ID Debate at Harvard Law School: Wexler vs. Beckwith
Hiero5ant
University School of Law between Discovery Institute Fellow Francis Beckwith
and Boston University School of Law Professor Jay Wexler, sponsored by the
Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society. What follows is a summary of the
event based on hastily-scribbled notes and recollections; almost all
"quotes" are in fact my best attempts at paraphrase, and I invite and
implore anyone else who attended the event to supplement or correct my
account.
Professor Beckwith began with a definition of ID as a "research program
regarding the actions of some intelligent agency as being responsible for
some physical system or possibly the universe as a whole, along with a
critique of naturalism." [i.e. "something, somewhere, somehow for some
reason is wrong with some part of some science."] He referred to
"materialism" as the "prime target" of this critique, and argued that it is
in fact the burden of scientists to provide *positive* refutations of
non-naturalistic theories, rather than dismissing them a priori. At this
point, he had not yet acknowledged any distinction between methodological
and metaphysical naturalism.
He then proceeded to briefly enumerate some of the extant philosophical
critiques of naturalism, and mentioned that Ken Miller's support of the idea
that God created the laws which gave rise to life has in fact once gotten
him labeled by [someone] as a "fine-tuning creationist".
He then moved on to a history of the last few decades of the evolution of
creationist legal strategy, from Epperson through McClean through Edwards,
and appeared to agree that the YEC statutes in question were clearly
unconstitutional, but had reservations about the reasoning used by the
courts to arrive at that determination, especially the requirement of a
"clear secular intent".
At one point he more or less explicitly equated "intelligent" with
"non/supernatural" by definition.
He closed with language reminiscent of his earlier Legal Times article
(http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/LegalTimes.htm, see
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000776.html for a critique) WRT
creationists being in a "catch-22" because of the unusual burden placed on
persons who happen to have religious motivations attempting to pass
legislation that would otherwise be found to have a legitimate secular
purpose.
In Professor Wexler's opening comments, he pointed out that the
Establishment Clause does not forbid the teaching of something just because
it happens to be extremely *bad* science. He also pointed out that U.S.
courts have yet to develop a "demarcation criterion" for what is and is not
a religion for the purposes of 1st Amendment law, and proposed a test along
the lines of the way courts currently ascertain whether a given civil suit
"sounds in tort" or "sounds in contract" - a practice is religious for the
purpose of the law not dependent on whether it is part of a "complete
worldview" or whether it involves supernaturalism, but on whether it "sounds
in religion". The proposed test would be whether a reasonable person, aware
of the facts and background of the case, would consider the issue to be a
religious one.
In the case of ID, as he has documented thoroughly in a previous law review
article, the connections between the current crop of ID creationism and the
YEC predecessors of the 80s is sufficiently clear to establish that ID
"sounds in religion".
For him, the three factors weighing against the constitutionality of
teaching ID in schools *even* *if* ID was scientifically reasonable were 1)
the fact that it seems highly irregular compared to how science is normally
taught (we don't normally start to teach things in high school when only a
small minority of scientists believe them), 2) there does not seem to be any
good material or textbooks suitable for teaching ID, and 3) there does not
seem to be a way at present to teach it "objectively" and without
unnecessary entanglement with religious issues.
For Beckwith's second statement, he attempted to relativize the importance
of peer review by pointing out that the amount of intellectual scrutiny is
actually on a continuum between "hard science", "soft science", philosophy
journals, and other forms of journals, and ventured that at least in his
view the peer-review process which philosophical and theological arguments
for ID have undergone in philosophy journals should "count" as much as
scientific publication.
He also rebutted the "no peer-reviewed papers" charge by citing an article
in J.Mol.Bio., by DI fellow Axe, and mentioned that he had a list of 10 or
15 other articles supportive of ID theory, although I hasten to add that I
cannot recall the exact phraseology in which he expressed exactly how
strongly these were supportive, or what they were supportive of. While I
did not catch a title, I suspect it may have been 'Extreme functional
sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors.' J Mol
Biol. 2000 Aug 18;301(3):585-95. [Note: after the talk he explained that the
list had actually been given to him by one William Dembski; I am currently
in the process of obtaining this list. If this was indeed the article he was
referring to, it seems he may have been an unwitting victim of the "DI noise
machine" and the tendency to disseminate false or misleading information by
citing one another round-robin, without ever attempting to verify the
accuracy of the citation. For more on Dembski's shenanigans with this
particular paper, see http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000614.html .]
He said he had been asked to testify as an expert witness in favor of the
school district in the current controversy in Dover, PA, but turned it down.
[Afterwards, I asked him what it was Dover would have had to have done
differently in order to overcome his reluctance to testify that he believed
it was in fact constitutional. He replied that his reason was one of policy,
not law: he believed that teaching ID in schools is simply a bad idea. He
also mentioned that other DI personnel had reservations about Dover,
although I inferred that their reasons were more strategic than
pedagogical.]
He again appeared to equate science itself with the doctrine of ontological
materialism. Still no distinctions made between materialism, ontological
naturalism, and methodological naturalism.
On his second round, Wexler raised the intriguing constitutional question of
what would occur if a given religious doctrine such as reincarnation or ID
became incontrovertibly true, or at least highly plausible scientifically.
There is no easy legal answer for this.
Question and answer period followed. The first questioner informed the
audience about Project Steve, pointed out Beckwith's association with the
DI, and specifically denounced its funding by Christian Reconstructionist
Howard Ahmanson. He asked how Beckwith could have uttered some of the
sillier factual inaccuracies WRT ID's "scientific" claims in his opening
speech and "still keep a straight face". Beckwith responded that he knew
Ahmanson personally, said that he had renounced some or all of his previous
Reconstructionist views, and decried the argument of guilt by association.
At this point, the exchange became quite heated, and in my personal judgment
the questioner was needlessly hostile, frequently interrupting Beckwith,
monopolizing the room's floor time, and generally being obnoxious. The
honorable moderator did his level best to try to steer the conversation to
the next questioner, but several students actually stood up and left at this
point. While I sympathize and even empathize with the questioner's disdain
for creationists' intellectual sloppiness and contempt for the odious
political views underlying them, this was supposed to be a scholarly and
collegiate exchange on the jurisprudence of a particularly nuanced
church-state separation issue, not a debate on the (lack of) substantive
merits of ID creationism. What was supposed to have the decorum of a
colloquium of law at Harvard briefly turned into a tawdry internet chat-room
flame-circus. Without exception, the students I spoke with after the debate
remained unconvinced by Beckwith's position, but were embarrassed by the
belligerence of this one Lone Ranger in the audience.
One questioner was an attorney with a philosophy background, and inquired as
to why ID proponents didn't attempt to argue for a more Aristotelian
teleology, which incorporates ideas such as souls, purpose, and a Prime
Mover but which is distinct from the theological baggage of evangelical
Christianity. Beckwith referred back to his article 'Explanatory Power of
the Substance View of Persons' as an example of this, and also mentioned
Searle as a philosopher of mind who was trying to move away from a strictly
mechanistic account. The questioner responded that she asked this because as
it stands it was "disingenuous to separate the religious issues" in this
debate, and that ID is clearly religious.
