I've recently begun to develop a response to the Kitzmiller decision, and I've laid out what I think the segments of my response will look like. I'll be adding segments as I complete the drafts. Your comments are welcomed. The first serious segment is on the False Duality Argument, which postulates that the notion of two main ideas (creation and evolution) are contrived by Creationists and IDers, and are therefore "False". You can review my remarks about how I think it played out at:
http://www.kevs-korner.com/CREVO
Or, you can just punch in "false duality" in Google, and it should come up on page one or pretty close to it.
In short, I found the Kitzmiller decision to be one of the most poorly formulated of any court decison related to ID concerns I have read in quite a long time - and I've been studying this debate for over 30 years now. I have never come right out and said that I thought a court opinion was shoddy, lousy, and not worth the paper it was written on, but, that's exactly what I think of the Kitzmiller decision. Here are my summary thoughts, which my ongoing remarks will support in the days to come.
"Many things become evident from a reading of the Kitzmiller opinion, but this much is clear: it is literally laced with scores of innuendos and tainted interpretations about ID and the value of the Dover Board’s disclaimer. The Kitzmiller court also frequently accepts testimony from Defendants expert witnesses that supports the views of the Plaintiffs in key places, while rejecting or ignoring valid testimony from the Defendants expert witnesses to create a blended caricature of the ID position which is full of inaccuracies, assumptions, and half-truths. The Court then takes the resulting caricature of ID it has created, holds it up as fully accurate, and uses it to show why it fails the establishment clause tests. I cannot think of a more unfair, unjust,
and abusive use of judicial prerogative than this. And to top it all off, the Kitzmiller court has the audacity to claim that it was the Dover School Board and ID advocates who have been on the ‘attack’ against science."
No Pingbacks for this post yet...
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Evolution has become a favorite topic of the news media recently, but for some reason, they never seem to get the story straight. The staff at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture started this Blog to set the record straight and make sure you knew "the rest of the story".
A blogger from New England offers his intelligent reasoning.
We are a group of individuals, coming from diverse backgrounds and not speaking for any organization, who have found common ground around teleological concepts, including intelligent design. We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation.
Website dedicated to comparing scenes from the "Inherit the Wind" movie with factual information from actual Scopes Trial. View 37 clips from the movie and decide for yourself if this movie is more fact or fiction.
Don Cicchetti blogs on: Culture, Music, Faith, Intelligent Design, Guitar, Audio
Australian biologist Stephen E. Jones maintains one of the best origins "quote" databases around. He is meticulous about accuracy and working from original sources.
Most guys going through midlife crisis buy a convertible. Austrialian Stephen E. Jones went back to college to get a biology degree and is now a proponent of ID and common ancestry.
Complete zipped downloadable pdf copy of David Stove's devastating, and yet hard-to-find, critique of neo-Darwinism entitled "Darwinian Fairytales"
Intelligent Design The Future is a multiple contributor weblog whose participants include the nation's leading design scientists and theorists: biochemist Michael Behe, mathematician William Dembski, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, philosophers of science Stephen Meyer, and Jay Richards, philosopher of biology Paul Nelson, molecular biologist Jonathan Wells, and science writer Jonathan Witt. Posts will focus primarily on the intellectual issues at stake in the debate over intelligent design, rather than its implications for education or public policy.
A Philosopher's Journey: Political and cultural reflections of John Mark N. Reynolds. Dr. Reynolds is Director of the Torrey Honors Institute at
Biola University.