I will add a comment on just one point that David Clounch made:
According to Nova, the defendants had never heard of ID when they
formulated their policy. It was the Thomas Moore Law Center who told them
about ID. Now, Thomas Moore may be totally wrongheaded. But I have
difficulty with the idea that the defendants could formed intent about ID
if they had never heard of it.
***
Ted comments:
The "Nova" episode, David, concluded (here) precisely what I had already concluded myself from hearing testimony in court, talking to well informed reporters outside of court, and talking to attorneys close to the case. I am virtually certain that a statement about ID was introduced to the Dover school board as an alternative to what some of the board originally wanted -- namely, creationism taught 50/50 with evolution, which is patently illegal (as their own solicitor told them).
I also have difficulty with the board voting for a statement, referencing something (ID) about which they were clueless, but that is exactly what happened. I've been making that point ever since the trial, in lecture I give called "Intelligent Design on Trial." I will probably do that one at next summer's ASA meeting in DC, incidentally: why not plan to attend?
Ted
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 24 11:01:46 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 24 2009 - 11:01:46 EDT