One questioner expressed concern about Professor Wexler's argument against
the constitutionality of teaching ID by asserting that he was simply
committing the genetic fallacy, unfairly discriminating against the
possibility of ID because of the cultural and legal background from which it
arose. He responded essentially that there needs to be some test to keep
religion separate, and that under his proposed interpretation of the
endorsement test, a reasonable person would still understand that ID was
religious in nature, and so in order to be acceptable IDC's would have to
make a stronger showing of an independent secular purpose.
When I was called on, I submitted that there may be a "catch-22" for ID
advocates, but that Beckwith had identified it upside-down. I pointed out
that he seemed to have a lack of legal principle, because when ID is trying
to *win*, they claim that they are secular for the purposes of the 1st
Amendment, but when they *lose* (as they did in Cobb County), Beckwith and
others claim that they are victims of "religious discrimination". I
suggested that the way for ID to overcome its legal troubles was the same
way for it to overcome its scientific deficiencies: develop a *positive*,
testable theory of ID, initiate the research program, perform experiments,
and create a body of published work in (real) peer-reviewed journals. If
they did this, their "secular purpose" problems would evaporate instantly.
[Because I was listening to his response, I was not able to write much of it
down, except for his statement that he objected to the reasoning in the Cobb
County disclaimers case even though he agreed with the result.]
I think the most salient conclusions I can draw from the evening are as
follows: 1) DI speakers continue to overstate the existence of any positive
ID theory whatsoever, offering as a substitute a series of (mostly refuted)
criticisms of this or that part of science, while undervaluing the need for
peer-review, 2) even DI legal scholars (who, let's face it, are what the
Wedge Strategy is really all about) think that teaching ID in schools is a
bad idea, 3) absolutely no one in the audience really believes that ID is
anything other than creationism in a cheap tuxedo, 4) the temptation for ID
opponents to turn into mirror-images of the fundie who came to Dembski's
debate and said "Why do you hate Christ?" is real, is strong, and should be
resisted (come on people, a little basic tact please), 5) Professors Wexler
and Beckwith are charming, outgoing people, and the Federalist Society of
the Harvard Law School is staffed with first-rate folks (even though their
views on the Constitution seem bloody loony to me at times).
rick_...@hotmail.com
Well it is nice to see intelligent people discussing the issue. Well
talking about it at any rate.
Take a moment, and consider, that all religious dogma, has been
embellished and is not in accordance with the truth.
Then consider also, that all scientific dogma, the current for
consumption scientific world view, is also based on half-truths and
flat out lies.
Then you see what an epidemic the world faces today.
No truth, and no order.
The scientific community could make a difference, but where is its
voice?
The popular press? Sorry, you won't find the truth in the popular
press.
So what you end up with is too much noise. Too much information of an
erroneous spurious nature, designed to obscure what little truth there
is out there.
Go ahead, write another book. What will that accomplish? Nothing.
Before you can even begin, to include those things which are not
empirical, not reproducible, you need to bring forward the truth of
what is the reality based on scientific study. But you can't even do
that.
Something like this.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/clem2nd/slide_26.html
This has to tell you something very profound about this earth we live
in.
It is managed by powers that are not of this earth. Peiple can and are
puppetted to maintain the present world view and it is not something
they have control over. So it is fruitless to try and change the system
unless those in power, change the system.
It's an S2 world. A world where the leadership has certain beliefs and
they are not prepared to change the system. If they could they would
automate it, and then leave. They could care less about the occupants
of this planet, they are mere stweards of a selfish violent species and
they know they cannot change their nature, they need to be under strict
controls.
What they are taught, what they are told, must all be controlled, so
they may be controlled.
This planet was on the brink of all out nuclear war. It is always, just
one step away from disaster. It is beyond salvaging already.
Three types of civilizations here. S1, S2, and S3.
The s1 - native pop, being continuously victimized by the S2.
The S2, would kill off each other even given half a chance as they are
too competitive and have no scruples. So the population must be divided
into strict family units, and then they must be controlled almost
completely. Drugged, and brainwashed daily.
The S3, are not going to conquer the S2s because they are passive.
So it will be an S2 world, and it will self destruct. If you have 30
years, I would be very surprised.
If you could segregate, the S1a, and give them some land, and segregate
the S2s and give them some land, and segregate the S3s and give them
some land you might stand a chance. But the S2s would soon try and
conquer the S1s, or still destroy the planet with pollution or
whatever.
The S2s, are in the scemem of things universlly, an endangered species.
As you might imagine.
It takes eons of spiritual evolution to make an S2 into an S3. People
reincarnate thousands and thousands of times before they mature into an
S3. And the S3s are not plentiful let me tell you. Not many S2s make
it.
rick_...@hotmail.com
If you consider what popular science tells you about the search for
life in the universe, they are looking for a civilization like one on
earth, that uses radio waves and television and so they look out there
with their giant arrays of antennae and find nothing.
They don't make it. They blow themselves up or kill themselves off with
pollution or biowarfare or nuclear radiation or some such because they
have the technology and not the capacity to live together. They kill
each other off.
A rudimentary civiliaztion, living like natives will survive. They will
live according to nature and live a very long time with nature.
Man did not just one day here, get the notion of writing, organized
religion, law, money and industry.
Look at the pigmies or any other race that lives in the jungle, they
did not evolve . Unless you get outside information, you just won't
advance period.
If it is not within your scope of knowledge you can not imagine
something into existence.
Case in point. And this has been tried. Can you imagine something more
beautiful in the heavens, a more beautiful race, or more beautiful
women, than exist on earth?
Whenever they try to do that, like in Star Wars, they just put hats on
them, do their hair differently and no they cannot.
This is what they came up with when they tried last time.
http://www.pearl-jam.com/starwars/episode1/queen02.jpg
Information is available regarding this civilization, and the types of
people, and their behaviour patterns. It has been studied.
Presently there are three distinct races of man here.
The ones in the middle, are the ones in power, and they are militant,
self destructive, and not happy pleasant people at all.
Why is that?
They are too competitive. And that competitive nature is encouraged by
the system.
They are taught to win, to conquer, to lie cheat and steal if
neccessary, but win.
And for what exactly? To cram as much living in 75 years as you can.
I am 187,000 years old.
Lots of people are very old. Their spirit lives on reicncarnating time
after time, but for an S2, you get one shot at life and then its
pushing up daisies.
They don't even bother to research reincarnation, they block it out.
Anything that in any way detracts from their will to power, is blocked
out, suppressed , ignored.
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=proof+of+reincarnation&btnG=Google+Search
Proof of reincarnation 144,000 results.
The people who manage this world, just really want the S2s to die off.
As soon as possible please if you will.
If it wasn't for the S3s here, that would have happened several years
ago, probably around the time of the Bay of Pigs.
rick_...@hotmail.com
You have what amounts to a state government, in charge of this planet,
with the Federal government, having intervened to keep them from
killing themselves off.
The state government, is claiming jurisdiction.
The federal government has thus far allowed them to continue, and has
assisted them covertly.
The state government has no plan for survival at all, but expects to
try and keep this world in a holding pattern, dealing with any
situation which might arise with a bandaid solution, and somehow
contain the people by force and programming, and drugs and fear
tactics.
The people themselves, are not happy. They are enslaved. They work
their lives away for brightly colored trinkets and their relationships
are hell.
They must tune into a laugh track, and drink, and take drugs, just to
continue day to day. Many just kill themselves.
My guess is that S3s will no longer reicarnate here, and you will end
up with S2s from all over everywhere, the dregs of the universe,
because why would nice people, come to a bad place which is
totalitarian? They wouldn't. Neither would they be sent here.
