Re: [asa] The Definition of TE: Explicit versus implicit

George,

Since you are going off list I wanted to make sure I comment on your reply
before you leave. I was talking about a case where a state legislature
wrote a law that was evaluated by the US Supreme court. You are talking
about a case where a school board (consisting of rank amateurs) did
something stupid and it was dealt with by a district court.
They are two different situations.

Part of what gets lost is this: it is important to understand what the
high court use as principles by which to evaluate the actions of states.

As for the case your refer to, it needs to go to appeal so other relevant
principles can be applied. Until the question is asked, nobody can know
whether all the principles the high court will apply have been brought to
bear.

Thanks,
Dave C

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:44 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>wrote:

> Fine - give me a link to the cases or, (better) snip relevant
> portions. What I know about this is that the ID proponents who testified
> before the Ohio state board of education about the science standards said
> they weren't demanding that ID be taught but that they just wanted the
> "controversy" presented. The problem with that is that there is no *
> scientific* controversy about the reality of evolution. There are social,
> religious & political controversies which might be discussed in other
> classes but not in science. My own take is that "teach the controversy"
> (whatever its origins) means in practice raising enough doubt about
> evolution in the minds of students that they (and their parents) can be
> comfortable with learning about it for a test because they don't really have
> to believe it & can forget about it as soon as the class is over.
>
> & as far as disagreeing with the Supreme Court, this wouldn't be the 1st
> time for me.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm<http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> *To:* George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> *Cc:* Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca> ; asa <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2009 12:12 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] The Definition of TE: Explicit versus implicit
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:57 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>wrote:
>
>> 1st an addition to my earlier post on this thread. Another reason why
>> TEs who in particular are science educators to view YECs & IDers negatively
>> is that they're the ones most likely to interfere with the teaching of
>> science, today under the "teach the controversy" guise.
>>
>>
>> George,
>
> There are many things to talk about, but let me pick this and I'll try for
> brevity. What if I were to show you where the US Supreme Court created the
> criteria that states must teach the controversy? Because a state law
> didn't they struck it down, and this was part of the reasoning.
>
> So, I don't know for sure, but the guy who started DI, who was was
> working for the Reagan administration at the time...I suspect he saw this
> and said to himself "well, if the court is backing this idea then we ought
> to get in front of that and bang that drumbeat."
> So thats where this idea actually came from.
>
> If thats true then DI doesn't deserve your ire. The US Supreme Court
> does. Can you blame someone for wanting to follow the law?
>
> Do you know the court also reasoned that the state law should be struck
> down because it didn't properly accomplish the goal of teaching
> creationism? People say "oh, they struck down creationism". No, they
> didnt.
>
> You need to read the cases. They will blow your mind. This is where a wiki
> becomes a good tool because I could actually show you the case. Sadly, I too
> have too many projects and limited time.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave C
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 2 12:12:16 2009