tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8921085889374552839..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Did Kitzmiller v. Dover kill Intelligent Design Creationism?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39996404000223493982015-12-16T11:20:31.309-05:002015-12-16T11:20:31.309-05:00"If you score 3 out of 10 of the Darwinian pa..."If you score 3 out of 10 of the Darwinian paradigm" Please read the things you write to see how cranky they sound.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52092947810118533472015-12-15T18:15:36.042-05:002015-12-15T18:15:36.042-05:00Diogenes,
Would you like to play a Darwinian Cour...Diogenes,<br /><br />Would you like to play a Darwinian Court Game of "yes" and "no"?<br />If you score 3 out of 10 of the Darwinian paradigm, you win. Keep in mind that I'm not asking you to provide experimental evidence for your whatever. Are you in?Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69913142381836017832015-12-15T14:54:23.637-05:002015-12-15T14:54:23.637-05:00The first law of creationism: If you can say it, i...The first law of creationism: If you can say it, it's a controversy.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2145598365158769402015-12-15T10:36:51.591-05:002015-12-15T10:36:51.591-05:00"...teaching bad science based on Darwinian b..."...teaching bad science based on Darwinian beliefs without evidence..."<br /><br />Without evidence? Have you gone and confused the words in your head with reality again?Capt Stormfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06406739898230505330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20410441815715900292015-12-15T09:12:03.135-05:002015-12-15T09:12:03.135-05:00No. In fact, there have been MANY court cases in t...No. In fact, there have been MANY court cases in the USA in which crazy people sued a school district claiming either that 1. "Darwinism" is a religion or 2. Evolution entails atheism, and atheism is a religion. This has been argued before many courts, and always badly-- the plaintiffs always invoke terrible arguments, just legally terrible, not just scientifically terrible-- their lawyers are idiots or insane, and they're always totally unaware of all the precedents where the same argument was made before and lost in court. Each plaintiff thinks he's a genius and the first one to try this kind of suit. They always lose.<br /><br />The conclusions of US courts are: "Darwinism" is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion, but can be treated as one in some cases to confer First Amendment protections to atheists. As for humanism, court decisions are mixed: some courts say it can be treated as a religion, others say not.<br /><br />It's been tried many times. Casey Luskin wrote up a review of such cases at Evolution News and Views. It's a loser, but knock yourself out. Call gravity theory a religion too while you're at it.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33057160310739003082015-12-15T08:48:13.596-05:002015-12-15T08:48:13.596-05:00"Hello NIH, I'd like to get a research gr..."Hello NIH, I'd like to get a research grant to destroy Gary Gaulin. Who, you ask? Gary Gaulin, you know-- he defined "Intelligent Cause." <br /><br />Yes, the famous Gary Gaulin. How much will you give me? Five million dollars? That's not nearly enough to destroy Gary-- <i>he has a blog.</i> And on his blog, <i>he defines words. </i><br /><br />Yes, eight million will do nicely, thank you. Direct deposit, please."<br /><br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74580369031718081702015-12-15T08:20:32.412-05:002015-12-15T08:20:32.412-05:00I think with regard to the court route you have ca...I think with regard to the court route you have cause and effect turned around.<br /><br />Most of the court cases have occurred where states have passed laws permitting or requiring the teaching of some form of Creationism. (The others have concerned individual school districts doing so.) So as with the Dover case, this is not a matter of those in favor of good science strategically planning to wipe out Creationism in the courts. Rather it's a matter of defending individuals' rights to teach and learn good science.<br /><br />I'm very much in favor of working to show people how terrific science is, and trying to turn public opinion around. Until that happens, you're absolutely correct that the situation in the USA is unlikely to change appreciably for the better.<br /><br />However, unfortunately that doesn't mean the courts are unnecessary, unless you feel it's acceptable to let a generation or two of students and teachers be forced by the state to teach and learn bad science while we wait for public opinion to change. My thinking is that these people deserve the chance - in fact, have the right - to teach and learn good science every bit as much as my teachers had the chance to teach it and I had the chance to learn it.<br /><br />So I would say that while I agree defending the rights of individual students and teachers in court is plainly insufficient, I think it is also clearly necessary.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31289504648632686212015-12-15T06:51:06.921-05:002015-12-15T06:51:06.921-05:00If you go back one hundred years I doubt there was...If you go back one hundred years I doubt there was much difference bewteen the USA and, say, Canada in terms of the percentage of the population that believed in a creator god. Yet today, there's no serious threat to teaching evolution in Canadian schools and Canadian politicians who oppose evolution are mocked, not respected. <br /><br />This happened in spite of the fact that religion can be taught in Canadian public schools. That suggest to me that just winning court battles to keep religion out of public schools in the USA isn't sufficient or even necessary. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44198211161284875432015-12-15T05:46:16.917-05:002015-12-15T05:46:16.917-05:00CatMat,