Is there a real practical solution to this mess? Can you change the
system to change the society and make the S2s happy?
You could easily do that.
You could change the way money is used for instance. You could make
money a purely individual thing. You cannot transfer money at all to
another person. When a person dies their money goes to the state. That
would make things more fair.
That would mean that those who were the best, who did on a level
playing field accumulate wealth, would rise to the top and you would
have some structure, some order. In an S2 world.
It is this silly notion of seeing people below you suffering, that
makes one feel better than thou, which prevents the most common sense
things from occurring.
Like free food and shelter for the masses. How difficult is that to
accomplish?
In a couple years, hydroponic facilities could be built which could be
automated even to provide more food than North America needed for ever.
The people could cooperate to build huge complexes to house the people
and there would be no need to labor like people do today for nothing.
You see how bad your leadership is, that they cannot even see the
necessity of this.
How simple a thing as this would be fought against, tooth and cllaw.
Why?
Because they want you dead.
Fencingsax
Off topic crazy cut and paste raving.
rick_...@hotmail.com
Firstly, you don't let them know, they are being observed by a higher
power.
You hide the fact that God exists that galactic government exists, that
universal government exists.
So then they are free to exhibit their natural behaviour.
So what is their natural behaviour?
To conquer the weak, and excuse their behaviour with such things as
natural selection after first stacking the deck in their favor.
As an example flying into Iraq with a superpower, against unarmed
Iraqis and expressing great glee when dropping the mother of all bombs
and etc.
Fabricating stories about WMD to justify it, fooling no one, but stiill
the S2s don;t care, they want their oil. They want to conquer, and they
don't want a fair fight, they want to conquer helpless people.
The S2s get their greatest feelings of worth, from the admiration of
others.
If they can get someone to envy them, they feel they have won.
Keeping up with the Joneses and all that. Rising through the ranks.
Climbing that corparate ladder, succeeding. Making it to the top.
The top of what exactly? The top of the sh*t pile thats what.
So of course everyone cheers, when an S2 world blows up. It makes good
for entertainment in the cosmos.
Take a place like this where right off the bat a long time ago someone
broke the law and caused a clash of civilizations and it becomes an
arena. A place where it doesn't really matter what the heck happens,
this place is doomed.
Supervolcanos, and all that wonderful stuff. Probably just around the
corner, because the people here are for the most part, the kind that
people out there, like to watch die in great numbers.
Because S2s would do it even to each other, to get ahead. And they
would do it to those out there, if they weren't destroyed were they
sit. In worlds like this one.
And you know you would. Given a chance, you would do to people out
there just what you did to the native americans, and what you do every
day to each other.
So is there a solution?
Yes, you die and thats the end of the problem.
You can't say solutions aren't available. They are.
You don't want solutions, you want to kill people and win.
Sorry you are not very big. As ant colonies go, you are destined to be
just a little smudge in the strata.
And no one will miss you when you're gone.
Thats why you don't know about God, or anything out there. Then you
might not exhibit your true nature, you might get out there and in time
reek havoc in the universe.
Like any desease plague or miscreation, you need to be contained,
disarmed, then anhilated. And you will even do it all by yourselves
without outside interference.
No one out there, not the universal or federal governmening body will
do anything but watch it happen. Call it natural selection if you will.
That one you know about.
No ultimatum will be given, no saviour will call. You are on your own.
I'm betting you are not going to make it, because I know the people in
charge intimately and like I say, they do not seem to have the will to
do anything but more of the same.
Look at it realistically. The only superpower in the world, is
Christian. What does Christian dogma say will happen? Destruction.
Almost total and complete destruction, that is what you are aspiring to
as part of your faith and belief system.
Start with the assumption you are going to all get destroyed and then
go!.
Who does the destroying? God of course. He must smite the wicked ones.
Those over there. Hey lets not wait, lets go kill them ourselves. Thats
you all the time.
So no wonder it is an S2 world. You have conquered it.
Your turn is no doubt just around the corner.
Marc Carter
> Wow. That's a lot of crazy cut and Paste raving.
>
> Off topic crazy cut and paste raving.
Meanwhile, I'd like to thank Hiero5ant for a nice summary.
Thanks!
A comment on the Lone Ranger: it's really important that, as mad as we are
and as tired of this crap as we are, we have to keep cool. This is why
I'm really happy about the boycott of the Kansas kangaroo court.
m
rick_...@hotmail.com
that the leadership of the planet will bother to take the steps
necessary.
Because fundamentally, they like to see people in bad situations.
They watch, they observe and they like to see things like this.
Chaotic, struggling, breaking of rules, cops and robbers, they are
voyeurs.
You are their entertainment.
Just like you watch TV and movies for entertainment, they watch you for
entertainment.
So they don't want you to fix things, and cooperate and live in
harmony, they like to see things as they are.
And I am not talking about the human leadership. Those leaders are
selected who will obey. Those who are easily manipulated, are selected
as leaders.
And I am not speaking about the aristocracy either. They are just more
entertainment.
Above them, are the ones who actually rule you.
They are the equivalent of a state or provincial government.
In three years at most, you could build hydroponic facilities and
provide food.
You could build huge solid large complexes to house everyone.
But then where is the envy factor? Where is this dreal need to say you
are better than other people? Where would this be fullfilled? This need
you have to wiun against your neigbor? For them to admire your things.
You need to be admonished over other people simply by obtaining money.
No admonishment for being the best at anything, just the best at being
willing to do whatever is necessary to win, and not get caught.
As if that was real survival. Survival amongst a horde of coniving rats
perhaps, but they probably have better social structures because they
simply bite each other and the toughest wins, but they all have the
same tooth and claw weapons.
Here, you have a game in progress. You see your leadership, doesn't
live just 75 years, they live and live and live and follow a family
tree and have their favorites and that is why they don't want equality.
The game is in progress and has been for years and years. You live and
die like roman candles but they just keep playing you.
How interesting wold their game be, if you didn;t struggle against each
other, fight and die, and break rules and all that?
It would be like a made for TV right wing movie without guns or sex.
Boring as hell for them, as voyeurs.
And what sort of character do they have?
Their character is S2. They will not stop, until you put a gun to their
head, they will not stop. They want to win and will not stop, will not
listen to reason they hear everything from everyone all day there is
too much noisem, they will not stop, they know only one thing, they
understand one thing only, might is right. To stop them, you must use
force.
No one has bothered to do that because they always cry totalitarianism.
They cry that they themselves are being denied their freedom. They cry
that the federal or in this case the universal government is infringing
on their right to self determination. They cry that the federal
government is being totalitarian by forcing them to adhere to their
ways.
Silly isn't it?
If it really mattered I suppose the universal government would change
the system, and force them to comply. ntil they do, you are the victims
in this. Living your lives in this chaotic game.
Is it karma per chance? The fact that you make some bad decisions and
then you become a better player, because you make the game more
interesting in the process for the voyeurs.
So what sort of level playing field could there possibly be, in a world
where three civilizations, all with varying degrees of personal karma,
could be considered equal or be treated in a visibly fair way?
Only one like this, which all bullsh*t, and unfair on the scale of
single life.
Because it is not your game. This game of karma.
It is the game of the voyeurs. You are just the men and women in play.
rick_...@hotmail.com
tabloid stuff?
S2s are herd animals. That much should be obvious, so they focus on the
alpha males and alpha females.
