Wikipedia as a reference - it's certainly not a source sh
considers valuable .

Wikipedia's zealots
The thought police at the supposedly independent site are fervently
enforcing the climate orthodoxy
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Saturday, April 12, 2008
\
Don

________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf
Of Dehler, Bernie [bernie.dehler@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:38 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] ID is not "science" because...("The Design of Life")

More about Panda's and ID, from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

Editions

There are currently two editions of the book, the 1989 first edition
edited by Charles Thaxton, and the 1993 second edition, which included a
"Note to Teachers" by Mark D. Hartwig and Stephen C. Meyer. A
forthcoming third edition is to be retitled The Design of Life. Jon
Buell, the president of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, said that
the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that intelligent
design was religious would make the textbook "radioactive" in public
schools and would be "catastrophic" for the marketability of both the
present (second) edition and the forthcoming third edition, citing
possible losses of around US$500,000. The renaming of the book is viewed
by some as way of mitigating this and at the same time distancing the
book from past controversy.

And then...

2007 The Design of Life

Main article: The Design of Life

The third edition of Of Pandas and People, retitled The Design of Life,
was released November 19, 2007. It was authored by William A. Dembski
and Jonathan Wells. A 2004 announcement from publisher Foundation for
Thought and Ethics listed the authors as: Michael J. Behe, Percival
Davis, Dean H. Kenyon, Dembski, and Wells. In testimony in the 2005
Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Behe stated that he was not at that time an
author of The Design of Life[46].

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Life

The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological
Systems is the third edition of a
controversial<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_book> college
and university-level biology<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology>
textbook<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textbook> that espouses the idea
of intelligent design<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>
by presenting various arguments against the scientific
theory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory> of
evolution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>.[1]<http://en.wikipedi
a.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Life#cite_note-0#cite_note-0> It has a title
similar to that of a well-known biology text, first published by Yale
University Press<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University_Press> in
1987.[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Life#cite_note-1#cit
e_note-1>

But why doesn't the Discovery Institute sell and recommend this book???

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----

From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:21 AM

To: Dehler, Bernie

Cc: asa@calvin.edu

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

They now have the "Son of Pandas" aka Explore Evolution. Equally

poorly written but with more careful chosen text although much of it

still points back to creationist arguments.

While the DI publicly claims that it does not support the teaching of

ID, it obviously is sending conflicting messages.

Since ID is purely negative anyway, arguments against Darwinian theory

are nothing more that ID in disguise.

Let's not fool ourselves to believe otherwise.

Pim

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
wrote:

> "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).

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]

> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:46 PM

> To: Dehler, Bernie

> Cc: asa@calvin.edu

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

>

> Yes there is; it's called "Explore Evolution":

> http://www.discovery.org/a/4096

>

> Before that you of course had "Of Pandas and People."

>

> Before anyone lambastes me, I'm just pointing out that there is a

> textbook, not arguing for its merits (or demerits) or suggesting that

> ID is "science," which I think is in any event a pointless
discussion.

>

> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Dehler, Bernie
<bernie.dehler@intel.com>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > One piece of evidence that "ID is not science" is that there exists
no

> > textbook for it. The Discovery Institute could make a textbook if

> they

> > wanted- but they don't. And if they did, you know the attention
and

> > critique it would get-so this proves it is not ready as a science.

> > Therefore- how could it be taught in schools, if there's no
textbook

> for it

> > ???

>

>

>

> --

> 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.

>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 7 13:10:14 2008