Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

LOUISIANA UPDATE

There is an historic irony here, in that the Supreme Court case which struck down laws which required "balanced" science education--i.e., teaching things like creationism or "intelligent design" in science classrooms--was brought against a Louisiana law which required creationism to be taught along side evolution in any science class which mentioned evolution. That was the 1987 decision in Edwards versus Aguillard. Perhaps the creationist folks think they will find freinds on the Court as it is currently constituted, because it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that this is a direct challenge to the decision in that case.

Ive always wondered , since Aguillard, why the concept of ID has NOT been heavily pushed in Louisiana. Aguillard left a "HUGE DOOR" open by the majority opinion that stated that "other theories of the origins of man and species can be presented". In that case, its merely a matter of tying up the ed boards with IDjit gobbly gook. The ed board, probably so disposed, especially with the Jindhal admin there now, could probably keep this issue tied up for ywars.
PSS, dont say anything to anybody who has Bobby's ears.

I wouldn't consider Bobby to be very high in the confidence of creationist strategists. I'm sure they'll think of it sooner or later, though. That might lead to a review of the Dover case, and i'd love to see this court tackle that one.

There is a difference between "teaching things like creationism or "intelligent design" in science classrooms" and requiring " creationism to be taught along side evolution in any science class which mentioned evolution".

It looks as if the insistence on teaching evolution in science classes is the only cause of requiring creationism to be taught along side evolution in any science class which mentioned evolution.

Leaving evolution out of science classes, as wande reported that many biology teachers do, is therefore the obvious route to avoid having creationism or "intelligent design" taught in science classrooms.

This insistence can be seen as provocative in the absence of any argument that familiarity with evolution theory is necessary or beneficial to secondary school students as opposed to students in higher education who might be assumed to be specialising. The provocation deriving from political or personal motives.

Those with little experience of the teaching profession are somewhat prone to caricaturing its members as paragons of virtue and honesty.

It is also a matter of importance that some science teachers are militant atheists and might take the opportunity to teach evolution in its less acceptable aspects, which anti-IDers conveniently have on Ignore like the ace scientists they are, on their own admission, to the polite opinions likely to be held by parents of a majority of the students or even of, dare I say, the wider community which has elected leaders to speak for it.

It is indeed an irony that evolution theory undermines every argument anti-IDers are putting forth. But we are supposed to have that on Ignore as well which it would be if I wasn't on the case.

It's all a load of crap or even smug crap and is nothing but a monkey wrench thrown into the idealised fantasies of the mechanical minds of their hopeless and easily defeated spokespersons who are reduced to such repetitive, pointless, infantile and anti-education arguments. How scientifically balanced can they get?

I sorry to have to say it but it is obvious from wande's quote that Barbara Forrest thinks you are all simpletons.

What does "dozens of letters" add up to in a state of 4.4 million people which is known to be somewhat different in climate and historical development than the rest of the USA. Texas is similar.

It's as if anti-IDers wish to see polar bears introduced in Lousiana and Texas.

One might conjure up a list of adjectives to categorise the arrogance and then find that they are equally applicable, or even moreso, to stupidity.

Imagine a silly sod up in the wilds of Pennsylvania whittling away, in a freezing barn, at the construction of an authentic currach with power tools and selections from the lumber yard range of products giving the Govenor of a state of 4.4 million organisms living in a climate given to fastest fecundity lessons on evolution. They do the "I your's --me with you" stuff down there I heard.

Or one in NY or thereabouts, whose very signature reveals a selective fascination with erections, using a "Country Stile philosophy as a substitute for the Demon Drink, picked up for $5 at a roadside Shoppe in a nice handy vessel in the form of a cow which is certainly inconvenient for shaking ketchup out of.

It's a joke.

And these "dozens of letters" , 2.25 dozens say, could easily have been organised by one or two persons getting 2.25 dozens of different writing paper, 2.25 dozens of different pens, adopting 2.25 dozens of different writing styles and going around to 2.25 dozens post boxes either in person or with the help of others. Or 2.25 dozens of usernames.

So that's her very first sentence relying for its meaning on us not knowing that that could well be what "dozens of letters" might mean, scientifically. You need to have a serious axe to grind to overlook insulting our intelligence quite so baldly.

After that we all know what's coming. It's the lead in. The dozens of letters I mean. For the spiel.

And it means nothing. Except Ms Forrest thinks we are all stupid. Which Mr Jindal can't allow himself to think for obvious reasons.

