More lying to teachers

Hamline Law School? As in Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota?

Current issues aren't available online, and I wonder if there is any commentary on this tripe.

The thread below this is another in the never-ending saga of John Freshwater. So the obvious question is: Has Luskin made it clear that what Freshwater teaches (the Biblical creationism that the DI "distances itself" from) is definitely something that teachers cannot teach in public school?

So... Casey... what're these "legitimate scientific challenges" you're frothing about? Specified Complexity? 2LOT? c decay? Genesis? Genetic Entropy, maybe?

It is to laugh, as Bugs would say.

By now it is relatively uncontroversial that Intelligent Design, although bad science, can be considered science. After all, it is merely a way of predicting and interpreting agreed-upon scientific data. So the author cannot be considered intellectually dishonest on that account.

Cheerios,
NS

By now it is absolutely uncontroversial that "intelligent design" is a religious argument as outlined in the district court ruling in Kitzmiller vs Dover.

And that's all that counts.

Corn Flakes, Doc Bill

By now it is relatively uncontroversial that Intelligent Design, although bad science, can be considered science. After all, it is merely a way of predicting ...

What prediction has ID ever made that has been tested and survived?

I would suppose Luskin and those like him regard their religious beliefs as matters of fact, descriptions of reality, as obvious and genuine as rocks and sunlight. Science, being the study of reality, MUST therefore somehow ratify this conviction - how could it possibly do otherwise? And this, in turn, makes Luskin's beliefs scientific.

I suppose it must frustrate Luskin and those like him that science remains so willfully blind to what Luskin finds obvious, while the law remains equally willfully wrongheaded as it conspires with science in the Grand Pretense that Luskin's Designer doesn't exist. As though science were to pretend gravity doesn't exist despite all the clear evidence, and the law agreeing that school teachers simply will not mention that things fall. To Luskin, the Designer is if anything even more self-evident than gravity.

Luskin, not being a scientist, doesn't know the technical requirements for demonstrating the Truth of his convictions - that's a job for all those scientists who are failing to do their jobs for what can only be religious reasons. But one doesn't need to be a scientist to see the obvious, or to see that science MUST be pretending the obvious doesn't exist. What else CAN they be doing? The obvious is obvious!

ID predicts that there will be unanswered questions about pathetic details.

There are unanswered questions.

Ergo...

unnoteworthytroll: By now it is relatively uncontroversial that Intelligent Design, although bad science, can be considered science.

Flint said: [A very good description of the world view of the creationists who are true believers in religion]

notedscholar said: By now it is relatively uncontroversial that Intelligent Design, although bad science, can be considered science. After all, it is merely a way of predicting and interpreting agreed-upon scientific data.

So the author cannot be considered intellectually dishonest on that account.

Notedscholar seems to think that rationalizing about science is enough to make something science. The generally accepted criterion for valid science is that it's incorporated into the scientific literature. Intelligent design is an abysmal failure by this criterion. Notedscholar, like Discovery Institute fellows, makes the (classic) blunder of drawing conclusions before making and testing hypotheses.

Ravilyn Sanders said: Still the most active creationists are going after scientists and biologists, not judges and reporters. Heck, they are not even demanding Fox News to report on supernatural phenomena with a straight face. It is essentially the case of attacking people who are bad at public relations and counter attacking, biologists.

They may get publicity from gullible reporters, but they can’t get “respect” from them. Just padding their résumés

Hey Tex

"What prediction has ID ever made that has been tested and survived?"

Fixed that for you.

Wow. 64 pages of Casey Luskin. Too much to take all at once. Time to go drink some Metamucil now.

From a quick glance, Casey obviously still has a major itch about Kitzmiller. The other cases get 2-3 page treatments, but Kitz gets 10 pages, with subheadings and everything. He wails about the drubbing, tries to limit the decision and its effect, and generally rehashes all the holdings he doesn't like. All references are stated contentiously; for example, "The Kitzmiller Ruling Used False Evidence to Claim That ID is Not Science," and "The Kitzmiller ruling was predicated upon a false definition of intelligent design."
There is also a thoroughgoing ploy that he hopes will be subtle, but is more like his usual clunker. From a word search, almost every time "ID" is mentioned, Casey takes extra time to distance it from "creationism" or from "other alternatives" to Darwinism.

At this remove, Casey seems to be shooting himself in the foot. He would be ahead to just bury Kitzmiller and hope that people forget about it.

Notedscholar sez... By now it is relatively uncontroversial that Intelligent Design, although bad science, can be considered science.

Mike Haubrich, FCD (#1): "Hamline Law School? As in Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota?"

Uh, yeah. Unfortunately. But maybe a step up from Casey's previous effort in the Montana Law Review. Writing for third-tier schools gets you in the door, and lets you claim peer-review credit. I know. A long time ago I was editor of a law review.

Of course I'm no scientist, like Luskin, and Phillip E. Johnson for that matter, but I have this to say; 'fuck him, and pseudo-scientific horse he rode in on; ID.'

Having got that off my chest I would like to say thank you Mr Elzinga for the informative post. I've never had to face absurd reporters, but I have had to deal with witheringly stupid xians; of the lowest (Denyse O'Leary) kind. My personal strategem is to listen, with unabashed patience, I follow this up with, 'you must be out of your fucking mind'. Not devastating argument I will agree, but it gets to the heart of the matter and employs their own tactic; stupidity, it's never failed me.

Have fun,
Rob.

By now it is relatively uncontroversial that Intelligent Design, although bad science, can be considered science.

