Quotes on the Dover School Board Case
A few selected quotes from the on-line media around the country relating to the proceedings in Dover Pennsylvania.
From Professor Robert T. Pennock of Michigan University testifying at the trial.
“As scientists go about their business they follow a method. Intelligent Design wants to reject that and so it doesn’t really fall within the purview of science.”
Yup, the whole push behind Intelligent Design is to side step the scientific method. The entire structure of ID is negative. Evolution can’t explain everything or this looks like it couldn’t have come about by evolution therefore you must accept my default theory of design. If ID were true science it would be presenting POSITIVE evidence as to why it explains the empirical observations better than evolution.
The reason it can’t do that is in order to present a positive argument, it would have to at least hypothesize about the intelligent designer and what methodology he (she? It?) used. This of course they can’t do because as soon as they are forced to identify the designer, the whole façade that ID is science rather than religion would come crashing down.
From the San Francisco Chronicle.
“Faith is one thing; ignorance is something else. To reject evolution in teaching biology is as inane as rejecting quantum theory or the theory of relativity in teaching physics.”
“For the Dover folks, the best evidence against human evolution might be themselves.”
LOL! That’s a little strong. What I think we really have here is the classic fear that somehow accepting the science of evolution means they have to abandon their faith in God. No matter how many times it’s pointed out that there is no conflict, the insecurity of the fundamentalist religious nutcase wins out.
From Valerie Munson, founder of the department of religion at Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott law firm in Pennsylvania as reported in the Daily Tar Heel.
“Even if intelligent design is not found to be scientifically legitimate, it should be available as a secular purpose of fostering critical thinking.”
Why keep a nonsense theory around to teach critical thinking unless you're going to use it as a bad example? And I’m certain that's not what Ms. Munson is suggesting here. What's this strategy? Teach BAD science in a science classroom so we can get God a toe hold? Look, God has a lot more than a toe hold in the average science classroom. Just drop by during a pop quiz and listen to all the praying.
From Jeremy Leaming, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“Evolution is not controversy.”
Well, it may not be controversy among the scientific community or among the overwhelming majority of intelligent and educated adults, BUT it’s obviously a controversy other places. If it weren’t, this court case wouldn’t be necessary now would it?
According to the last Pew Research Poll, 42% of the country believed in creationism while 48% accepted evolution. When educational level is taken into account things break down like this.
Those with H.S. or less – Creationism 50%, Evolution 36%
Those with some college – Creationism 42%, Evolution 51%
Those with a College Degree – Creationism 27%, Evolution 66%
From Pat Gillan, the lead lawyer for the Dover School Board.
"It is not religion. Intelligent design is really science in its purest form — a refusal to close avenues of exploration in favour of a dominant theory."
Ok, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, BUT there is an awful lot of really BAD pure science out there. It’s the responsibility of scientific peers to review new hypotheses and determine whether or not they have merit and NOT the responsibility of rural school boards or 9th grade biology students.
From Kenneth Miller, a Brown University professor of biology testifying at the trial.
"No theory in science is ever regarded as an absolute truth and evolution is no exception."
When asked if there were "gaps" in all scientific theories.
"If you define an unanswered question as a gap, then that's true."
I certainly can’t argue with either of those two positions. If an acceptible response to saying “I don’t know” is GOD DID IT, then you’ll excuse me while I go locate some virgins for the next sacrifice.
But do you know what REALLY gets to me? Here are all these people testifying how school board members openly talked about balancing evolution with creationism and standing up for Jesus, if you look at the history of the “textbook” that was recommended as a reference for ID, it began life as a creationist text, the law firm defending the school board is one dedicated to defending Christian causes AND there are pictures of people PRAYING outside the freaking courtroom, YET with a straight face, the school board members and their law team say their actions AREN'T RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED!
These people ever hear of that commandment about bearing false witness? I don't agree with people that take a creationist view but at least those folks have the courage to stand up and proclaim their convictions to the world regardless of the consequences. To them integrity of conviction is more important than winning a point. This ID crowd however, seems to have the philosophy that's it's ok to "Lie for Jesus." Winning is more important than honesty or integrity. Somehow I find this more than a little ironic from a crowd that's also constantly whining about "moral values." What would Jesus do? I'll bet you he wouldn't lie. Not even a little.
Ok, if the court is looking for an excuse to allow some form of supreme being based teaching in science classrooms, I guess there’s enough camouflage here to allow it to do so. But there is NO WAY the motivation behind the Dover School Board’s actions isn’t religious even if the purpose behind Intelligent Design isn’t religious (which of course it is, just LOOK at the list of fellows of the Discovery Institute if you have any doubts!).
