'Kitzmiller v Dover' Judge's comment

[Hockeycowboy]

Interesting statement made by the judge:


“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”


So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court; only that ID failed to meet the parameters of science, which btw are established by.....scientists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...0d331ae/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.850079202b61

Comments? Ad Homs?

 

[Valjean]

Heathen!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting statement made by the judge:


“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”


So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court; only that ID failed to meet the parameters of science, which btw are established by.....scientists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...0d331ae/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.850079202b61

Comments? Ad Homs?

The judge was right, and he had a proper scientific attitude too. One does not rule out ideas one hundred percent in the sciences. But the problem with ID is that it is not science. It is religion. Even creationists should be able to see that.

Here is a question that should bring it home to you:

What reasonable test could possibly show ID to be wrong if it was wrong? There are quite a few tests that would show the theory of evolution to be wrong and early on before we knew what we know now it made many predictions (and a theory is tested quite often by the predictions that can be made by using it) that were shown to be correct. The theory of evolution has gone through that process and continues to be testable today. So what reasonable test could show ID to be wrong if it was wrong?

If you can't think of one then it is not science. It is just that simple.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court; only that ID failed to meet the parameters of science, which btw are established by.....scientists.

The parameters of science have been around for quite a while now. The basic concept of the empirical scientific method has been around since Francis Bacon in the 17th century. The problem for ID is that they can't construct a testable hypothesis. ID supporters argue endlessly against evolution, but they fail at supporting their own case with positive evidence and scientific research.

It was the ID supporters who claimed that ID should be included in public school science class because it is science. It is the ID supporters who chose the scientific arena, and therefore they agreed to have ID rise or fall on the basis of it's scientific merit. It fell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The parameters of science have been around for quite a while now. The basic concept of the empirical scientific method has been around since Francis Bacon in the 17th century. The problem for ID is that they can't construct a testable hypothesis. ID supporters argue endlessly against evolution, but they fail at supporting their own case with positive evidence and scientific research.

It was the ID supporters who claimed that ID should be included in public school science class because it is science. It is the ID supporters who chose the scientific arena, and therefore they agreed to have ID rise or fall on the basis of it's scientific merit. It fell.

Exactly. ID claims to be science. As does "creation science" which was found not be science at the Supreme Court level. Any case can be appealed and one like this might even would have had a little traction and could have advanced, but apparently the blinders came of the ID proponents, at least for a short while, and they took their loss and slunk away.

 

[shunyadragon]

Interesting statement made by the judge:


“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”


So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court; only that ID failed to meet the parameters of science, which btw are established by.....scientists.

'What may be true,' but the court will take no position is the religious presuppositions of Intelligent Design. The fact that some scientists proposed Intelligent Design as science does not make it so. The scientists that have proposed Intelligent Design as having scientific basis have not provided any falsifiable hypothesis nor theory to support Intelligent Design, therefore it is not science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Interesting statement made by the judge:


“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”


So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court; only that ID failed to meet the parameters of science, which btw are established by.....scientists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...0d331ae/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.850079202b61

Comments? Ad Homs?

It's important to note the legal context in which the ruling was made. The plaintiffs (Kitzmiller) argued that ID, being a form of creationism, cannot be taught in science classes. They successfully made that argument. ID was easily shown to be revamped creationism, and therefore it was illegal to teach it in science classes.

Whether any or none of its arguments were true had no relevance to the above legal context. A Muslim could say that we should teach about Mohammed in science classes. After all, it's true that he existed, right? Except that even though it's true, it's not science and as such does not belong in a science class.

Understand? Just because something may be true, that doesn't automatically mean it needs to be taught in science classes. Fortunately in this case, pretty much none of ID creationism's arguments are true.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting statement made by the judge:


“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”


So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court; only that ID failed to meet the parameters of science, which btw are established by.....scientists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...0d331ae/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.850079202b61

Comments? Ad Homs?

I agree completely with the judge.
It's all because ID is not testable. -

Science is defined by scientists?
Alles in ordnung!

 

[sun rise]

I agree completely with the judge.
It's all because ID is not testable. -

Science is defined by scientists?
Alles in ordnung!

Ja.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

...the parameters of science, which btw are established by.....scientists.

As it should be. I very much doubt you would take delight if a group of scientists imposed themselves upon your church and demanded to have a say over what your church can and cannot teach. Leave science to the scientists and theology to the theologians.

 

[Sunstone]

...the parameters of science, which btw are established by.....scientists.

Nothing could be fairer than scientists defining what is science.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The parameters of science have been around for quite a while now. The basic concept of the empirical scientific method has been around since Francis Bacon in the 17th century. The problem for ID is that they can't construct a testable hypothesis. ID supporters argue endlessly against evolution, but they fail at supporting their own case with positive evidence and scientific research.

It was the ID supporters who claimed that ID should be included in public school science class because it is science. It is the ID supporters who chose the scientific arena, and therefore they agreed to have ID rise or fall on the basis of it's scientific merit. It fell.

the only reason it falls, is because of the current limits of science. It can't test for invisible, supernatural forces. However, some involved with paranormal research may disagree.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/54450/13-university-sanctioned-paranormal-research-projects

(Just thought this was interesting.)

Question: if science progresses to the point where it can detect / perceive advanced invisible life....what do you think that would do to the scientific establishment?