Is it lawful to call ID not science and ...CatMat, <br /><br />Is it lawful to call ID not science and provide as alternative unscientific hypothesis, fairy tales or excuses, such as: " we don't know now, or can't provide experimental evidence for our claims but in the future we will"? How is that science? <br /><br />Would these excuses stand in real court of justice? If I sue the school board in Peel Region for teaching bad science based on Darwinian beliefs without evidence, wouldn't the real court of justice call it not science but evolutionary, Darwinian religion? Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6774827374057845322015-12-15T00:10:50.193-05:002015-12-15T00:10:50.193-05:00Lot's of other countries are doing a better jo...<i>Lot's of other countries are doing a better job of defeating creationism even though they allow religion into the public schools.</i><br /><br />How do you measure success in defeating creationism? Are you counting only the current proportion of creationists? If so, how is that a valid measure? I think the U.S. started out in a hole compared to those "lots of other countries".John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81780475282475013302015-12-14T23:19:36.378-05:002015-12-14T23:19:36.378-05:00CatMat you are still dodging the fact that I have ...CatMat you are still dodging the fact that I have a programmable model for "intelligent cause", while you have none. <br /><br />How speciation works in the multilevel model was outlined in this illustration:<br /><br /><a href="https://sites.google.com/site/intelligencedesignlab/home/Origin3Cau3Gen1600.png" rel="nofollow">https://sites.google.com/site/intelligencedesignlab/home/Origin3Cau3Gen1600.png</a><br /><br />It is very rude to expect million dollar models from someone who only gets millions of dollars spent somewhere else that only works hard to scientifically destroy me. Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24531990675202280082015-12-14T22:39:57.766-05:002015-12-14T22:39:57.766-05:00Why is it necessary? Lot's of other countries ...Why is it necessary? Lot's of other countries are doing a better job of defeating creationism even though they allow religion into the public schools. <br /><br />Maybe the emphasis on using courts to keep religion out of the schools is actually counter-productive because it makes so many Americans distrust the public school system and dislike the legal system. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14861496722583774152015-12-14T22:20:59.366-05:002015-12-14T22:20:59.366-05:00The molecular/genetic level was always part of the...<i>The molecular/genetic level was always part of the theory, I first wrote down in around 1992. </i><br /><br />I was kind of hoping for a factual statement, but ... whatever.<br /><br />So, at some point in these 23+ years, your theory of Intelligent Design went from simulating a designed individual with occasional tune-ups to a theory of actual populations. Why, then, are you still only linking to models of the individual? Where are the methods of inheritance? Where do we find the simulated population in ID? How does your model account for, say, your parents?<br /><br />Even you must admit that there's more than one individual in the real world and that progenitors do, in fact, exist. <br /><br />You might also want to take a closer look at the biochemistry of Euglenophyta and what that tells about your four 'circuit requirements.'<br />CatMathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618690026876480798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27019629413166606552015-12-14T21:01:20.368-05:002015-12-14T21:01:20.368-05:00The molecular/genetic level was always part of the...The molecular/genetic level was always part of the theory, I first wrote down in around 1992. Developing the "Theory of Intelligent Design" was in response to my having become able to, at a time when giving everyone what they asked for was most needed. Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34691937435770323832015-12-14T21:01:19.614-05:002015-12-14T21:01:19.614-05:00There's great danger in believing that all you...<i><br />There's great danger in believing that all you have to do is win court cases in order to defeat Intelligent Design Creationism. That strategy hasn't worked for almost a century and it's not going to work now.<br /></i><br /><br />No, but it is a necessary part.anthrosciguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02192669356363848169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70215655795023473342015-12-14T20:31:09.376-05:002015-12-14T20:31:09.376-05:00This is a battle for hearts and minds and bringing...<i>This is a battle for hearts and minds and bringing lawyers to that kind of fight is pretty much useless.</i><br /><br />Let's start at the beginning.<br /><br />First of all, the Thomas More Law Center went looking for a test case allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design Creationism as science in schools. If you think for a minute this would have stopped at teaching ID alongside evolution and leaving students to think for themselves, you would be very wrong. That was only the entering wedge (from which the Wedge document took its title). What the TMLC was after was teaching kids in public school classes to fear and revere God the Creator of the Universe and of all life on Earth. And then not only would teachers fear to teach evolution; kids would fear to speak logically or scientifically in school, with all the power of the government behind the Creationist majority. (As you know, Creationists are a plurality of the American public, and a majority in many school districts. To try to ensure kids can learn about good science, it is necessary to protect them from a fervent majority that believes it has God on its side, and with which politicians would readily side if they were not legally restrained from doing so.)<br /><br />The TMLC found Dover. The school board readily sided with them. A handful of teachers, students and parents braved death threats to bring suit to vindicate their rights to teach and learn good science.<br /><br />Thus this has nothing to do with any global strategy by those in favor of good science. Rather, it was a vindication of personal rights by individuals who were having those rights infringed by their government.