They are encouraged to do that, along with all other herd behaviours
such as follow the leader.
They get their thinking orders from authority.
They are taught to trust in authority.
They believe in safety in numbers.
Individually they are complete cowards and that is promoted. Try and be
an individual and you will soon find yourselves at odds with the herd.
Herd management is much easier than trying to manage a bunch of stray
sheep or cattle wandering around doing their own thing.
Keep the herd together.
Everyone do this, now everyone do that. Wear this now, wear that now.
The cool kids are doing this, everyone, do this. Simon says wear your
hair short. Simon says wear your hair long. Simon says show your knees.
Simon says, don't show you knees.
Herd mentality and not programmed behaviour. It is natural behaviour.
People wish it was programmed behaviour because then you could alter
the programming of the S2s and make them happier.
Whats a happy S2?
One who just got a haircut, a new suit, a promotion, a new car, a good
dinner,
won an award, is married to a beauty queen, and just got thebj to end
all bjs.
S2 heaven. lol
While his neighbors were watching and saying things like, "That lucky
bastard"
Whats a good day for an S1 in Africa? "Look ! I found an aspirin in
this food packet!"
Whats a good day for an S3?
Almost every day, is a good day, for an S3, as long as they feel loved,
and can give love, and are not cold or hungry.
Sitting drinking coffee, having a smoke, talking about the stupid S2s,
that's right up there for most S3s.
Its not the S3s, who keep the S2s in their position. It is the S2s in
authority, who keep the other S2s down.
They off the S1s without conscience seeing them as lower forms of life.
They disperse the S3s into the mix of society as a type of human
shielding, hoping tthey will shoulder some of the blame. They also fear
they will organize and unseat the S2 leadership, and fill people's
heads with non herd notions about individuality, making the herd
difficult to manage.
S2 leadership bases all its behaviours, on misconceptions.
It has beliefs. Those beliefs long since proven false, that is
irrelevant. They can only believe that which is within their own world
view.
The empirical world view. That which man controls. Reproducibility by
man.
Those assumptions that are made then become fact for the S2, and in
that way, their behaviors, are limited to S2 things, and they use that
which is under their control, to manage the herd.
Do you think when an S2 gets to the top of the ladder, one of the very
first things he is told, is the truth about some things, and then he is
instructed that the herd must not find out?
That much should be obvious.
Why else would the American government have so much security and black
ink?
Think about it. Everything that the leadership engages in, must be
covered up in black ink. What does that tell you about the leadership?
They are not doing things the people would like to hear or know about.
What a silly place this is.
rick_...@hotmail.com
- you do away with hard currency, and replace it with a smart card.
No money can change hands, only goods and services can be bought and
sold.
When a person dies, his wealth, all of it, including property goes back
to the state.
When a person is born, they recieve an amount of cash. Then at 16 a
second amount.
at 21 a third amount. What they do with it, is up to them.
Education is free, the Internet is fixed, and a proper body built to
govern it, and proper ligitmate scientific panel set up to organize one
portion of it, as a library.
You will need a licence to be on the main Internet.
You will need ID and if you abuse the system, you can be barred from
using it for a length of time. You must use your own name. You must be
identifiable.
The second Internet, is the free for all place where the dregs can do
whatever they want.
The state provides free food and shelter. Huge hydroponic facilities,
basic needs are met. Large complexes built for free housing, no taxes
are paid on food or shelter, they are free. Heat and hydro, free.
In every city, electric cars are mass produced and are available
charging for use within the city. You merely grab one, and ride it to
wherever. Leave it, and someone else can use it. You park, plug it in,
and someone comes along and grabs the next one in line.
Public transport free.
Cars and trucks, outside of the city. Not permitted inside the city.
Free health care.
That is all it would take to make people happy.
Then you can still have your capitalist system, but you would not have
such competition for basic needs which leads to so much dissastifaction
in society.
You have rediculous amounts of wealth in one spot, and starving people
in another, and that is because you really don't care what happens to
people.
So think about that when disaster strikes and no one comes to your
aid. Why should anyone care what happens to you, when you don't care
what happens to others?
Homer Sapiens
disruption). Much like the way this post has started off. Thanks to
Hiero5ant for keeping us informed
Hey, rick_so...@hotmail.com...Way too much caffiene. pal! Oh yeah, and
just because one may suffer from paranoia doesn't mean that someone
really isn't out to get you! Remember don't sweat the small stuff and,
alas, it is but all small stuff. And, hey, before you get me wrong I
have no doubt that you are 187,000 years old. Hell, it must have taken
you almost that long to write these posts.
"Don't think once...
Don't think twice...
Just pull down your pants
And slide on the ice"
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I.e., ID is nothing but a religious apologetic, and he wants to do
exactly what the Supreme Court has already ruled he CANNOT do --- he
wants to teach his religious opinions as "science".
<sigh> IDers seem to have a martyr complex a mile wide. There is no
other explanation for their cheerful enthusiasm to undermine their own
court case in public. They *must* WANT to lose.
<snip rest>
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
rick_...@hotmail.com
We want this level of competition to exist and we want this level of
strife to exist because everyone has the opportunity to better
themselves here in North America, and the systems work s the way it is.
It works for 1% of the population and you are on a self destruct
course. You have budget deficit that is untennable. You have a level of
pollution that makes the quality of life miserable, and you are
overworked, and your housing prices are out of reach, and your stress
level causing people to be sick, and in therapy, on drugs and alchohol
dependant, and living under a type of totalitarian rule.
You have a divorce rate of probably 60%, you have every sort of social
ill and if you have an outbreak of desease, it will prbably start in
the poorer slums and desease management is not effective if youdon't
raise up the lowest living conditions.
But chances are, you will wait, until it is too late to do anything and
that is because as I stated, the only way, to get your leadership to do
anything, is to put a gun to their heads.
Otherwise they won't do anything.
Even if you change government, and vote in another party, the herd does
not handle change well. They are easily frieghtened skiddish creatures.
So you may have noticed all parties are almost the same and those who
are too different don't do well in the polls.
You can say, well there is no poltical unrest right now, there is no
major threat including terrorism, which has been quashed, we have dealt
with all major dictatorships and America has the strongest military
force in the world. Why should we change anything?
Like I say, you will all probably die, before you respond to common
sense and reason.
http://tinyurl.com/d7sks
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=supervolcano&btnG=Search+News
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&q=volcano+sumatra&btnG=Search+News
http://www.seis.utah.edu/HTML/YPEvents1973-Pres.html
Jeffrey Turner
> Last night I had the privilege of attending a debate at the Harvard
> University School of Law between Discovery Institute Fellow Francis Beckwith
> and Boston University School of Law Professor Jay Wexler, sponsored by the
> Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society. What follows is a summary of the
> event based on hastily-scribbled notes and recollections; almost all
> "quotes" are in fact my best attempts at paraphrase, and I invite and
> implore anyone else who attended the event to supplement or correct my
> account.
Arguing for the "evilutionists" was a lawyer? Not that lawyers
aren't known for making good arguments but...
And before the Federalists, too, political allies of the
cretinists.
> In Professor Wexler's opening comments, he pointed out that the
> Establishment Clause does not forbid the teaching of something just because
> it happens to be extremely *bad* science. He also pointed out that U.S.
