Posted on 04/26/2006 3:55:28 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
When a federal judge stopped intelligent design from being taught in a Pennsylvania school district in December, the concept's chief advocates issued a quick and pointed response.
[snip]
But nearly five months after the ruling, the Discovery Institute is fighting to control fallout from the decision.
"Dover is a disaster in a sense, as a public-relations matter," said Bruce Chapman, a former Seattle city councilman and founder of the Discovery Institute, the country's primary supporter of intelligent design. "It has given a rhetorical weapon to the Darwinists to say a judge has settled this," he said.
[massive snip]
Leading conservative commentators — including talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh and syndicated columnist Cal Thomas — say the judge's decision shows that intelligent design is a failed strategy in the effort to bring religion into the public schools.
"Let's make no mistake," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "The people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals."
Still, the publicity hasn't been all bad, said Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, which produces studies and reports about intelligent design. [Insert by PH: Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington regarding the publication of the paper by Stephen C. Meyer in Volume 117(2) of the Proceedings]
[massive snip]
Chapman said Discovery told the board not to attempt to teach intelligent design. Instead, he said, the institute advocates that schools only "teach the controversy" surrounding evolution.
"We're mostly trying to stop people from doing dumb things," Meyer said.
[snip to the end]
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
Gentle reminder: Now hear this: No personal attacks (title of thread posted 15 March 2006 by Jim Robinson).
|
And for the political fallout, in a Republican area, observe what happened to the ID-oriented school board:
Dover boots board.
And no one can possibly object to Minnich's holding of that opinion; his candid admission that it is not a "scientific conclusion" makes the point that such an opinion (right or wrong as it may be) has no place in a science classroom.
How can that be controversial?
At one point everything in the world was perceived to have embedded intelligence. Not just living things, but also rocks, wind rain, volcanoes, and so forth. We call that animism, and like Christmas trees, it's a bit of paganism grafted onto modern religion.
Boy, God created the world and every little thing in existance is a real harmful thing to teach our kids. Thank goodness there are judges who recognize how distuctive it could be.
"The ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] sued to keep a few students in Pennsylvania from hearing about intelligent design, and as a result, they made sure everyone in the world heard about it," Meyer said. "And that has not hurt us."
This is the Hollywood/National Enquirer theory of publicity...that is, any publicity is good publicity.
Sure...that's the way to spin it... desperately claim that an idea promoted as a 'scientific' theory wants any publicity it can get, even devastatingly bad publicity that points out it's not a 'scientific' theory.
And they wonder why fewer and fewer people are taking them seriously.
Rush will now be pummeled as a Darwinist patsy...
This is from the Dover opinion, where the judge discussed the school board's fraud by intentionally and falsely trying to pass off Pandas as a science book.
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards [Edwards v. Aguillard], which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's [FTE = the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of Pandas] argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions.(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and
(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
"Rush seems not to accept evolution, at least that's the impression I got from the few times I've heard him discuss the topic."
Oh, I know. But that won't stop some from calling him a Darwinist patsy for daring to tell the truth that ID is essentially creationism by another name.
Merriam-Webster on religion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Which of the above definitions did you have in mind regarding 'evolution'?
the science of ID
Same source--and follow-up question--on science:
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
That's what it all boils down to. There are people with perverted agendas out there trying to insert their own superstitious "personal opinions" into science class without regards to the damage it causes the students who are required to pass and understand those classes before they can move on to higher education and subsequent careers.
That's actually quite interesting.
Can the past tense of the verb "to teach" be taught? :-)
No, there is no science of ID. There is a philosophy of ID.
It's appalling; it's deeply embarrassing and shameful. But it's hardly news.
There's obviously something you just didn't get in school including use of the word taught instead of teached - not to mention an education in basic science. One more reason why conservatives must constantly be on guard against anti-science Luddites.
"We're mostly trying to stop people from doing dumb things," Meyer said.
Smartest thing they can do right now. But will other school boards listen?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.