Re: [asa] Denyse's advice

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 13:04:57 EDT

On 5/4/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> But most significantly, the resulting spin was grossly unfair because it
> suggested Behe's definition would render astrology a workable, useful and
> perhaps true view of the world today and that it might therefore be taught
> in public schools if Behe's views about ID as "science" were accepted. This
> is what the judge' opinion suggests, and that is exactly how anti-ID
> advocates have spun it. But iIt is NOT what Behe testified to. He was
> clear that astrology as a useful and workable theory has long since gone by
> the boards; that astrology has been soundly falsified. The place where Behe
> would demarcate "science" might not be the best one; it might not be the
> demarcation which most working scientists would make; it might not be the
> right one for public school curricula; but it is manifestly unfair to
> suggest from this testimony that Behe would open the doors to the teaching
> of astrology as a legitimate scientific theory today.
>

I agree the spin is unfair and I believe both you and the anti-ID crowd are
reading too much in to the judge's opinion here. What Behe's definition does
do is to make astrology science while the NAS definition does not. This
raises the question of the usefulness of Behe's definition in light that it
included what everyone agrees is not science. A definition is useful both by
what it admits and what it denies and this is why I believe the NAS
definition is superior. Thus, I don't believe the judge erred here.

If there is an error -- and I will accept that there is based on your legal
expertise -- is the assumption only science proper can be taught in a
science class. It seems to me that the philosophy of science is appropriate,
also. If you treat ID as philosophy and the NAS definition becomes too
restrictive for that use. In my opinion, this makes the judge's analysis as
correct, but moot. It's also example where ID the movement warps ID the
school of thought. By insisting on being "science only" they pushed the
judge into the corner to look at ID as a scientific theory and he ruled the
obvious that it is not.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 4 13:07:21 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 04 2007 - 13:07:22 EDT