> courts have yet to develop a "demarcation criterion" for what is and is not
> a religion for the purposes of 1st Amendment law, and proposed a test along
> the lines of the way courts currently ascertain whether a given civil suit
> "sounds in tort" or "sounds in contract" - a practice is religious for the
> purpose of the law not dependent on whether it is part of a "complete
> worldview" or whether it involves supernaturalism, but on whether it "sounds
> in religion". The proposed test would be whether a reasonable person, aware
> of the facts and background of the case, would consider the issue to be a
> religious one.
Gosh, where can you find a reasonable person among the royalists
of the Federalist Society?
> In the case of ID, as he has documented thoroughly in a previous law review
> article, the connections between the current crop of ID creationism and the
> YEC predecessors of the 80s is sufficiently clear to establish that ID
> "sounds in religion".
An argument only a lawyer who knows nothing about science could
love.
> For him, the three factors weighing against the constitutionality of
> teaching ID in schools *even* *if* ID was scientifically reasonable were 1)
> the fact that it seems highly irregular compared to how science is normally
> taught (we don't normally start to teach things in high school when only a
> small minority of scientists believe them), 2) there does not seem to be any
> good material or textbooks suitable for teaching ID, and 3) there does not
> seem to be a way at present to teach it "objectively" and without
> unnecessary entanglement with religious issues.
Ach, lawyers, the precedence theory of education. If we don't
usually teach cutting edge theories then we don't ever oughtta?
Well, two and three result from the fact that ID violates his
premise.
> For Beckwith's second statement, he attempted to relativize the importance
> of peer review by pointing out that the amount of intellectual scrutiny is
> actually on a continuum between "hard science", "soft science", philosophy
> journals, and other forms of journals, and ventured that at least in his
> view the peer-review process which philosophical and theological arguments
> for ID have undergone in philosophy journals should "count" as much as
> scientific publication.
Hey, now there's a good argument for getting an actual scientist
to argue evolution's case next time. The blind leading the
blind.
--Jeff
--
Loyalty to the country always, loyalty
to the government when it deserves it.
--Mark Twain
Gary Bohn
news:1113694729.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
If that is true, then we should be in the peanut gallery cheering them
on.
Got your rotten tomatoes, heads of lettuce and other assorted soft and
mushy fruits and veggies?
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
Hiero5ant
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:1163bd5...@corp.supernews.com...
> Hiero5ant wrote:
>
>> Last night I had the privilege of attending a debate at the Harvard
>> University School of Law between Discovery Institute Fellow Francis
>> Beckwith
>> and Boston University School of Law Professor Jay Wexler, sponsored by
>> the
>> Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society. What follows is a summary of
>> the
>> event based on hastily-scribbled notes and recollections; almost all
>> "quotes" are in fact my best attempts at paraphrase, and I invite and
>> implore anyone else who attended the event to supplement or correct my
>> account.
>
> Arguing for the "evilutionists" was a lawyer? Not that lawyers
> aren't known for making good arguments but...
Perhaps I should have mentioned that the topic was the
constitutionality of teaching ID in schools.
Dana Tweedy
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113688286.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> So what is it, about an S2, that makes them so much fun to kill off?
In the words of Willow Rosenberg (evil) "Bored now".
Plonk
Marc Carter
[snip]
> I.e., ID is nothing but a religious apologetic, and he wants to do exactly
> what the Supreme Court has already ruled he CANNOT do --- he wants to
> teach his religious opinions as "science".
>
> <sigh> IDers seem to have a martyr complex a mile wide. There is no
> other explanation for their cheerful enthusiasm to undermine their own
> court case in public. They *must* WANT to lose.
Yeah, but don't you know the radical right is going to love it, because
it'll just add fuel to the "activist judges" meme.
They may lose this battle, but I seriously wonder about how far down the
road they're going to get once the war starts...
m
Jeffrey Turner
> "Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>Hiero5ant wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Last night I had the privilege of attending a debate at the Harvard
>>>University School of Law between Discovery Institute Fellow Francis
>>>Beckwith
>>>and Boston University School of Law Professor Jay Wexler, sponsored by
>>>the
>>>Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society. What follows is a summary of
>>>the
>>>event based on hastily-scribbled notes and recollections; almost all
>>> "quotes" are in fact my best attempts at paraphrase, and I invite and
>>>implore anyone else who attended the event to supplement or correct my
>>>account.
>>
>>Arguing for the "evilutionists" was a lawyer? Not that lawyers
>>aren't known for making good arguments but...
>
> Perhaps I should have mentioned that the topic was the
> constitutionality of teaching ID in schools.
I didn't realize it was unconstitutional. As far as I was
aware, the problem is teaching it as science. If any school
has a course in comparative mythology, then ID would be
perfectly legitimate, no?
Homer Sapiens
season. Although, I thought it was a stroke of genius to have the
"First" (not just an evil enemy but the "thing" that created all evil)
be portrayed as a Southern Preacher.
shane
<snip>
>
> Why else would the American government have so much security and black
> ink?
>
> Think about it. Everything that the leadership engages in, must be
> covered up in black ink.
I missed that bit in the Starr Report
> What does that tell you about the leadership?
> They are not doing things the people would like to hear or know about.
>
> What a silly place this is.
>
Won't be when you leave.
Hiero5ant
Yes; as it stands, teaching any form of creationism as science is
unconstitutional in the U.S., and the legal community seems to be coalescing
around the determination that ID is a form of creationism.
catshark
wrote:
>Hiero5ant wrote:
>> "Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>Hiero5ant wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Last night I had the privilege of attending a debate at the Harvard
>>>>University School of Law between Discovery Institute Fellow Francis
>>>>Beckwith
>>>>and Boston University School of Law Professor Jay Wexler, sponsored by
>>>>the
>>>>Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society. What follows is a summary of
>>>>the
>>>>event based on hastily-scribbled notes and recollections; almost all
>>>> "quotes" are in fact my best attempts at paraphrase, and I invite and
>>>>implore anyone else who attended the event to supplement or correct my
>>>>account.
>>>
>>>Arguing for the "evilutionists" was a lawyer? Not that lawyers
>>>aren't known for making good arguments but...
It is ultimately a legal question and lawyers views are very relevant
because the only important "effect" of ID is the attempted change in
science curricula in public schools. Science will, as it has for the past
150 years, continue to ignore ID (at least as currently formulated) simply
because it is totally useless to scientists. Without the legal dispute,
the whole evolution/creation issue would just be a debate interesting only
for the fact that it entails non-scientists trying to tell scientists how
to do their work.
>>
>> Perhaps I should have mentioned that the topic was the
>> constitutionality of teaching ID in schools.
>
>I didn't realize it was unconstitutional. As far as I was
>aware, the problem is teaching it as science. If any school
>has a course in comparative mythology, then ID would be
>perfectly legitimate, no?
It would be Constitutional even in a course on the philosophy of science,
IMHO. The IDeologists and their allies aren't satisfied with that,
however. They want to convince the larger society that the idea that
knowledge obtained through the methodological naturalism of science is in
anyway superior to or even equal with "revelation" or any "personal
experience" with god(s). To do so, they need to bend science *education*
to their "wordview".
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
LAWYER, n.
One skilled in circumvention of the law.
- Ambrose Bierce -
Hiero5ant
"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f4v461h176tncbvgc...@4ax.com...<snip>
>>> Perhaps I should have mentioned that the topic was the
>>> constitutionality of teaching ID in schools.