 

[Subduction Zone]

the only reason it falls, is because of the current limits of science. It can't test for invisible, supernatural forces. However, some involved with paranormal research may disagree.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/54450/13-university-sanctioned-paranormal-research-projects

(Just thought this was interesting.)

Question: if science progresses to the point where it can detect / perceive advanced invisible life....what do you think that would do to the scientific establishment?

What do you think would happen to the "scientific establishment" if we discovered that pigs do fly?

There is such a thing as a stupid question.

 

[shunyadragon]

the only reason it falls, is because of the current limits of science. It can't test for invisible, supernatural forces. However, some involved with paranormal research may disagree.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/54450/13-university-sanctioned-paranormal-research-projects

(Just thought this was interesting.)

Based on this your delving into the hypothetical, which of course the present science cannot go, which is the reason for the court decision. It is a fact that 'Intelligent Design' cannot be considered as science, because the conclusions cannot be tested, nor falsified by science.

Question: if science progresses to the point where it can detect / perceive advanced invisible life....what do you think that would do to the scientific establishment?

It would be extremely hypothetically how science advanced in the future, and if this were the case it would be a product of the scientific establishment. What you propose is a very sophisticated advancement in science, and yes the scientific establishment would be intimately involved.

This would not address the present status of science and claims of Intelligent Design.

 

[Estro Felino]

According to the secular law, the term "God" is nothing but a metaphysical concept.
And since the law is based upon the materialistic ius naturale, metaphysical is equivalent to "non-existent."

So therefore the state won't approve that school teachers speak of God as existent being...and ID cannot be admissible in state education because it includes that concept.

 

[Valjean]

the only reason it falls, is because of the current limits of science. It can't test for invisible, supernatural forces. However, some involved with paranormal research may disagree.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/54450/13-university-sanctioned-paranormal-research-projects

(Just thought this was interesting.)

Question: if science progresses to the point where it can detect / perceive advanced invisible life....what do you think that would do to the scientific establishment?

The whole history of science is one of finding natural mechanisms for phenomena previously attributed to God or supernatural mechanisms. The religious balk at first, they gnash their teeth and strenuously object, but, as they can't reasonably support their position, they eventually compromise.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

the only reason it falls, is because of the current limits of science. It can't test for invisible, supernatural forces. However, some involved with paranormal research may disagree.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/54450/13-university-sanctioned-paranormal-research-projects

Then have them demonstrate it in a scientific study and change the minds of those who disagree.

Question: if science progresses to the point where it can detect / perceive advanced invisible life....what do you think that would do to the scientific establishment?

Very little. It would just increase our understanding further. The argument has never been that because we cannot test for God there cannot therefore be a God, the argument is that until we can test for God we cannot make assertions about God that can in any way be considered scientific.

That was the point the judge was making. Even if God exists, it's meaningless to assert God in a scientific context until we actually have a reason to conclude their existence.

 

[sayak83]

the only reason it falls, is because of the current limits of science. It can't test for invisible, supernatural forces. However, some involved with paranormal research may disagree.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/54450/13-university-sanctioned-paranormal-research-projects

(Just thought this was interesting.)

Question: if science progresses to the point where it can detect / perceive advanced invisible life....what do you think that would do to the scientific establishment?

Nothing at all. Scientists will continue on, writing PhD thesis and papers and getting Nobel prizes in the new fields of condensed spirit-matter physics, quantum spirit chemistry etc.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

the only reason it falls, is because of the current limits of science. It can't test for invisible, supernatural forces. However, some involved with paranormal research may disagree.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/54450/13-university-sanctioned-paranormal-research-projects

From what I have read, the paranormal experiments were very poorly controlled and their results have not been replicated with proper controls in place. At least they have hypotheses that they are testing with experiments which is a step up from ID/creationism.

As to ID itself, it is incapable of even handling the data we already have, which is another weakness. How does ID explain the twin nested hierarchies of morphology and genetics? How does ID explain sequence divergence in exons and introns? How doe ID explain the distribution of orthologous and non-orthologous ERVs and the pattern of divergence in ERV LTRs?

But more importantly, ID is saying that these aren't invisible forces. They are saying that they have observable effects in the natural world which makes them natural, not supernatural.

Question: if science progresses to the point where it can detect / perceive advanced invisible life....what do you think that would do to the scientific establishment?

They would be giddy. Scientists love new discoveries. What they don't like is pseudoscience.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

According to the secular law, the term "God" is nothing but a metaphysical concept.
And since the law is based upon the materialistic ius naturale, metaphysical is equivalent to "non-existent."

So therefore the state won't approve that school teachers speak of God as existent being...and ID cannot be admissible in state education because it includes that concept.

In US law, the precedent for these cases is Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). This was a court decision dealing with the First Amendment (i.e. establishment of religion), and it established rules for determining when a law or policy violates the First Amendment.

The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)

The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)

The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)
Factors.
Character and purpose of institution benefited.
Nature of aid the state provides.
Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia

This is the precedent that Judge Jones used in the Dover case. As the plaintiff's demonstrated, there is no secular purpose in teaching ID. No scientists are using ID to do research. Students don't need to learn ID in order to pursue a career in the sciences. There is no reason to teach ID other than religious indoctrination, as was made clear by the evidence presented in the case and by the testimony of witnesses.