I read this:
Until recently, the Darwinian perspective has enjoyed a monopoly over the curriculum in public school biology classes. Nevertheless, a number of factors have undermined the basis for that monopoly. First, dissenting
scientific opinion about the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for the origin of apparent design has broken the Darwinian hegemony in the scientific world. Second, within the philosophy of science, the failure of demarcation arguments has meant that both Darwinian evolutionary theory and design theory now enjoy equivalent methodological status, thereby denying any legal basis for excluding opposing theories from consideration.
Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science or Religion or Speech? 2000 Utah Law Review 39 (2000), at 109
Refutations?
Originally posted by WulebgrAs creationism isn't sciene, it's religion, and biology is science, and not religion, the matter is crystal clear, if you ask me.
I read this:
Until recently, the Darwinian perspective has enjoyed a monopoly over the curriculum in public school biology classes. Nevertheless, a number of factors have undermined the basis for that monopoly. First, dissenting
scientific opinion about the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for the origin of apparent design has ...[text shortened]... sy: Science or Religion or Speech? 2000 Utah Law Review 39 (2000), at 109
Refutations?
Originally posted by WulebgrPublic school biology classes are there to teach the accepted theories and knowledge and evolution currently is that.
I read this:
Until recently, the Darwinian perspective has enjoyed a monopoly over the curriculum in public school biology classes. Nevertheless, a number of factors have undermined the basis for that monopoly. First, dissenting
scientific opinion about the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for the origin of apparent design has ...[text shortened]... sy: Science or Religion or Speech? 2000 Utah Law Review 39 (2000), at 109
Refutations?
There are those that challenge the theory of evolution and they are free to do that, but what should be taught in public school is the consensus and the consesus right now is evolution.
Originally posted by PBE6One of the authors of the 2000 Utah Law Review article claimed that Dover was not fatal:
I believe the ultimate refutation resides in the decision of this court case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Note this issue was tried from September 26, 2005, to November 4, 2005, 5 years after the quoted statement from the Utah Law Review.
http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf
Originally posted by WulebgrThis pdf is 52 pages long, give us a a page reference! ðŸ˜
One of the authors of the 2000 Utah Law Review article claimed that Dover was not fatal:
http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf
However, it's my guess in the face of a decision like this:
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
the authour is simply exercising his right to free speech and not his right to critical thought, along with the single-minded pursuit of carrying out The Discovery Institute's "Wedge strategy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Originally posted by WulebgrIt isn't necessarily fatal partly in that they didn't lose it in a court that actuall sets a legal precedent.
One of the authors of the 2000 Utah Law Review article claimed that Dover was not fatal:
http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf
They chose not to appeal the ruling to a higher court because if they lost on appeal then there would be a precedent set and then that loss could be used in an argument against them in that case.
I'm not sure why that author thought the Dover decision wasn't fatal though.
Originally posted by WulebgrThe dissenting scientific opinion is insignificant in proportion to the number of scientists and is almost exclusively from scientists in non-related fields. Look up Project Steve.
I read this:
Until recently, the Darwinian perspective has enjoyed a monopoly over the curriculum in public school biology classes. Nevertheless, a number of factors have undermined the basis for that monopoly. First, dissenting
scientific opinion about the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for the origin of apparent design has ...[text shortened]... sy: Science or Religion or Speech? 2000 Utah Law Review 39 (2000), at 109
Refutations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
There is no Design Theory. There have been zero testable hypotheses produced by "Design Theorists". Their entire position can be summed up by the logical fallacy known as Personal Incredulity. The mathematical analyses they've done for the possibility abiogenesis are laughable in their assumptions.
High school is not the place to teach about every dispute currently going on within the scientific community. At this level, you want to focus on teaching the basic stuff that everyone in the scientific community pretty much agrees on.
At the same time, it's also important that students understand that science is NOT a set of static absolute truths. It is essentially an endless "argument" between proponents of rival theories and hypotheses. At any given time, certain theories hold sway because they currently do the best job explaining the facts - but new theories are always being proposed and occasionally one turns out to be good enough to displace an existing theory. You could say that science itself is the result of an evolutionary process based on "survival of the fittest theories".
But every high school SHOULD cover the evolution vs religion debate because it's a major part of history (especially the Scopes Monkey Trial), and because there are major philosophical challenges that evolution presents. It's important that everyone understands that because many people feel very strongly about the existence of God or some sort of "creative designer", it leads an intense opposition to the theory of evolution. It could then be stressed that there's no way that science can ever "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God - that a God may (or may not) be acting through the process of evolution in ways that science will never be able to measure.
Originally posted by WulebgrUnfortunately, science does not "prove" things. It generates testable and falsifiable hypotheses based on observations leading to refinements in models of reality. It is a common misunderstanding and a good way I find to see if someone is scientifically literate. Please see the link attached and I particularly like the Feynman quote:
Prove it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."
Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusTalkOrigins is a biased site, and your argument about proof fails on the ground of semantics. You are addressing one meaning of the term proof--essentially a standard comparable to the proof in criminal law--but I was using another meaning--essentially a standard comparable to proof in civil law.
Unfortunately, science does not "prove" things. It generates testable and falsifiable hypotheses based on observations leading to refinements in models of reality. It is a common misunderstanding and a good way I find to see if someone is scientifically literate. Please see the link attached and I particularly like the Feynman quote:
http://www.tal ...[text shortened]... nce was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."
Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
Show by a preponderance of evidence that the assertion is false.
The assertion: "dissenting scientific opinion about the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian ... has broken the Darwinian hegemony in the scientific world."
Any fool can paste links to TalkOrigins; if you go back into the archives of this and the religion forums, you'll see that I've done so dozens of times.
I want compelling evidence that the assertion in the 2000 law journal article is so far from the truth that the editors of the journal itself can be implicated in the fraud that the Discovery Institute and its fellows seek to perpetrate. If the evidence against them is not that compelling, I want to know why not. What basis do they have for such a claim?