Senators Kruse, Walker, and Holdman, and Rep. Thompson are trying to inject themselves into a Ball State personnel and curriculum matter. Ball State apparently has a policy against teaching intelligent design as science. Which is fine because whatever intelligent design is, it’s not science. But, there is an astronomy professor who apparently wants to teach it as science.
The trial court in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District had some thoughtful things to say about Intelligent Design and why it isn’t science. The Dover court issued a 139 page decision (pdf). The court noted that ID was, at heart, a religious argument and observed that the writings of leading intelligent design proponents reveal that the designer postulated by intellgient design is the Christian God. This passage by the court gets to the heart of whether Creationism (or intelligent design) ought to be taught as science:
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.
However, not teaching it as science apparently strikes these social conservative legislators as anti-religion. So they are making ominous sounding rumblings at Ball State. The letter had ominous undertones of “nice university you got there, be a shame if the General Assembly had to investigate it.”
They suggest that they won’t be happy if the Ball State committee reviewing the matter is made up of scientists who think that intelligent design isn’t science. Which it isn’t. Populating the committee with mainstream views about what is and isn’t science would be stacking the deck, you see.
Once again, feel free to suggest intelligent design is a notion some people have about how the universe was created. But don’t suggest that it’s science. There is no testable, falsifiable hypothesis involved.
Whatever judges are, they aren’t scientists, and they should not, in any way, be accepted or cited as scientists or experts on scientific matters.
It was an articulate summary of why intelligent design is not science presented by someone who was asked to consider evidence put forward by intelligent design advocates on the one side and science advocates on the other. You can be persuaded or not by the summary.
If you can make the case that a hypothesis relying on supernatural causation is testable and falsifiable, have at it.
I’ll put it this way. It’s possible (though I’d say very doubtful) that intelligent design is true but, true or false, it is not scientific.
“It was an articulate summary of why…”
Says you. If you’re going to make a point of qualifications, pedigrees, regimented thinking and the scientific method, judges are completely wanting in scientific knowledge and methods, and citing to their opinions is thus an appeal to improper authority.
Look, I don’t really care how you come down on Darwinism, Intelligent Design, etc. My point here is to show that judges are not a legitimate source of intellectual debate. There is relevant scientific literature on many topics. Court opinions are never among any of it.
In Science, it is never a valid premise to say “In X vs. Y, we held…”
Says me too. Intelligent design in creationism with a K Street lobbying firm. Judges are perfectly capable of surveying the scientific literature and determining that which is psuedo science lacking published, peer-reviewed support.
Judges are not qualified to issue an opinion on any scientific or logical matter, as legal methodology is inherently fallacious and risible. Stare decisis is the very definition of a non sequitur. Appeals to policy and preferred outcomes are irrelevant to Logic and the scientific method.
Stripping away costume and ceremony finds that judicial opinions are merely politics.
No, your reasoning skills and grasp of reality is inherently fallacious and risible. It must be fun to arrogate to yourself any unsupportable opinion you can manufacture and announce it as chapter and verse.
Carlito, you’re out of your depth.
This…
http://memecrunch.com/meme/RKOI/i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i/image.png
…isn’t much of a retort.
No, Freedom, you are out of the institution. But if my retort was as sophomoric as you suggest, why not just overwhelm it with your overwhelming rhetorical and logical skills.
I handily won the argument and carried the point. You were roundly defeated at every turn, and in futility, you resorted to a childish tantrum which I summarily dismissed with a stern rebuke.
You lost. Find a better game.
Says the guy who isn’t responding to the scientist who said the judge nailed it. Your dislike of the judicial branch is blinding you.
Speaking to the matter at hand, here’s what Greg Walker’s own bio that shows his qualifications for getting involved:
No, I didn’t misspell it.
You’ve got a real live one there, Doug. One need not have a scientific degree to listen to the definition of science, and then see that one side of the argument does not meet that definition. “God did it” is not science, has never been science, and will never be science. A seventh-grade biology student, let alone a judge, should be able to find his/her way to that conclusion.
OK, I am a scientist, trained and credentialed (MS in chemistry, PhD in pharmacology). Although I am not also an attorney, I read the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in full. The judge’s summary was a complete and accurate description of the views of the mainstream scientific community and of scholars of the philosophy of science (my undergraduate field). As Doug said, believe what you want, but don’t call it science. I would agree that it can be taught as a course in philosophy, history or theology.