From Professor Robert T. Pennock of Michigan University testifying at the trial.
“As scientists go about their business they follow a method. Intelligent Design wants to reject that and so it doesn’t really fall within the purview of science.”
Yup, the whole push behind Intelligent Design is to side step the scientific method. The entire structure of ID is negative. Evolution can’t explain everything or this looks like it couldn’t have come about by evolution therefore you must accept my default theory of design. If ID were true science it would be presenting POSITIVE evidence as to why it explains the empirical observations better than evolution.
The reason it can’t do that is in order to present a positive argument, it would have to at least hypothesize about the intelligent designer and what methodology he (she? It?) used. This of course they can’t do because as soon as they are forced to identify the designer, the whole façade that ID is science rather than religion would come crashing down.
From the San Francisco Chronicle.
“Faith is one thing; ignorance is something else. To reject evolution in teaching biology is as inane as rejecting quantum theory or the theory of relativity in teaching physics.”
“For the Dover folks, the best evidence against human evolution might be themselves.”
LOL! That’s a little strong. What I think we really have here is the classic fear that somehow accepting the science of evolution means they have to abandon their faith in God. No matter how many times it’s pointed out that there is no conflict, the insecurity of the fundamentalist religious nutcase wins out.
From Valerie Munson, founder of the department of religion at Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott law firm in Pennsylvania as reported in the Daily Tar Heel.
“Even if intelligent design is not found to be scientifically legitimate, it should be available as a secular purpose of fostering critical thinking.”
Why keep a nonsense theory around to teach critical thinking unless you're going to use it as a bad example? And I’m certain that's not what Ms. Munson is suggesting here. What's this strategy? Teach BAD science in a science classroom so we can get God a toe hold? Look, God has a lot more than a toe hold in the average science classroom. Just drop by during a pop quiz and listen to all the praying.
From Jeremy Leaming, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“Evolution is not controversy.”
Well, it may not be controversy among the scientific community or among the overwhelming majority of intelligent and educated adults, BUT it’s obviously a controversy other places. If it weren’t, this court case wouldn’t be necessary now would it?
According to the last Pew Research Poll, 42% of the country believed in creationism while 48% accepted evolution. When educational level is taken into account things break down like this.
Those with H.S. or less – Creationism 50%, Evolution 36%
Those with some college – Creationism 42%, Evolution 51%
Those with a College Degree – Creationism 27%, Evolution 66%
From Pat Gillan, the lead lawyer for the Dover School Board.
"It is not religion. Intelligent design is really science in its purest form — a refusal to close avenues of exploration in favour of a dominant theory."
Ok, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, BUT there is an awful lot of really BAD pure science out there. It’s the responsibility of scientific peers to review new hypotheses and determine whether or not they have merit and NOT the responsibility of rural school boards or 9th grade biology students.
From Kenneth Miller, a Brown University professor of biology testifying at the trial.
"No theory in science is ever regarded as an absolute truth and evolution is no exception."
When asked if there were "gaps" in all scientific theories.
"If you define an unanswered question as a gap, then that's true."
I certainly can’t argue with either of those two positions. If an acceptible response to saying “I don’t know” is GOD DID IT, then you’ll excuse me while I go locate some virgins for the next sacrifice.
But do you know what REALLY gets to me? Here are all these people testifying how school board members openly talked about balancing evolution with creationism and standing up for Jesus, if you look at the history of the “textbook” that was recommended as a reference for ID, it began life as a creationist text, the law firm defending the school board is one dedicated to defending Christian causes AND there are pictures of people PRAYING outside the freaking courtroom, YET with a straight face, the school board members and their law team say their actions AREN'T RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED!
These people ever hear of that commandment about bearing false witness? I don't agree with people that take a creationist view but at least those folks have the courage to stand up and proclaim their convictions to the world regardless of the consequences. To them integrity of conviction is more important than winning a point. This ID crowd however, seems to have the philosophy that's it's ok to "Lie for Jesus." Winning is more important than honesty or integrity. Somehow I find this more than a little ironic from a crowd that's also constantly whining about "moral values." What would Jesus do? I'll bet you he wouldn't lie. Not even a little.
Ok, if the court is looking for an excuse to allow some form of supreme being based teaching in science classrooms, I guess there’s enough camouflage here to allow it to do so. But there is NO WAY the motivation behind the Dover School Board’s actions isn’t religious even if the purpose behind Intelligent Design isn’t religious (which of course it is, just LOOK at the list of fellows of the Discovery Institute if you have any doubts!).
posted by Alencon at 1:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home