Were you all impressed by the "dozens of letters"? The extent you were is the rough extent of your subjectivity.

And if you were not impressed--that's even worse. It's disloyal to one of your leaders.

I'm pretty sure that had the number been 8000 the precise figure would have been given but even then the same principles apply as do to 2.25 dozens. That's just a matter of finance. A low number of dozens indicates a weak financial structure. I think that "over a 100" would have got a mention.

Dozens of letters means not very many. And there's no timescale.

There's only one person who Barbara Forrest would think is stupid here and it's PS XXX.

Barbara Forrest
From Wikipedia

Barbara Forrest
Nationality USA
Fields Philosophy of science

Institutions Southeastern Louisiana University
Alma mater Southeastern Louisiana University (BA)
Louisiana State University (MA)
Tulane University (PhD)
Known for Creationism's Trojan Horse

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Barbara Carroll Forrest is professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana. She has been a critic of intelligent design and the Discovery Institute.

Biography

Forrest is a graduate of Hammond High School. She received her B.A. in English in 1974 from Southeastern Louisiana University, her M.A. in Philosophy in 1978 from Louisiana State University, and her Ph.D. in philosophy from Tulane University in 1988. She has taught philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University since 1988 and presently is professor of philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science.[1]

She co-authored Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford University Press, 2004), with biologist Paul R. Gross. The book examines the goals and strategies of the intelligent design movement and its attempts to undermine the teaching of evolutionary biology. The authors analyze the absence of a scientific intelligent design hypothesis, ID's religious foundations, and the political ambitions of intelligent design proponents. They examine the movement's Wedge strategy which has advanced and is succeeding through public relations rather than through scientific research. They also highlight intelligent design creationism's relationship to public education and to the separation of church and state.

Forrest serves on the board of directors of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), the Board of Trustees of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association (NOSHA).

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Forrest was a key expert witness for the plaintiffs in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a conservative Christian, not-for-profit law center whose motto is "The Sword and the Shield for People of Faith". After Forrest had been deposed, the TMLC tried but failed to have her stopped from testifying. In a motion to have her removed as a witness, they described her as "little more than a conspiracy theorist and a web-surfing, ‘cyber-stalker’ of the Discovery Institute...."[5][6] Judge Jones denied the motion and Forrest's testimony began on October 5.

According to Forrest, after the TMLC's attempt to exclude her as a witness had failed, and only a few days before she would be testifying, the Discovery Institute attempted to publicly ridicule her on their website. She wrote:

On September 29, I noticed that DI had posted a transcript of an interview I had done"except that I hadn’t done it. The transcript was fake. Apparently meant (though not marked) as a parody, the organization whose self-described goal is "to support high quality scholarship . . . relevant to the question of evidence for intelligent design in nature" ridiculed me by, among other things, having fictitious radio host "Marvin Waldburger" refer to me as "Dr. Barking Forrest Ph.D." If DI thought this would unsettle me, they were ignoring the fact that I had just been through two killer hurricanes. I could only shake my head at their doing something so jaw-droppingly stupid. If they were hoping Judge Jones would see and be influenced by this silliness, it was just another sign of the disrespect for his intelligence and integrity that began before the trial and continues today.

During her testimony the defense lawyers again asked the court to exclude Forrest from testifying as expert witness. Judge Jones allowed them to present their case for dismissing her and then denied their request. Forrest would go on to testify on the religious origins and nature of the intelligent design movement, the wedge document, and also demonstrated that the drafts of the textbook at the center of the court case Of Pandas and People, substituted terms such as "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer" in place of "creationism" and "creator" in an attempt to circumvent the ruling in the Edwards v. Aguillard which determined that teaching creationism in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the United States constitution. Her testimony had a significant impact on Judge Jones's decision.[8]

A year after the ruling Forrest commented in a telephone interview, "It was very clear to everyone who followed the case that intelligent design is not science. The Discovery Institute has been trying for years to foment a court case. And they finally got one dropped in their laps and what was ironic is they didn't want it. They knew what this case would do to them."

Forrest has appeared in the media, including PBS. She was the featured speaker for Southeastern Louisiana University's Linus A. Sims Memorial Library commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species on 23 April 2009.

Im sorry but isnt "anti-ID" the position that is occupied by the pro-science teachers?

Im here looking at all your horsehit and still hoping to see a pony emerge.

I believe it's more like pig with lipstick.

