Fine with me.

All I’m saying is sue no ID.

Regrettably, class-action science is become Darwinism’s addiction. The two are inseparable.

So you think Weissberg fears the truth, fears dialog? I’m not so sure.

Here’s a related issue: the holocaust rackets, the reparations rackets. Should a public school use Norman Finkelstein’s book The Holocaust Industry as a text? I don’t know. It’s not a bad little book, as far as it goes. But that’s up to the local district.

As for Irving-type deniers, again, Constitutionally, that’s up to each state and, given a state’s willingness to respect the locals, its up to each district. If such a class allowed the free exchange of ideas, I wonder if denier arguments would fare that well. If the class were raw indoctrination, like Darwinism, that would be regrettable, of course, but Government Schools already do dumber things.

The main thing is to ensure that parents have the freedom to send their kids where they please and not be forced to tax-support schools they oppose. Some of us have faith that Americans will make the right choices for their kids and their tax dollars. You apparently think there are some “good” and “caring” bureaucrats somewhere who know better.

Charlie

If I may coin a term, in honor of Phillip Johnson, no American should ever give quarter to “class-action science.”

Therein lies just one of the problems. Who elected these experts to their positions as experts? Is a creation scientist with 20 graduate degrees and 50 years of research less of a scientist than another Darwinian evolutionist with a bachelor’s degree and 2 yrs of experience in research?

Does the consensus automatically get the position of the elect? If so, we can easily conclude that these elect aren’t very elect at all- since the consensus has been wrong more times than we could possibly count.

Which comittee of science elect gets to choose what the “expert” view is?

Let’s face it- we really don’t know much of anything about the world we live in…we know so little that the “experts” actively push absurd ideas such as multiple universes, wormholes that will lead from one side of the universe to the other in a matter of seconds, and other ridiculous theories that get serious time, yet some level of design which is common sense to most scientists in general is considered by the expert elect to be a bunk idea from the start and it needs to be banned.

“There is no constitutional issue, only a rampaging judge issue. Article 1 is very clear.”

Both sides have invoked the Constitution. The plaintiffs cite the establishment clause; the defendants, the free exercise clause. That makes it a constitutional issue twice over.

“You are advocating mandatory curriculum rulings by panels of lawyers hired by ‘scientists.’”.

Show me where I say that.

“The battle between ID and Darwinists is irrelevant to local boards. They can choose either, both, neither. That’s their decision, not the Science Sanhedrin’s.”

When constitutional issues are at stake, the courts have a say as well.

Russ,
It’s also common sense that
1. Time passes at the same rate everywhere.
2. The odds in the Monty Hall problem are 50-50 (Google it if you haven’t heard of it).
3. Heavier weights fall significantly faster than lighter ones.

In the 1920′s, most folks thought that rockets wouldn’t work outside of the atmosphere without something to “push” against (Goddard and the infamous NY Times editorial).

These are, of course, all wrong. Common sense is simply not good enough as an arbiter of scientific truth.

russ again:
“The point is, when experts’ views collide with common sense and the everyday experience of regular people, the experts owe it to the people to give an open hearing to opposing views.”

I agree that experts should consider opposing views. I just don’t think it makes sense to teach the opposing views in public schools if the experts overwhelmingly reject them.

I’m not saying the experts are infallible. They are not, and never will be. But they’re our best defense against bogus or immature science in the schools. And science is self-correcting, so any mistakes they make will be temporary (as in the case of plate tectonics).

You: By the way, it is not “up to the local people” when a constitutional issue is involved (as in Dover). Then, thankfully, the courts have the final say.

Me: There is no constitutional issue, only a rampaging judge issue. Article 1 is very clear. Congress shall make no law. The Dover School Board is not Congress. They can do whatever they damn please. This was the case in America for hundreds of years until a few judges “just felt” that “it was time” for a change. If you really think the court has standing in these local affairs and can really “make it up they go along,” you better get ready because a super-religious court could then come in and “just feel” that “it is time” for every district to say the catechism every morning. You wouldn’t like that would you. But then, for you, it’s just about “results,” agendas, not principle.

You: “Asking the experts has worked pretty well in the past. “
Me: You’re a funny man. No one’s talking about asking. Asking implies free options, and that’s not something you guys would ever tolerate in all your “diversity.” We’re talking about 10,000 lawyers hounding local districts. We’re talking about “finding a judge” to “get it done” in the schools. For liberals, there is no higher expression of law than judge-shopping and no higher expression of “education” than a harassment suit. If you want to know what Darwinist “science” is really all about, just think Lawyers, Lawyers, Lawyers and you’ll be real close.

You: “I’m suggesting that school boards ask scientists for advice on curriculum decisions.”
No you’re not. You are advocating mandatory curriculum rulings by panels of lawyers hired by “scientists.” You’re fundamentally dishonest, not least of all with your self.

You: “Both sides are arguing a point, pmob. Don’t expect “Darwinists” to accede meekly and roll over when IDers attempt to advance an agenda that the “Darwinists” see as harmful to science.”

Not even close. ID-ers are not pushing for uniform, orthodox science curriculums in every district in the U.S. Only Darwinists do that. Some of us actually believe in what you only claim to believe in: diversity, as in diversity of opinions, diversity of science curriculums, diversity of morals laws, diversity of criminal penalties, etc. The Darwinists are exactly like the gay-marriage crowd. They want to shove a uniform, national, orthodox elitist code down the throats of every jurisdiction in the U.S. No doubt some judge somewhere “just feels” its time.

The battle between ID and Darwinists is irrelevant to local boards. They can choose either, both, neither. That’s their decision, not the Science Sanhedrin’s.

What is it about free choice and local control that keeps you up at night? I don’t get it. The Borg is for TV. This is America. Get used to it.

The point is, when experts’ views collide with common sense and the everyday experience of regular people, the experts owe it to the people to give an open hearing to opposing views. The Stalinist attitude and tactics of the science establishment toward ID and it’s supporters indicates to me that there’s more going on here than a mere attempt to avoid having to address every “highly speculative theory” that might come down the pike. Leading Darwinist scientists are behaving in such a defensive manner that regular people–including myself– cannot help but wonder what it is they’re trying to hide.

Let me answer just one of your points. You say that the “consensus science” of 2005 is likely to be wrong, just as the science of 1740 and 1840 were wrong. Apparently you are stressing (and stressing, and stressing) this point because you believe that if “consensus science” cannot be proven to be correct, it cannot usefully provide guidance for what gets included in science curricula.

Of course the science of 2005 is not the final word, Josh! John Horgan notwithstanding, science has a long way to go before we can lay off all the scientists and put them to work mowing lawns.

But what “better” science do we have to base our curricula on than the science of 2005? And if we try to cover highly speculative theories, how can we tell which ones are going to pan out? We can’t. If we try to cover all of them (and there are a LOT of them), we confuse the students and displace useful material from the syllabus, all for the sake of giving ID a special break that no other theory has gotten.

It just doesn’t make sense.