>>
>>I didn't realize it was unconstitutional. As far as I was
>>aware, the problem is teaching it as science. If any school
>>has a course in comparative mythology, then ID would be
>>perfectly legitimate, no?
>
> It would be Constitutional even in a course on the philosophy of science,
> IMHO.
My goodness. I'm generally so depressed about the current state of
education in the U.S. that in my pessimism I can sometimes forget that there
are, here and there, scattered outposts where philosophy actually takes
place in high schools. AIUI there are even a few states that require a
course or two in logic/critical thinking. One can only dream...
> The IDeologists and their allies aren't satisfied with that,
> however. They want to convince the larger society that the idea that
> knowledge obtained through the methodological naturalism of science is in
> anyway superior to or even equal with "revelation" or any "personal
> experience" with god(s).
I've worried about this. IDC's arguments are so often so garbled that a
position as nuanced as you describe above may be crediting them with too
much philosophical sophistication. In order for them to be complaining
specifically about methodology, they would have to overcome their
*notorious* inability to distinguish between MN and ON.
So science defenders are reduced to the uncomfortable position of
trying to psychoanalyze their opponents. What is it that, deep down, they
are "really" opbjecting to? Is it the specific *conclusions* of science? Is
it, as you suggest, to the *methodology* that disdains revelation and
tradition? Is it jealousy at the cultural prestige of science as an
institution? Is it a sort of de-centered hostility to modernism? An exercise
in symbolic politics where Darwin is burned in effigy as a totem of their
broader right-wing political agenda? Who knows?
TomS
Hiero5ant stated..."
What are they worried about? I suggest these possibilities:
* Being related to monkeys. "Pithecophobia" (William K. Gregory,
Two Views of the Origin of Man, Science, June 24, 1927)
* Reality's stubborn insistence on being what it is, rather than
complying with what we want it to be.
* The necessity of making nuanced judgements and deciding for
oneself, rather than having an absolute authority who will make
all decisions for us.
* Fear of the unknown and different.
And then there is simply lack of information. Lack of
information as to what evolution is saying (it doesn't say that
frogs turn into princes, or that unusual combinations happen just
by accident). Lack of information about the evidence (most people
think that the *only* evidence is the fossils). If evolution were
what the creationists say it is, and if the only evidence were what
the creationists talk about, then it would be difficult to accept.
(Most significantly, if the latest advocates get their way, this
would be reworded as "if evolution were what you hear about in K-12
science classes ...")
IMHO, fears like those are what have to be addressed in "debates".
It does not do much good at all to present evidence, facts,
observations, or reasoning. As long as it is frightening, all of that
can be and will be and have been ignored and forgotten and rejected.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It being as impossible that the Organized Body of a Chicken should by the Power
of any Mechanical Motions be formed out of the unorganized Matter of an Egg; as
that the Sun, Moon and Stars, should by mere Mechanism arise out of a Chaos."
Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) Second Defense...Immortality of the Soul
Homer Sapiens
Hiero5ant wrote:
> I've worried about this. IDC's arguments are so often so garbled that
a
> position as nuanced as you describe above may be crediting them with
too
> much philosophical sophistication. In order for them to be
complaining
> specifically about methodology, they would have to overcome their
> *notorious* inability to distinguish between MN and ON.
> So science defenders are reduced to the uncomfortable position
of
> trying to psychoanalyze their opponents. What is it that, deep down,
they
> are "really" opbjecting to? Is it the specific *conclusions* of
science? Is
> it, as you suggest, to the *methodology* that disdains revelation and
> tradition? Is it jealousy at the cultural prestige of science as an
> institution? Is it a sort of de-centered hostility to modernism? An
exercise
> in symbolic politics where Darwin is burned in effigy as a totem of
their
> broader right-wing political agenda? Who knows?
I think as close as one came get to understanding the motives of this
group is to read the Wedge Strategy. They oppose methodological
naturalism because it does not allow "God did it!" as as viable
scientific answer to any scientific question. In the Wedge Document
they attribute a perceived rise in cultural immorality to this approach
that they perceive as excluding God. They seem to place a great deal of
our societies' immorality at the doorstep of science and see
methodological naturalism as enabling evil.
"Where the eagle glides ascending
There's an ancient river bending
Down the timeless gorge of changes
Where sleeplessness awaits
I searched out my companions,
Who were lost in crystal canyons
When the aimless blade of science
Slashed the pearly gates."
(Neil Young -- Thrasher)
catshark
>
>"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:f4v461h176tncbvgc...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:05:31 -0400, Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>>> Perhaps I should have mentioned that the topic was the
>>>> constitutionality of teaching ID in schools.
>>>
>>>I didn't realize it was unconstitutional. As far as I was
>>>aware, the problem is teaching it as science. If any school
>>>has a course in comparative mythology, then ID would be
>>>perfectly legitimate, no?
>>
>> It would be Constitutional even in a course on the philosophy of science,
>> IMHO.
>
> My goodness. I'm generally so depressed about the current state of
>education in the U.S. that in my pessimism I can sometimes forget that there
>are, here and there, scattered outposts where philosophy actually takes
>place in high schools. AIUI there are even a few states that require a
>course or two in logic/critical thinking. One can only dream...
I was not only being over-optimistic, I was unintentionally over-stating
it. It wouldn't have to be an entire course. A single class about ID or
even a Dover-like statement might well pass Constitutional muster *if* it
was clearly labled as philosophy and at least some nod was made to opposing
viewpoints.
>
>> The IDeologists and their allies aren't satisfied with that,
>> however. They want to convince the larger society that the idea that
>> knowledge obtained through the methodological naturalism of science is in
>> anyway superior to or even equal with "revelation" or any "personal
>> experience" with god(s).
>
> I've worried about this. IDC's arguments are so often so garbled that a
>position as nuanced as you describe above may be crediting them with too
>much philosophical sophistication. In order for them to be complaining
>specifically about methodology, they would have to overcome their
>*notorious* inability to distinguish between MN and ON.
One other advantage of lawyers, in regards to ID, is that they are used to
dealing with people who are not telling the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.
> So science defenders are reduced to the uncomfortable position of
>trying to psychoanalyze their opponents. What is it that, deep down, they
>are "really" opbjecting to? Is it the specific *conclusions* of science? Is
>it, as you suggest, to the *methodology* that disdains revelation and
>tradition? Is it jealousy at the cultural prestige of science as an
>institution? Is it a sort of de-centered hostility to modernism?
I would definately include all of the above, along with TomS's suggestion
of "Pithecophobia" and a psychological fear of ambiguity and need for
certainty. There is also a fear of social chaos if people aren't
constrained by religious morals, which they assume are destroyed by
"Darwinism". The attack on the methodology is a means to those ends.
>An exercise
>in symbolic politics where Darwin is burned in effigy as a totem of their
>broader right-wing political agenda? Who knows?
We have guidance in the history of "natural theology" (which ID is, after
all) at and around Darwin's time. The advocates then didn't have any
Constitutional incentive to misrepresent their motives and the above
reasons were all clearly part of it.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement,
but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front.
- William A. Dembski -
scooter
Hiero5ant wrote:
> Last night I had the privilege of attending a debate at the Harvard
> University School of Law between Discovery Institute Fellow Francis
Beckwith
> and Boston University School of Law Professor Jay Wexler, sponsored
by the
> Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society. What follows is a summary
of the
> event based on hastily-scribbled notes and recollections; almost all
> "quotes" are in fact my best attempts at paraphrase, and I invite
and
> implore anyone else who attended the event to supplement or correct
my
> account.
