Jump to content

Evolution Court Case


Recommended Posts

What way do you think the Judge will rule on the case? I heard so far that the decision will be made around Nov. 8.

 

From what i also heard, the judge seems to be well informed on evolution and the definition of theory.

 

I would be delighted to hear your guys views on how this and maybe future cases may turn out.

 

BTW: here is a really interesting link that i found concerning evolution and science.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051028/sc_nm/science_usa_dc;_ylt=ApyC3CW2LMYi..IPj_.7FwxxieAA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NmhocGZ1BHNlYwMxNzAw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is pretty good, in that is reveals several truths about Americans IN GENERAL. We're ignorant, we believe in the lies people tell us, we suck at math, and its never our fault.

 

I've seen my country do some pretty stupid things in the last few years, but I must say, this is the first time I'm actually ashamed that I am American.

 

We have some serious issues. Americans think we're the best, when we are actually probably the most ignorant people in the world. We are so blinded by our self-prophesized greatness that we don't realize that the rest of the world is surpassing us, and hates us.

 

I really need to move ....maybe to Japan, they seem to be on top of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the school board was even allowed to do that in the first place astounds me.

 

Perhaps if they read it next to "there is absolutely nothing other than a book we think is a few thousand years old (and that we've revised as was seen fit) in it to support intelligent design. Also, you should be aware that if any of the "claims" made by the people in the bible were "claimed" today, we would institutionalize whoever was making them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found in quite amusing. I actually just read a court transcript from the witness testimony of Michael "Irreducible Complexity" Behe in which he explicitly admits that any definition of "science" which includes ID also includes *Astrology*.

 

I guess if the loonies win, "what's your sign?" will be a future SAT question.

 

Mokele

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found in quite amusing. I actually just read a court transcript from the witness testimony of Michael "Irreducible Complexity" Behe in which he explicitly admits that any definition of "science" which includes ID also includes *Astrology*.

 

I guess if the loonies win' date=' "what's your sign?" will be a future SAT question.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

in this great country? I wouldn't put it passed us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think religion always tries to strike at science whenever science doesn't have an immediate massive positive effect. when it leads to a new everday technological neccesity, the arguments against science seem to die out pretty quickly. when it's just some theory explaining out past, who needs that kind of heresy around?

 

its nothing more than religion trying to hang scientist in a more civilized manner, and the case should get kicked out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the case should get kicked out

 

Actually, no, the case occuring is very valuable. The worst thing to happen to creationism was when a court case made it to the Supreme Court, who decided that it violated church and state (and that's why ID was invented). If this court does make the correct decision, it'll give legal basis for future judges to automatically rule against ID proponents without these bothersome show trials. If this case is appealed, and I'm positive it will be, then the decision will immediately apply to a wider area. If it makes it to the Supremes, it could kill ID across the whole country.

 

I'm actually unsure whether the Supreme Court refusing to hear it because they think a lower court's decision was right makes it apply to the whole country or just that lower court's area. Anyone know?

 

Mokele

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...who decided that it violated church and state

 

You might want to refer to this as the Establishment Clause to prevent any IDiots from asking where it says "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution (since they're too dumb to find the Everson v. Ewing decision)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found in quite amusing. I actually just read a court transcript from the witness testimony of Michael "Irreducible Complexity" Behe in which he explicitly admits that any definition of "science" which includes ID also includes *Astrology*.

Yes, that was pretty funny. Other highlights include his claim that the "peer review" his book supposedly underwent was more rigorous than that undergone by mainstream scientific literature. From the PA ACLU blog:

http://aclupa.blogspot.com/2005/10/all-part-of-scientific-process-part-1.html

It has been stated here before that Behe has not submitted his own work on intelligent design for peer review. At the same time, Behe agreed, when asked by plaintiff's counsel Eric Rothschild if the "peer review for Darwin's Black Box was analogous to peer review in the [scientific] literature." It was, according to Behe, even more rigorous. There were more than twice standard the number of reviewers and "they read [the book'] more carefully... because this was a controversial topic."

Turns out though, that one of the "peer reviewers" Behe cited (Dr. Michael Atchison) never actually read the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turns out though, that one of the "peer reviewers" Behe cited (Dr. Michael Atchison) never actually read the book.

 

That's actually not that unusual. In actual science, everybody that gets in the position of being able to review a manuscript is likely too busy to review a manuscript. Many, many papers that I've read have glaring errors that should have been caught in peer review but somehow weren't. I'm not saying that reviewers aren't reading the paper; they're just skimming through it.

 

But I would think that any paper (or a book that presents no original research) that purports to turn a 150-year old scientific theory on its head should be at least fairly carefully reviewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why doesn't someone just show the obvious---ID isn't science; it's religion?......

 

From the court notes I've read of the case, that's a large part of what the prosecution is doing, and they're doing a very good job of it. They've basically made Behe look like a total idiot (not that hard), and trapped him into numerous admissions that are pretty damning. The other IDiot witnesses have been pretty thoroughly disassembled, and one was even force to admit perjury on stand.

 

Mokele

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually unsure whether the Supreme Court refusing to hear it because they think a lower court's decision was right makes it apply to the whole country or just that lower court's area. Anyone know?

 

Mokele

 

 

The supreme court is soon to be filled with conservatives, why do think the republican party is workin his butt off to get another evangelist on the board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turns out though, that one of the "peer reviewers" Behe cited (Dr. Michael Atchison) never actually read the book.

People have the wrong idea about peer review. When a book or article is submitted, a reviewing editor and several referees read it, but this isn't peer review. This is just to ensure that it's of a sufficient standard (and of an appropriate topic) for publication by that particular journal or publisher.

 

Peer review begins after publication, when the book or article is read by the author's peers. That's when all the rebuttals and death-threats and stuff start pouring in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it works differently in psychology, but in bio, it seems to be more like "reviewers get the first crack at it", and reviews include all the picky stuff like why the author used this versus that statistical method or why this model species and whether conclusions are supported enough, etc.

 

Of course, that might just be specific to JEB and SICB, because some of the journals, even top-tier ones, in other fields have papers that make me go "how the **** did this get past peer review?"

 

Mokele

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the court notes I've read of the case' date=' that's a large part of what the prosecution is doing,

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Any links or anything on where to access those court notes? I'd be really interested in reading the transcripts also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.