After all, it is merely a way of predicting and interpreting agreed-upon scientific data. So the author cannot be considered intellectually dishonest on that account.

Cheerios, NS

By now it is relatively uncontroversial that Intelligent Design, although bad science, can be considered science. After all, it is merely a way of predicting and interpreting agreed-upon scientific data. So the author cannot be considered intellectually dishonest on that account. Cheerios, NS

Regarding the natural chemical origin of life, the
textbook stated that “scientists cannot disprove the hypothesis that life originated naturally and spontaneously.”125 Yet, the textbook still maintained that this hypothesis is within the realm of science, stating that “[h]ow life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest, research, and discussion among scientists.”126 Thus Rebecca Moeller was told that schools can teach the “untestable hypothesis” that life originated via natural chemical reactions, but cannot teach the “untestable hypothesis” that life arose via divine creation. Courts should be careful to avoid such double standards when assessing the constitutionality of teaching
different views about biological origins.

This is utterly idiotic. Of course there are two different ways of dealing with this because one is the subject of scientific hypothesis and ongoing research, which are open to scientific testing and validation, and the other is a religious belief system, a supernatural venue, that cannot be tested. How he can possibly see this as a "double standard" leaves one wondering about his basic skills, like reading comprehension...

How he can possibly see this as a “double standard” leaves one wondering about his basic skills, like reading comprehension…

Casey's defense is predicated on the oft-exposed lie that ID is not creationism, hence not supernatural, therefore science.

You're not fooling anyone, Casey.

Not even Finnegan.

Give it a rest.

Luskin's article seems to rest on at least two wrong premises.

The main wrong premise is that the kinds of criticisms he wants to introduce into scientific education is a whole series of inaccurate and misleading criticisms of modern evolutionary theory. Some of the criticisms one reasonably would think he wants to introduce are not, in and of themselves "religious" per se. They are just either patently wrong, widely discredited, or both. Granted, introducing inaccurate criticism into science education in and of itself may not be unconstitutional, but given all the givens, it would seem clear that these criticisms are being introduced to farther a religious agenda. So it really doesn't serve any secular purpose to miseducate students on the basis of religious motives.

The second wrong premise is his definition of supernatural. Suppose someone believes that the alien committee from planet Xanadu genetically engineered all life at the beginning, and then periodically intervened to tinker around and produce evolutionary leaps. Perhaps this committee of space aliens (or their descendants) are waiting for us to discover the "truth" and at that moment, will reveal themselves to us. So all the religions of the world are just myths designed to point us to the space aliens. Why is this belief not religious? Why does supernatural have to mean "outside" the Universe? And suppose these space aliens have the secret of time travel or of parallel universe travel. Are they not then, in essence, "supernatural"?

Olorin said: (Casey Luskin wrote) "The Kitzmiller ruling was predicated upon a false definition of intelligent design."

Olorin continued: "...almost every time "ID" is mentioned, Casey takes extra time to distance it from "creationism" or from "other alternatives" to Darwinism. At this remove, Casey seems to be shooting himself in the foot. He would be ahead to just bury Kitzmiller and hope that people forget about it.

Olorin said: (Casey Luskin wrote) "The Kitzmiller ruling was predicated upon a false definition of intelligent design."

Olorin continued: "...almost every time "ID" is mentioned, Casey takes extra time to distance it from "creationism" or from "other alternatives" to Darwinism. At this remove, Casey seems to be shooting himself in the foot. He would be ahead to just bury Kitzmiller and hope that people forget about it.

Please forgive the double posting. I'm quite certain I didn't mean to do that.

Paul Burnett said: Please forgive the double posting. I'm quite certain I didn't mean to do that.

Jordan shoes
Jordan basketball shoes

Flint said:

How he can possibly see this as a “double standard” leaves one wondering about his basic skills, like reading comprehension…

You need to give him a little benefit of the doubt. Whether life originated naturally and spontaneously in fact can never be proved. The closest we can come in principle, is to demonstrate that it could have happened, maybe even eventually that it probably happened. But there's a real difference between showing that something is possible, and showing that's how it actually came about.

Now, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that we remain forever unable to demonstrate any plausible path by which life could have happened naturally. Let's assume that all our biogenesis research leads to dead ends. But from this we can't conclude that natural biogenesis is impossible; scientifically, it only indicates that however it happened remains unknown. Conversely, let's say a bunch of creationists gather in a lab, pray themselves hoarse, and suddenly POOF a new "kind" appears before them. Have they proved that's how it originally happened? Or have they only shown one possibility? And if intense prayer has no better luck than intense scientific research, just exactly what is the legal distinction that allows teaching one approach but not the other? And so in principle we have two "origin claims" - by natural means and by magical means - neither of which can ever be either proved or disproved. But ONE of these claims is "science" and the other is not. I can easily see how this might seem to be a double standard, to a True Believer.

Some of the PT threads could do with a little less "joy" (not to mention his/her/its shoes)...

Henry J

stevaroni said:

Notedscholar sez... By now it is relatively uncontroversial that Intelligent Design, although bad science, can be considered science.

Um, we should teach it because it's bad science?

The only problem is that Intelligent Design is not even "bad" science. It is a religiously motivated pseudoscience that does not belong in any educational curriculum in the exact same reason rat poison should never be mentioned in any cooking recipe.

...for the exact same reason rat poison should never be mentioned in any cooking recipe.

What the hell happened in here? The comments are all jumbled up and email addresses are shown.

phantomreader42 said: What the hell happened in here? The comments are all jumbled up and email addresses are shown.