Well--obviously. Anti-IDers think declaring somebody stupid has won the argument. It's normal for anti-IDers. There are a few versions on these last pages. There's "crap", "smug crap", "monkey wrenches", " horseshit" and now--oh no---not again--"stupid".

I proved she is stupid to think we are. She's quite cunning though. Exploiting a niche in the market as a lady professor of philosophy who knows how to use the "dozens of letters" trick as a pedestal upon which to set up her loudspeakers.

There are many men who don't allow a Ph.D. to go clean to their heads and leave them bereft of their senses but in my experience no ladies. Modern philosophy is entirely concerned with the meaning of meaning. We all know what the meaning of meaningless is. Including Mr Jindal.

The textual analysis of "dozens of letters" is an ideal theme for an introductory lesson in a beginners course in elementary philosophy. There are many others of course.

A rose you mean fm. Horseshit is ideal for rose cultivation. And it's not unsightly.

And I have heard of it being a delicacy when properly garnished and cooked as no doubt your expertise with the pots and pans would show if you tried it.

Don't be silly fm. It's a pose. There's not an anti-IDer among them from what I've seen. At least I hope so. One wouldn't want to set a real anti-IDer loose on the kids surely?

Do you really think a real anti-IDer could get through the screening process teachers go through before becoming in loco parentis. Loco being the operant conditioner. Borrowed from the Mexican.

It there aren't any anti-IDers amongst them, please provide "one" pro-science teacher that is pro-ID?

Avoiding that annoying humm, I wonder how we could present the case for ID being a "real science" and therefore allowed in through the loophole that "Aguillard..." had left for Louisiana?

IMHO This could be presented with some degree of conviction by the Disc Inst from its own research and funding of projects that are intended to "prove" that the Universe shows evidence of design.
The concepts of irreducibke complexity could be moved so far back as to present a cogent argument that life was planned .
Im not caving, Im only playing a little head game , cause Ive always wondered why NOT, they havent snuck in the side door in Jindhal land. Hes the first "out of the closet" gubernatorial advocate of ID. Edwards was merely a cReationist and the actual ID "movement" hadnt yet been formed up until Atty Johnston presented the case in "Darwin on Trial"

The biggest problem I see for "them" is the simple fact that they can't produce any evidence for any of their claims. All they can do is conjecture; in layman's terms, it means "guesses."

That's imagining, not conjecturing. They're imagining their DI "discoveries" as a bad magician who can succeed in fooling himself into believing he is fooling others.

There is no scientific case for a designer fm. Nor will there ever be.

Imagine a brain/mind/body as a collection of material objects fm as a materialist necessarily has to do.

Let's stay with just brain--it's simpler.

The material objects, atoms say and electrical impulses, in a brain can be arranged in a very large number of patterns by experience, conditioning, indoctrination and education and these patterns are apt for certain types of behaviour.

For groups of humans certain patterns, when held "more or less" in common within the group are capable of producing behaviour which strengthens or weakens the group's fortunes. Identifying the patterns that lead to success is obviously a scientific activity and engineering such patterns is the technological application of such a science.

Thus it can be said that a successful group has useful patterns and it follows, I presume you agree western Christian civilisation is a success, that those patterns be preserved and perfected insofar as human nature is capable of being.

Traffic violations are an example of what happens when the patterns stem from a material source. They rely on fear. Reduce the fear and the violations increase.

When the source is thought to be divine and is also a success it would seem to me that only a malcontent would seek to make radical changes. It is possible to reject the divine source but not to seek to change it. A discreet atheist.

But the DI is in a bind with that scientific argument. It is not materialist, or it can't admit to being, and to use that argument is thus impossible.

So it has to use others. The main thing is the patterns. Not how they are arrived at. The atheist can have any pattern.

de Sade, as an aristocrat, was above the law.

Im not certain that the "sudden appearance argument" couldnt be polished up and carried out to be a feature in the "New theory of Intelligent Design". By looking at several genera and claiming that evidence has been followed all the way back and that no precursors can be seen. (I always like the argument about early Cambrian "Fish" or evidence that seems to indicate that , no matter how hard we work on finding earliest fossils, when the best arguments are made, someone usually comes up with a fossil even more early and primitive that leads us down even more circuitous paths. (Louisiana ed board members would eat that up)

Genetics , although it connects all life with a clear unifying web, enough differences among genomes exist that could mean "separate but equal " origins.

Id love to make their argument as a"competing theory"

When we observe the sex practices of most living species, it seems quite clear that nature's design were pretty consistent.