>
>
>
> At one point he more or less explicitly equated "intelligent" with
> "non/supernatural" by definition.
>
>
>
> He closed with language reminiscent of his earlier Legal Times
article
> (http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/LegalTimes.htm, see
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000776.html for a critique)
WRT
> creationists being in a "catch-22" because of the unusual burden
placed on
> persons who happen to have religious motivations attempting to pass
> legislation that would otherwise be found to have a legitimate
secular
> purpose.
>
>
>
> In Professor Wexler's opening comments, he pointed out that the
> Establishment Clause does not forbid the teaching of something just
because
> it happens to be extremely *bad* science. He also pointed out that
U.S.
> courts have yet to develop a "demarcation criterion" for what is and
is not
> a religion for the purposes of 1st Amendment law, and proposed a test
along
> the lines of the way courts currently ascertain whether a given civil
suit
> "sounds in tort" or "sounds in contract" - a practice is religious
for the
> purpose of the law not dependent on whether it is part of a "complete
> worldview" or whether it involves supernaturalism, but on whether it
"sounds
> in religion". The proposed test would be whether a reasonable person,
aware
> of the facts and background of the case, would consider the issue to
be a
> religious one.
>
>
>
> In the case of ID, as he has documented thoroughly in a previous law
review
> article, the connections between the current crop of ID creationism
and the
> YEC predecessors of the 80s is sufficiently clear to establish that
ID
> "sounds in religion".
>
>
>
> For him, the three factors weighing against the constitutionality of
> teaching ID in schools *even* *if* ID was scientifically reasonable
were 1)
> the fact that it seems highly irregular compared to how science is
normally
> taught (we don't normally start to teach things in high school when
only a
> small minority of scientists believe them), 2) there does not seem to
be any
> good material or textbooks suitable for teaching ID, and 3) there
does not
> seem to be a way at present to teach it "objectively" and without
> unnecessary entanglement with religious issues.
>
>
>
> For Beckwith's second statement, he attempted to relativize the
importance
> of peer review by pointing out that the amount of intellectual
scrutiny is
> actually on a continuum between "hard science", "soft science",
philosophy
> journals, and other forms of journals, and ventured that at least in
his
> view the peer-review process which philosophical and theological
arguments
> for ID have undergone in philosophy journals should "count" as much
as
> scientific publication.
>
> He also rebutted the "no peer-reviewed papers" charge by citing an
article
> in J.Mol.Bio., by DI fellow Axe, and mentioned that he had a list of
10 or
> 15 other articles supportive of ID theory, although I hasten to add
that I
> cannot recall the exact phraseology in which he expressed exactly how
> strongly these were supportive, or what they were supportive of.
While I
> did not catch a title, I suspect it may have been 'Extreme functional
> sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors.'
J Mol
> Biol. 2000 Aug 18;301(3):585-95. [Note: after the talk he explained
that the
> list had actually been given to him by one William Dembski; I am
currently
> in the process of obtaining this list. If this was indeed the article
he was
> referring to, it seems he may have been an unwitting victim of the
"DI noise
> machine" and the tendency to disseminate false or misleading
information by
> citing one another round-robin, without ever attempting to verify the
> accuracy of the citation. For more on Dembski's shenanigans with this
> particular paper, see
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000614.html .]
>
> He said he had been asked to testify as an expert witness in favor of
the
> school district in the current controversy in Dover, PA, but turned
it down.
> [Afterwards, I asked him what it was Dover would have had to have
done
> differently in order to overcome his reluctance to testify that he
believed
> it was in fact constitutional. He replied that his reason was one of
policy,
> not law: he believed that teaching ID in schools is simply a bad
idea. He
> also mentioned that other DI personnel had reservations about Dover,
> although I inferred that their reasons were more strategic than
> pedagogical.]
>
> He again appeared to equate science itself with the doctrine of
ontological
> materialism. Still no distinctions made between materialism,
ontological
> naturalism, and methodological naturalism.
>
> On his second round, Wexler raised the intriguing constitutional
question of
> what would occur if a given religious doctrine such as reincarnation
or ID
> became incontrovertibly true, or at least highly plausible
scientifically.
> There is no easy legal answer for this.
>
> Question and answer period followed. The first questioner informed
the
> audience about Project Steve, pointed out Beckwith's association with
the
> DI, and specifically denounced its funding by Christian
Reconstructionist
> Howard Ahmanson. He asked how Beckwith could have uttered some of the
> sillier factual inaccuracies WRT ID's "scientific" claims in his
opening
> speech and "still keep a straight face". Beckwith responded that he
knew
> Ahmanson personally, said that he had renounced some or all of his
previous
> Reconstructionist views, and decried the argument of guilt by
association.
>
> At this point, the exchange became quite heated, and in my personal
judgment
> the questioner was needlessly hostile, frequently interrupting
Beckwith,
> monopolizing the room's floor time, and generally being obnoxious.
The
> honorable moderator did his level best to try to steer the
conversation to
> the next questioner, but several students actually stood up and left
at this
> point. While I sympathize and even empathize with the questioner's
disdain
> for creationists' intellectual sloppiness and contempt for the odious
> political views underlying them, this was supposed to be a scholarly
and
> collegiate exchange on the jurisprudence of a particularly nuanced
> church-state separation issue, not a debate on the (lack of)
substantive
> merits of ID creationism. What was supposed to have the decorum of a
> colloquium of law at Harvard briefly turned into a tawdry internet
chat-room
> flame-circus. Without exception, the students I spoke with after the
debate
> remained unconvinced by Beckwith's position, but were embarrassed by
the
> belligerence of this one Lone Ranger in the audience.
>
> One questioner was an attorney with a philosophy background, and
inquired as
> to why ID proponents didn't attempt to argue for a more Aristotelian
> teleology, which incorporates ideas such as souls, purpose, and a
Prime
> Mover but which is distinct from the theological baggage of
evangelical
> Christianity. Beckwith referred back to his article 'Explanatory
Power of
> the Substance View of Persons' as an example of this, and also
mentioned
> Searle as a philosopher of mind who was trying to move away from a
strictly
> mechanistic account. The questioner responded that she asked this
because as
> it stands it was "disingenuous to separate the religious issues" in
this
> debate, and that ID is clearly religious.
>
> One questioner expressed concern about Professor Wexler's argument
against
> the constitutionality of teaching ID by asserting that he was simply
> committing the genetic fallacy, unfairly discriminating against the
> possibility of ID because of the cultural and legal background from
which it
> arose. He responded essentially that there needs to be some test to
keep
> religion separate, and that under his proposed interpretation of the
> endorsement test, a reasonable person would still understand that ID
was
> religious in nature, and so in order to be acceptable IDC's would
have to
> make a stronger showing of an independent secular purpose.
>
> When I was called on, I submitted that there may be a "catch-22" for
ID
> advocates, but that Beckwith had identified it upside-down. I pointed
out
> that he seemed to have a lack of legal principle, because when ID is
trying
> to *win*, they claim that they are secular for the purposes of the
1st
> Amendment, but when they *lose* (as they did in Cobb County),
Beckwith and
> others claim that they are victims of "religious discrimination". I
> suggested that the way for ID to overcome its legal troubles was the
same
> way for it to overcome its scientific deficiencies: develop a
*positive*,
> testable theory of ID, initiate the research program, perform
experiments,
> and create a body of published work in (real) peer-reviewed journals.
