Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

National Forensic League weighs in on ID

William Dembski
December 22, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The same day that Judge Jones ruled it unconsitutional to teach about intelligent design in public school science curricula, the National Forensic League (i.e. the national high school debate organization) released the following 2006 January Public Forum Topic:

Resolved: In the United States, public high school science curriculum should include the study of the Theory of Intelligent Design.

So, at the same time that the federal courts are outlawing even a one minute allusion to ID in high school biology classes, the high schools themselves can sponsor an extra-curricular activity where their brightest kids have to research the topic in depth. Perhaps design proponents have won the day after all.

Comments
I actually contributed to my state CLU many years ago until I found out they were orchestrating “complaints” in a number of state cases. Thus began my real legal education. I am about ready to contribute again, kind of like contributing to Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy or Cindy Sheehan (which I did, actually). We need these people. We need their myopia, their etiolation, their, their …. their consummate caducity. Here’s a possible example of why. I hope the kids in the Dover district want to ask questions in biology class. I hope some teacher obliges them. I hope the teacher decides to devote a few class hours to discussion of ID. Right there in Jones country. Right there in the heartland of TV Science or Court Science or whatever you want to call it. And then I hope Judge Jones III throws that teacher in jail and fines the district $100,000 a day. In fact, I’m going to pray for it tonight. I hope you do too.pmob1
December 26, 2005
December
12
Dec
26
26
2005
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
Josh: "That unfairly handicaps the idea to begin with. It’s like saying- you can talk about this, but we’ll put it over here in a different category to make sure you know that it’s unworthy of being mentioned along side this other idea." Me: "Ironically, that is exactly what the Dover board tried to do to evolution by singling it out from all other scientific theories for special criticism.” DaveScot: "Justifiably, undirected evolution is being singled out because it’s primarily untested dogma and doesn’t belong in a science class." C'mon, Dave -- they singled out evolution because it's threatening to their particular religious beliefs. Look at the trial testimony. The board clearly had religious motives in writing the disclaimer and bringing "Of Pandas and People" to the attention of the students. Even you admitted that "Of Pandas and People" fails the Lemon test: "After having seen the facts presented about the book and its history I have to agree with Jones that it’s scientific creationism by a different name and must fail the Lemon Test."keiths
December 24, 2005
December
12
Dec
24
24
2005
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
ID is forensic and seeks to follow the evidence whereever it leads without putting blinders on about where it may or may not go. No possibility is excluded. Evolution is strictly about how life springs from non-life. In evolution, the evidence can NOT suggest an Intelligent Cause because the theory has already concluded that life comes from non-life. Evolution is restricted to pre-conceived outcomes in exactly the same way the pre-Copernicun solar system was restricted to finding out how the planets rotated around the earth.Red Reader
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
KeithS "Ironically, that is exactly what the Dover board tried to do to evolution by singling it out from all other scientific theories for special criticism:" Justifiably, undirected evolution is being singled out because it's primarily untested dogma and doesn't belong in a science class.DaveScot
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
"And PjB (I think that’s a “j”)- I don’t think Bill thought it was anything more than a debate topic." Yes it is a j. Upon rereading his introduction, I agree. My bad.PjB
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
doctormark writes: "Bill, you’re really grasping here. These bright kids will be DEBATING both sides of the issue." doctormark, In fairness to Bill, he's pointing out that both sides of the debate will be exposed to the idea of intelligent design. The 'pro' side will have to research it in order to defend it, as the 'con' side will in order to defeat it. The kids will end up knowing more about ID than they did before, which makes Bill happy.keiths
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
Bill, you're really grasping here. These bright kids will be DEBATING both sides of the issue.doctormark
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Josh writes: "Keiths- come on. Sternberg. The fact that there was a suit at all. No doubt there’s censorship going on here." What does the Sternberg affair have to do with the ACLU or Dover? The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not give you the right to say anything, anywhere, anytime, Josh. You can't violate the establishment clause and justify it by pointing to the free speech clause. And now, for a bit of deliberate, blatant quote-mining: "maybe I’m just confused." Perhaps you are. "That unfairly handicaps the idea to begin with. It’s like saying- you can talk about this, but we’ll put it over here in a different category to make sure you know that it’s unworthy of being mentioned along side this other idea." Ironically, that is exactly what the Dover board tried to do to evolution by singling it out from all other scientific theories for special criticism: From the Dover disclaimer: "Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence." By the way, check out that last sentence. It doesn't quite say what the school board intended. It means "We have no evidence to support this, but gaps exist in the theory." I like it -- it means you have to have faith that the gaps are there. Josh again: "NO ONE with any sense can argue that this is what the 1st Amendment was trying to ban. That alone is a big deal. Only the religiously obsessed ACLU and groups like AU and the like argue this foolish idea." And "religiously obsessed" courts like district courts, appeals courts, and the Supreme Court. I guess they have no sense, either. Perhaps we should put someone with sense on the Supreme Court, like Josh, and make it a one-man panel. The Bozeman Court. [The following passage is a joke, not a fact. Statements exist in the passage for which there is no evidence.] Wow, that's a terrifying thought: "The Bozeman Court today upheld legislation backed by the Frist administration which requires the placement of intelligent design placards above urinals and in stalls in all public and school restrooms in the United States. Justice Bozeman cited the free speech provision of the First Amendment: 'It is absurd to keep intelligent design out of our public restrooms when the First Amendment clearly sanctions its presence in the science classroom, on all sides of the Washington monument, in mandatory television commercials, and as part of the citizenship oath.'"keiths
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
Also- if a judge decides what is and isn't science and says- well you can discuss the idea but just not in science classes as an alternative to NDE theory. That unfairly handicaps the idea to begin with. It's like saying- you can talk about this, but we'll put it over here in a different category to make sure you know that it's unworthy of being mentioned along side this other idea. NO ONE with any sense can argue that this is what the 1st Amendment was trying to ban. That alone is a big deal. Only the religiously obsessed ACLU and groups like AU and the like argue this foolish idea.Josh Bozeman
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Keiths- come on. Sternberg. The fact that there was a suit at all. No doubt there's censorship going on here. And PjB (I think that's a "j")- I don't think Bill thought it was anything more than a debate topic. The fact that it's being discussed is a good thing. Not sure who you were referring to with your comment, so maybe I'm just confused.Josh Bozeman
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Bill Dembski writes: "So, at the same time that the federal courts are outlawing even a one minute allusion to ID in high school biology classes, the high schools themselves can sponsor an extra-curricular activity where their brightest kids have to research the topic in depth. Perhaps design proponents have won the day after all." This can hardly be considered a victory for ID proponents, considering that the ACLU's stated reason for bringing the suit was that "teaching a religious doctrine in science class violates the Establishment Clause." The ACLU got exactly what it wanted. Judge Jones wrote: "As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom." By the way, the ACLU's limited objective refutes the contention by ID supporters that it was attempting to suppress any mention of ID in the schools, or that this is a free speech issue.keiths
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Actually guys this is a debate topic, not a resolution by the NFL.PjB
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
The judge decided one narrow outcome. Very narrow. Real progress is hardly impeded.TomG
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply