Kitzmiller v Dover, Ten Years Later: Dennis Venema and Ted Davis in Conversation (Part 1)

[Patrick]

No, it is very much frowned upon. But this area (NJ/NYC) is really very diverse in beliefs. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Skiks, Hindus and many Asians of various faiths and no faiths. And many factions within those faiths. So secularism is really stressed and no school district wants to get embroiled in any controversy, same with the very strong teachers’ union. Big Bang and evolution are not very controversial around here. What is really heating up here is related to gender identification. I hope the Christian right behaves a little more Christian like for this issue than they did for SSM.

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

Most high school science teachers in the USA don’t have nearly a sophisticated enough understanding of scientific methodology or of the notion of “design” to competently teach ID. A few in the upper-middle-class suburban schools might have such breadth and depth, but I suspect the average science teacher in most states is about at the level of the staff at Dover, and that means they aren’t competent to teach ID.

You wrote a harsh critique of biology teachers, their training, and their methods. So I’m wondering how you got your information. If ID doesn’t have a developed theory, teachers shouldn’t be expected to be good at teaching it. Even Dembski was at a loss to explain how ID should be taught.

[AMWolfe (Andrew M. Wolfe)]

@Eddie

the kids are bright middle-class kids and perceive that the teacher is trying to educate them

Are lower-class kids not bright? Are upper-class kids not bright? Or is this a cipher for “middle-American, white, and of historically Christian heritage”? Or maybe just for “kids like the kids where I grew up”?

Either way this descriptor feels exclusionary to me. If ID is true, why wouldn’t some bright upper-class Episcopalian in Manhattan figure all this out? Why wouldn’t a bright lower-class kid who goes to an AME church in Detroit? Just using a couple of stereotypes here.

I thought it’d be better if I just asked, after a few times seeing this descriptor and feeling a little uneasy.

[dcscccc]

@TedDavis

Evidence alone is not sufficient. Scientific knowledge is determined not by observations and experiments

so if most of the geologists will say that the earth is flat. and a group of scientists will show you evidence that the earth isnt flat (lets say that they will show you this by airplane). you will still conclude that the earth is flat? i doubt on it.

@TedDavis

I’ve already indicated that I do not know what such an alternative would look like, but since you think there is one, what exactly does it look like?

id claim that some traits in nature are evidence for design. so they made by a designer and not a natural evolution. this is the main id claim.

@TedDavis

it simply happens to be wrong on many key points

can you give one example to check it? if you talk about the age of the earth for example. we have also counter evidence for a 4.5 bilion years that we can discuss about.

@TedDavis

The most ID can presently do, is to state objections to certain points in the standard story. You have to go positive

id is indeed about positive evidence. the evidence for design in nature are positive one. on the other hand- evolution itself doesnt support by its own predictions (fossils in the wrong place for example can be found).

[beaglelady]

I doubt that many biology teachers are interested in this site, especially non-evangelicals. And most especially since you have insulted the biology teachers at the Dover Area School District and BioLogos has said nothing. Therefore, it is inaccurate to sit here and proclaim that since you haven’t heard from anybody, Dover has had a chilling effect on the science classroom. Even if some people do respond, it wouldn’t lead to valid conclusions. What is needed is a survey that uses random sampling; that is, one is which all public high school biology teacher have a chance to be selected. (It doesn’t mean that all biology teachers must be questioned; it only means that in the survey all have a chance to be selected.) And there is great variation in different parts of the country, so it won’t do to pick names from a single phone book. And the sample size must be sufficiently large to yield valid data.

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

. ID is not creationism. ID has nothing to do with the Bible.

It’s getting harder to make this claim, now that the Foundation for Though and Ethics is part of the Discovery Institute! The FTE published “Of Pandas and People,” where we saw creationism evolve into intelligent design. There was even a transitional form!)

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Eddie

Glipsnort, did you read Patrick’s comment just above? He objects not just to advocacy but even to discussion, and he objects vehemently, and talks of lawsuits

Sure. All kinds of people say all kinds of things here.

@Eddie

hat is the spirit in which, I believe, the Dover decision is being interpreted by the vast majority of school boards, teachers, and parents.

Yes, I know that’s your belief. I was looking for some kind of evidence that your belief is true.

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

It’s not hard to make the claim at all: ID is not creationism. The statement is not even debatable. It is fact. It follows directly from the definition of ID, as set forth by its own proponents.

But they set forth the definition of ID in “Of Pandas and People.” But that was after they set forth the definition of creationism in an earlier edition of “Of Pandas and People.” And gosh darn, they sure looked similar to me!

[Patrick]

Eddie,
Even the Methodist don’t think ID is science. Welcome unitedmethodistreporter.com - BlueHost.com

Also you are forgetting one very powerful group -teachers’ unions. They won’t let ID get anywhere near a classroom taught by union teachers.

[Patrick]

@Eddie

My point has been that the Dover trial has made it very difficult even to mention ID,

Agree with you. It is forever tainted. Time to change its name. How about Non-Darwinian Evolution?

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

You are living in the past.

I don’t know about living in the past, but I am certainly aware of the past. It’s understandable why the ID movement would now like to distance itself from this ID textbook. [quote=“Eddie, post:53, topic:4233”]
Pandas has no canonical authority for ID people.
[/quote]

Even though Stephen Meyer was a contributor?

[beaglelady]

I consider Behe to be an ID creationist.