If
> they did this, their "secular purpose" problems would evaporate
instantly.
> [Because I was listening to his response, I was not able to write
much of it
> down, except for his statement that he objected to the reasoning in
the Cobb
> County disclaimers case even though he agreed with the result.]
>
> I think the most salient conclusions I can draw from the evening are
as
> follows: 1) DI speakers continue to overstate the existence of any
positive
> ID theory whatsoever, offering as a substitute a series of (mostly
refuted)
> criticisms of this or that part of science, while undervaluing the
need for
> peer-review, 2) even DI legal scholars (who, let's face it, are what
the
> Wedge Strategy is really all about) think that teaching ID in schools
is a
> bad idea, 3) absolutely no one in the audience really believes that
ID is
> anything other than creationism in a cheap tuxedo, 4) the temptation
for ID
> opponents to turn into mirror-images of the fundie who came to
Dembski's
> debate and said "Why do you hate Christ?" is real, is strong, and
should be
> resisted (come on people, a little basic tact please), 5) Professors
Wexler
> and Beckwith are charming, outgoing people, and the Federalist
Society of
> the Harvard Law School is staffed with first-rate folks (even though
their
> views on the Constitution seem bloody loony to me at times).
Thanks for the post, Hiero.
I am of the belief that the issue of ID in public schools will have to
be decided in terms of its lawfulness as much as its (lack of) science.
We already see how political the issue has evolved (e.g. Kansas BoE).
But, the larger problem is the fact that law makers and the general
public are not going to be as adept to biological science. I mean, how
many folks have a four year degree in biology (as a percentage of the
population)? Additionally, folks are, and have been, exposed to
rigorous religious discipline that makes it "easier" to be swayed by
dogma and rhetoric. IOW, they are more vulnerable to misrepresentation
and jargon that conforms with religiosity and, in general, a
supernatural explanation in place of science. I think that the Kansas
example is representative of both the lack of knowledge in the science
of biology as well as religious discipline that skews objectivity. In
this regard, it may be that lawfulness will have to be the immediate
argument while education should be a long term goal. Thanks again for
sharing.
Craig Franck
> "catshark" wrote
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>I didn't realize it was unconstitutional. As far as I was
> >>aware, the problem is teaching it as science. If any school
> >>has a course in comparative mythology, then ID would be
> >>perfectly legitimate, no?
> >
> > It would be Constitutional even in a course on the philosophy of science,
> > IMHO.
>
> My goodness. I'm generally so depressed about the current state of
> education in the U.S. that in my pessimism I can sometimes forget that there
> are, here and there, scattered outposts where philosophy actually takes
> place in high schools. AIUI there are even a few states that require a
> course or two in logic/critical thinking. One can only dream...
What I find odd about this line of reasoning is it's not at all clear that
a discussion of philosophy of science isn't reasonable in a reqular
science class, particularly as it relates to science in the social context.
I remember taking science classes as a grade schooler which delved
into the arms race and how we all needed to learn lots of science since
the Russians are producing armies of propeller headed, slide ruler-ing
commies out to exterminate our Way of Life.
The problem I think is it would degenerate into what sex ed or birth
control is to health class: Something nasty inserted into the curriculum
you need written approval from your parents in order to receive the
lesson that day.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
catshark
wrote:
>"Hiero5ant" wrote
>
>> "catshark" wrote
>
>> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>> >>I didn't realize it was unconstitutional. As far as I was
>> >>aware, the problem is teaching it as science. If any school
>> >>has a course in comparative mythology, then ID would be
>> >>perfectly legitimate, no?
>> >
>> > It would be Constitutional even in a course on the philosophy of science,
>> > IMHO.
>>
>> My goodness. I'm generally so depressed about the current state of
>> education in the U.S. that in my pessimism I can sometimes forget that there
>> are, here and there, scattered outposts where philosophy actually takes
>> place in high schools. AIUI there are even a few states that require a
>> course or two in logic/critical thinking. One can only dream...
>
>What I find odd about this line of reasoning is it's not at all clear that
>a discussion of philosophy of science isn't reasonable in a reqular
>science class, particularly as it relates to science in the social context.
I didn't mean to give that impression. The philosophy of science can be,
ISTM, discussed in a science class. But it should be clearly labled for
what it is, *especially* when it is in a social contex of a dispute about
the proper role of science.
>
>
>I remember taking science classes as a grade schooler which delved
>into the arms race and how we all needed to learn lots of science since
>the Russians are producing armies of propeller headed, slide ruler-ing
>commies out to exterminate our Way of Life.
Pretty much how it is today, except the propeller heads who find the
Constitutional guarantees of our Way of Life inconvenient are home-grown.
The remedy is about the same, too: learn more about science.
>
>The problem I think is it would degenerate into what sex ed or birth
>control is to health class: Something nasty inserted into the curriculum
>you need written approval from your parents in order to receive the
>lesson that day.
But it isn't clear that parents should always be allowed to keep their
children ignorant.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The political motivation behind the Wedge Strategy:
"Religion is the opiate of the masses . . .
and that is a _good_ thing."
-- Bobby Bryant --
Daniel T.
rick_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> If you consider what popular science tells you about the search for
> life in the universe, they are looking for a civilization like one on
> earth, that uses radio waves and television and so they look out there
> with their giant arrays of antennae and find nothing.
>
> They don't make it. They blow themselves up or kill themselves off with
> pollution or biowarfare or nuclear radiation or some such because they
> have the technology and not the capacity to live together. They kill
> each other off.
I see it this way... The more technologically advanced we become the
more damage a small group of people can do. Eventually, one person will
be able to destroy everyone. When we get to that point, what are the
odds that *everyone* will be sane and not want to destroy the world?
rich hammett
> I see it this way... The more technologically advanced we become the
> more damage a small group of people can do. Eventually, one person will
> be able to destroy everyone. When we get to that point, what are the
> odds that *everyone* will be sane and not want to destroy the world?
It's a good thing _I_ don't have a "destroy the world" switch
some mornings.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Von R. Smith
Hiero5ant wrote:
> Last night I had the privilege of attending a debate at the Harvard
> University School of Law between Discovery Institute Fellow Francis
Beckwith
> and Boston University School of Law Professor Jay Wexler, sponsored
by the
> Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society. What follows is a summary
of the
> event based on hastily-scribbled notes and recollections; almost all
> "quotes" are in fact my best attempts at paraphrase, and I invite
and
> implore anyone else who attended the event to supplement or correct
my
> account.
>
>
>
> Professor Beckwith began with a definition of ID as a "research
program
> regarding the actions of some intelligent agency as being responsible
for
> some physical system or possibly the universe as a whole, along with
a
> critique of naturalism." [i.e. "something, somewhere, somehow for
some
> reason is wrong with some part of some science."] He referred to
> "materialism" as the "prime target" of this critique,
That right there is enough to show the lie of ID. A scientific
research program "targets" understanding a particular set of phenomena,
not an ideology it doesn't like.
> and argued that it is
> in fact the burden of scientists to provide *positive* refutations of
> non-naturalistic theories, rather than dismissing them a priori.
Unbelievable. Science must entertain pixie dust as an explanation if
it cannot prove a negative about something inherently untestable. I
very nearly didn't read the rest of your excellent writeup at this
point. It *does* get a lot better from here.
Von Smith