I wasn’t aware that you had any training or competence in law. Until I’m assured of that, I’ll take your legal statements with a grain of salt. In the meantime, read my other reply, which gives a response to your argument and a fuller statement.
Who said we should put it in a science class? It would fit perfectly in an Ethics class as an example of dishonest chicanery in trying to manipulate the electorate into adopting a religious view disguised as science.
2 Likes
I don’t. For him, it was about all of the lying.
Nah. I’d just point out that they won’t even state an ID hypothesis or theory, much less test either one, but instead preen around deliberately and falsely identifying themselves as “theorists” while pretending that science is about books aimed at non experts, debates, and arguments.
Sound familiar?
2 Likes
This is another non-sequitur. Mentioning something which is inherently religious does not necessarily mean that you are doing so for the purpose of advancing a religion. It would be absurd to conclude that all the virulently anti-Christian atheist blogs which mention Christianity, are doing so for the purpose of advancing a religion, just because the mention Christianity, which is inherently religious.
Where did he say that? He went to great lengths to show that the actual motive of those advocating for teaching ID was religious. Mentioning a religious idea does not necessarily advance religion.
Because you want to show how pseudo-science works – and idea you just said you liked.
Which has nothing whatever to do with using ID as an example of pseudoscience.
By this argument, history teachers couldn’t mention religious ideas when talking about the Crusades or the founding of Massachusetts. Which is not the case.
2 Likes
That’s a gross misrepresentation of my position as usual, Eddie. My point is that ID creationism is not even lousy science. It’s not science at all.
But I guess it’s an interesting example of poor reasoning on your part, in the unlikely event that your misrepresentation was sincere.
1 Like
In the abstract, this is correct, but in the legal case we are talking about, the Judge ruled that the mere mention of ID as an alternative to regular evolutionary theory (remember, not a thing about the contents of ID was in the four-paragraph statement read to the students) did have a religious motivation. He did not accept that the purpose of the Board in reading the statement to students was a legitimate secular purpose. He deemed the purpose to be religious. Thus, there is no parallel between the actual situation and the situation you are talking about on atheist blogs. (By the way, about half the time, this site reads like an atheist blog.)
But even to show students that ID is not science at all, you’d have to say something about it. You’d have to describe it at some level, state what it claims. And I doubt that a court would let you do that.
I could be wrong, of course – I’m not a lawyer. But if I am wrong, I’d be more than happy to have every ninth-grade biology teacher in America bashing ID this Monday morning! So go to it! Get the proposal up and running!
<snort>
2 Likes
Yes, he did that, and did it very well. No argument. But he also – don’t forget, he made remarks of a wider nature about ID itself in his judgment – said that ID was inherently religious and could not escape its creationist roots. (I paraphrase, but I assume you are capable of finding the judgment and verifying.)
Not the same thing. If a history teacher explains what medieval Christians thought, or how the Puritans thought, etc., he is neither defending nor attacking those beliefs, but merely describing them. But the scenario proposed by Mercer has the science teacher denouncing ID, i.e., taking a particular stand against it. And that would be constitutionally neutral if ID was ruled to be science, but bad science. But that is not how Judge Jones regarded ID. He said it was religious from the get-go. (Again, I paraphrase.)
So the scenario would be this: A science teacher is standing up in class and denouncing ID, which a court has ruled is a religious rather than a scientific argument. If the students accept the premise that ID is essentially a religious view, i.e., a view that the world is created by a mind, and the science teacher says, “This ID argument is rubbish,” that could easily come across to religious students as meaning “The religious view which this argument is serving is rubbish” – and then you’d have illegitimate involvement of the secular school with religion.
Sure, you can say, if the science teacher did it very delicately, swearing that he wasn’t saying anything at all about whether life was really designed, but merely showing how useless or wrong ID was as science, no harm to religion would be done; but it would be a very delicate balance the teacher would have to strike, and I’m not sure most teachers would want that responsibility. The safest thing would be not to allow the subject of ID to be discussed in science class at all.
I think you missed the smiley face and the twinkle in the eye as I was agreeing with Mercer. I was trying to lighten the conversation up by having a little joke. I of course completely disagree with Mercer’s motivations, as I almost always have, for the past ten years, on different blog sites. But oddly, I could agree with his proposal, precisely because it would give ID lots more publicity. That’s why I was smiling; my agreement with Mercer was for an ulterior motive.
Of course, a joke is never funny if you have to explain it. Best wishes.
Yes. The mention of ID as an alternative to regular evolutionary theory. But that is not the situation you presented. You presented this completely different situation (emphasis mine).
So even if a teacher put ID on his curriculum purely for the purpose of showing what lousy science it was, as Mercer suggests above, he would still be exposing the students to inherently religious ideas – and it’s dubious that this would be allowed by another court, for two reasons: (1) It would be giving those religious ideas a public platform (even if the teacher was trying to undermine them); and (2) If the science teacher attacked what were known to be not really scientific but inherently religious arguments, the science teacher would be violating the neutrality of the state toward religion, even if his motive was only to promote better science. So I suspect that most courts would not allow it.
Where is the evidence for this claim of yours?
What a silly scenario. Why would a science teacher have to mention pseudoscience garbage like ID-Creationism at all? How much time do you think science teachers spend denouncing Flat Earth nonsense or Geocentrism? ID-Creationism tried to pretend it was science, it lost, game over. The religious fanatics at the DI have already started working on their next dishonest scheme to get their religion sneaked back into public school science classes.
1 Like
No chance @Eddie, FFRF lawyers will get an injunction before anyone from DI gets within a 100 feet of a public school’s doors.
It’s not a claim, but a prediction of what would likely happen, how judges would likely reason if some Board tried Mercer’s proposal and one or more taxpayers protested the idea. If you think something different would happen, you’re entitled to your opinion. I think it is about 3 to 1 that Mercer’s proposal would be disallowed. I’m not claiming certainty, but that’s what I would expect.
Are you paying attention at all? Are you aware that it was Mercer who proposed teaching about ID in order show its pseudoscientific character? Why aren’t you addressing him, instead of me?
You’re not following. Mercer is not proposing that the DI should be in science class. He is proposing that science class should be used to demonstrate that ID is pseudoscience – which would necessitate saying something about what ID claims – which could create great difficulties, given that the court has already ruled that ID is religion, not science, not even bad science. Why would a science teacher be discussing a religious viewpoint? It would create a mess, and I think most school boards would chicken out and drop the idea.
But personally, I have nothing against it. It would be amusing to watch the typical ninth-grade biology teacher talking about the nature of science, what counts as science and what doesn’t, etc. They could invite some philosophers of science from good universities to sit in the back of the room with popcorn and Pepsi, and have a good laugh as the majority of the teachers floundered in a methodological discussion that was way over their heads.
1 Like
State curriculum boards would never go for it. ID is toxic. Nobody will touch it.
You’re probably right. But Glipsnort disagrees. He thinks that if it was done with constructive secular purpose, the courts would not interfere. He could also be right. But my hunch is that no Board or State would put the idea to the test, and if no one tries it, we’ll never know what a court would rule.
So now a prediction is not a claim. Got it.
Based on what evidence?
I already explained my reasoning, in clear English. If you don’t find the reasoning persuasive, you’re not obliged to agree. But I did give my reasoning. I’m not going to restate it.