Now there you both go again…..Freedom and Carlito……..I think you may be auditioning for a remake of the debates between Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan. By the way although I tend to consider myself HIGHLY Intelligent, I’m simply not going to comment on whether or not I ever designed anything. Not even this lingering winter.
So where does the Deus come into play,
Sorry for not responding sooner, Carlito. I was watching a show on Netflix about how in 5 billion years the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy are going to collide, and wondering if by that time Congress could move past gridlock and at least pass a resolution against it. As to where I come into play, I’m somewhat of an agnostic. Call it Intelligent Skepticism if you want.
Bryan is Brigante’s hero. I’ll be charitable and not force Brigante to play the role to his death, as Darrow inflicted on the populist hero.
No Freedom, your paleoconservative credentials firmly put you in the Six day creationist camp. After all, you stated you do not care which camp you fall into, Darwinism or so-called Intelligent Design. There is established science and the disinformation that flows from the Discovery Institute. You made your choice. Now defend it.
“After all, you stated you do not care which camp you fall into, Darwinism or so-called Intelligent Design.”
Wrong. I said to Doug:
“Look, I don’t really care how you come down on Darwinism, Intelligent Design, etc.”
I then said:
“My point here is to show that judges are not a legitimate source of intellectual debate. There is relevant scientific literature on many topics. Court opinions are never among any of it.”
This is the withering argument that keeps you on the run because you can’t deny it. This is the argument that keeps you trying to throw up dust to keep everyone from seeing what a shallow intellectual foundation your friends are.
It’s a good thing no one’s saying they are, then.
The court opinion isn’t a contribution to scholarly literature, but rather a practical application of it to work out a question it was faced to which such information was germane.
Your continued inability to grasp basic distinctions like these makes it increasingly clear that you are, quite frankly, very very stupid, and intellectually incapable of putting forth anything worth consideration.
It is not a withering argument. It is an unsupported statement that you continue to repeat without any supporting argument. Legal opinions are based on logical reasoning drawn from the facts of the case and the relevant controlling case law.
As was told to you above, legal opinions are explicitly unbound from the rules of Logic. This is elementary. Reread. You keep failing this really easy lesson.
P.S. “Relevant controlling case law” is, itself, a fallacy and an alogical expression.
No, Freedom. At this point, I must invoke an old Arab folk saying. “When dogs bark, don’t bark back.” Now sit by your bowl and wait for a bone.
I’m a little confused here (not a lot, then I would not be who I AM)….Freedom: you say that judges aren’t equipped to be experts, in the case on science, etc. But neither is the average judge when it comes to determining if a plumber fulfilled his plumbing contract, because he doesn’t have a plumber’s license/training. Or an organic chemist when it comes to deciding patent infringement suits. That’s why we have expert witnesses and the fact-finding process.
(They wanted to use Me as an Expert Witness once but some lawyer successfully challenged me because he though the jury would be intimidated.)
“I’m a little confused here (not a lot, then I would not be who I AM)….Freedom: you say that judges aren’t equipped to be experts, in the case on science, etc. But neither is the average judge when it comes to determining if a plumber fulfilled his plumbing contract, because he doesn’t have a plumber’s license/training.”
False equivalence.
The subject before the court in a plumbing contract is the contract. Judges are arguably qualified (though no more so than any other man) to judge performance or breach in whether Roto Rooter came out and fixed your drain. Judges would, however, be wholly unqualified to publish a paper explaining hydrostatic pressure.
“Or an organic chemist when it comes to deciding patent infringement suits.
That’s why there’s thankfully an entirely different type of judge who adjudicates patent matters. https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/PrintPreview/325042200 A decent bachelor’s degree is far greater education than the best law degree.
“That’s why we have expert witnesses and the fact-finding process.”
The “fact-finding process” requires judges to rule on the legal matters presented before the court, not to write original works on the subjects before the court. The witnesses are the experts in the subject, not the judges. The witnesses write articles in books in the discipline at issue, not judges.
There are many highly respected scientists who are Christians (e.g., Francis Collins, Dir. Of NIH), but part of the reason they are highly respected is that they know where religion and science are separate, and where crossover is dishonest and inappropriate. Creationism is about religion, not science, and Creationism (as it has been advocated in the public media) is shared by a very small minority of noisy people. For that matter, “Creationism” was never supported by the Christian Church, nor by the famous “Church fathers” such as Augustine and Calvin. “Creationism” has historically failed as science, but it has done quite well as ignorance.