<br /><br />With regard to the cross-examination: Attorneys and courts in the United States, Canada and England work within a judicial system that recognizes what's called stare decisis, the power of precedent. The precedents ruling the Dover case all drew a bright line dichotomy between science and religion. Thus the attorneys presented their case and conducted their cross examination in a way that brought their case foursquare within the ruling precedents, making it as easy as possible for the judge to rule in favor of vindicating their clients' rights against the government. It is not an easy thing to challenge one's government in court and to prevail. The lawyers had no right to make it less likely their clients would win in favor of having a discussion about science as a way of knowing. If they'd done so, their clients would rightly have sued them for malpractice, for having violated their legal and moral obligation to represent their clients zealously within the bounds of the law.<br /><br />Viewed from the perspective of a successful challenge by a few brave individuals to a government edict that would have been the entering wedge to an eventual prohibition on the teaching and learning of good science, Dover was a fabulously successful case. Had the TMLC prevailed, there were plans to take such challenges nationwide. Instead, not only were there no other such cases, the defendants did not even attempt to appeal the trial court's decision. Of course as you've noted, with the judicial route unsuccessful, where they are in the majority Creationists have attempted to enforce the will of the mob through state legislatures. In these states, too, sadly it has been necessary for people wanting to teach and learn good science to brave death threats from "good Christians" and make their challenges through the refuge of the embattled minority, the courts and the US Constitution they uphold.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57875612779643049722015-12-14T19:57:22.631-05:002015-12-14T19:57:22.631-05:00The theory is included with the ID Lab computer mo...<i>The theory is included with the ID Lab computer model. But you probably did not download or study any of it.</i><br /><br />I did, over a year ago. Back then it contained no mechanisms for cross-generational information transfer.<br /><br />If this has changed since then, feel free to elaborate. Preferably in actual statements instead of links.<br />CatMathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618690026876480798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86562872830542141572015-12-14T19:48:34.610-05:002015-12-14T19:48:34.610-05:00The theory is included with the ID Lab computer mo...The theory is included with the ID Lab computer model. But you probably did not download or study any of it. Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32729165090949761072015-12-14T19:25:12.196-05:002015-12-14T19:25:12.196-05:00You conveniently missed something:
Of course I di...<i>You conveniently missed something:</i><br /><br />Of course I did, since it wasn't referenced anywhere in the page you did link.<br /><br />You seem to omit any mechanisms that would write to the "biosphere’s interconnected collective", so it's a bit hazy how anything that neither dies or procreates manages to contribute to that but I'm sure you have a link for that too.<br /><br />Anyway, my comment here was a response to putting Modern Evolution Synthesis to trial. Madness, as you say, but it was suggested.CatMathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618690026876480798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71041606508593108902015-12-14T19:06:09.574-05:002015-12-14T19:06:09.574-05:00There's something called evolution,
And snott...<i>There's something called evolution,</i><br /><br />And snotty remarks about "evolution" are out of bounds in a scientific discussion pertaining to models for demonstrating what standard naming convention would qualify as an INTELLIGENT CAUSE.<br /><br /><br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68417452405859356062015-12-14T18:56:41.148-05:002015-12-14T18:56:41.148-05:00You conveniently missed something:
http://theoryof...You conveniently missed something:<br /><a href="http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/</a><br /><br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29920877600506874042015-12-14T18:54:33.743-05:002015-12-14T18:54:33.743-05:00A better model than a single critter that never di...A better model than a single critter that never dies and never procreates but, when probed from outside, changes its behavior within the designed parameters? <br /><br />There's something called evolution, it relates to actual organisms that live, procreate and die. I think that would qualify for a better scientific model.<br /><br />Just saying.<br /><br />CatMathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618690026876480798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77981911438360121272015-12-14T18:51:51.925-05:002015-12-14T18:51:51.925-05:00In case it escaped you, Kitzmiller v. Dover was a ...<i>In case it escaped you, Kitzmiller v. Dover was a case about Constitutional Law. ID lost.</i><br /><br />Scientific theory is not supposed to be decided by legal courts. That's madness. But I can understand why you go along with the hypocrisy, anyway. <br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74398361115519217352015-12-14T18:35:23.861-05:002015-12-14T18:35:23.861-05:00In this case both sides must be force to either pr...In this case both sides must be force to either provide a better scientific model and theory to explain INTELLIGENT CAUSE than the one that already exists (by me) or admit that they have nothing scientific at all then leave the table.<br /><br /><a href="http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/</a><br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86389779963271804282015-12-14T18:28:54.369-05:002015-12-14T18:28:54.369-05:00In case it escaped you, Kitzmiller v. Dover was a ...In case it escaped you, Kitzmiller v. Dover was a case about Constitutional Law. ID lost.<br /><br />Since you want to put it to trial, what laws are broken by teaching the Modern Evolution Synthesis?<br /><br /><br />CatMathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618690026876480798noreply@blogger.com